Evolution: Science or Philosophy

[~hellish one~]

lord, you guys are exhausting...~laughs~ my take on it all?

ID is crap. it is NOT science.

Evolution/Natural Selection is NOT crap and is science.

i believe in the latter of the two. why? because i am the kind of person that needs to see proof of something before i can believe it. and ID does not provide that proof. one of you made a very smart comment in one of these posts...one that i agree with 100%! i think it was TOS..lemme see if i can find it...

here we go

But now we're talking about faith. I think it's an intriguing idea, but I'm not going to bank on it being true.

i couldn't agree more. i'm not here to criticize anyone's faith. if you want to believe in something...in god...and have faith in that, then more power to you. if it makes you happy and fulfills your life then i am happy for you. but i am not a faith based person. i need that physical proof before i believe something to be true. i can't spend my entire life worshipping a god just because he MIGHT have created us. imagine how much it would suck to die and be like...oh fuck...where's heaven? lol i'm not singling out Christianity here either. i'm talking about all faith-based religions.

so yeah basically until god comes to me and says "yo dumbass..." sorry...me believing in ID just isn't gonna happen.

[cariad]

Popping my head into this thread for a moment, deciding not to use the edit button but, differing ideas are great - they make for debate, snide remarks and insults make for playground fights, and Mistress Cariad will growl if she has to.

So, pretty please...

*trots off to other parts of the forum, hoping that peace and mutual respect will reign*

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

ToS -- That may be.

just not choosing a side. Odd that an opinion that doesn't support either idea would be seen as smart assed. I just consider it open to something other than what has already been put out by other factions .

I think there are gaps in both theories.

For example - we have an unexplained chromosome. how come there is no explaination for this one by scientists? Others have an explanation ....

Sometimes not picking sides is just taking the lazy road. I'm not calling you an idiot or anything. But there's really is no middle ground between ID and evolution, since ID isn't a theory. Only an anti-theory. It's dressed up to pose as a theory. But since it makes no claims, there's nothing to test or refute. Which is crucial for the definition of a theory.

Saying that "the complexity of nature is much too intricate to come to by chance" is saying nothing. Unless you can specify why it's unlikely it came to be by chance it's just voicing a vague opinion that carries no weight. ID proponents can't agree on much at all. Nobody has bothered to define gods physical properties. As if it's unimportant. Anything that can physically effect this world must have some kind of a physical manifestation. I've not read or heard about a single attempt to explain it, even though it's critical here.

edit: I've never heard anything about any unexplained chromosome. Please explain.

[TomOfSweden]

Popping my head into this thread for a moment, deciding not to use the edit button but, differing ideas are great - they make for debate, snide remarks and insults make for playground fights, and Mistress Cariad will growl if she has to.

So, pretty please...

*trots off to other parts of the forum, hoping that peace and mutual respect will reign*

cariad

I know you don't like being a misstress so I'll be nice. :

[TomOfSweden]

Actually, I am also. I would have to say that at first glance this appears more an example of adaptation than speciation as I understand it. Maybe Tom is more accurate than I thought in saying that scientists are diluting the definition of a secies. It makes me wonder why.

You and me both, man. I think it's down to simple and stupid pride. As if it's more important to have your name on stuff than having a consitant terminology.

There's plenty of faults in science. It's a pride driven machine, which brings with it many undesirable side affects. Still it's the best system we've got for finding the truth. I hope you're with me on that one?

[cariad]

I know you don't like being a misstress so I'll be nice. :

Thanks Tom, the problem is that I do such a bad job of it.

*looking around to make sure that everyone else is suitably horrified at the thought*

cariad

[cheeseburger]

For example - we have an unexplained chromosome.

...what?

[anonymouse]

I just want to touch on a couple of points raised early in this thread.

Historically speaking, all science originally began as philosophy. Over the past several millenia, philosophical debate about the nature of things turned up answers to philosophical questions. These 'answers' then broke away from philosophy and formed into various branches of science and art. It could be argued that this 'evolution of thought' is part of a wider evolutionary process.

There have been two very interesting books written in recent years to address the phenomenon of spiritual belief.

'God's Debris', written by Scott Addams, creator of the Dilbert series of comics, is available as a free PDF download (easily found by Googling it). It's a very enjoyable read that asks more questions than it answers.

'The God Part of the Brain' is another (I forget the author's name) takes a very interesting view that 'God exists' in a physiological sense in the same way that 'music exists'. Both are ubiquitous and universal across cultures and epochs, and neuroscience can now actually pinpoint the regions in the brain that are stimulated by both. More interestingly, the parts of the brain that are stimulated by music and spirituality are the 'pleasure zones' (for wont of the proper scientific name) -- the very same receptors that respond to eating and sex or, in other words, the receptors that are responsible for survival of species.

It should also be noted that the current academic zietgeist is one of a post-modernist making. Words like 'universals' and 'truth' are regarded by many these days as meaningless. This is interesting because truth, for example, exists on a truth - fallacy continuum. If there is no truth then, by extension, lies can't exist. "There were no weapons of mass destruction." The statement is meaningless unless truth exists.

Anyway, this is an interesting thread and I hope I haven't treaded on the toes of anybody who might have a different viewpoint to mine.

anonymouse

[TomOfSweden]

'The God Part of the Brain' is another (I forget the author's name) takes a very interesting view that 'God exists' in a physiological sense in the same way that 'music exists'. Both are ubiquitous and universal across cultures and epochs, and neuroscience can now actually pinpoint the regions in the brain that are stimulated by both. More interestingly, the parts of the brain that are stimulated by music and spirituality are the 'pleasure zones' (for wont of the proper scientific name) -- the very same receptors that respond to eating and sex or, in other words, the receptors that are responsible for survival of species.

Thanks for the book tips. I'm always on the look out for books on the subject. Belief in an ubiquitous physical god I thought was called pantheism? Extremly interesting anyway.

It should also be noted that the current academic zietgeist is one of a post-modernist making. Words like 'universals' and 'truth' are regarded by many these days as meaningless. This is interesting because truth, for example, exists on a truth - fallacy continuum. If there is no truth then, by extension, lies can't exist. "There were no weapons of mass destruction." The statement is meaningless unless truth exists.

I fucking hate social relativists. Of the simple reason that most people seem to missunderstand it. It has to do with cognitive truth and not with the actual truth. If two people stand in the rain, the truth is that they'll get wet no matter how much they might disagree on the details about definitions of weather or degrees of wetness.

Post modernist philosophers tend to get grossly miss-quoted in the press further adding to the confusion.

And then you've got smart-asses who use the term, (erroneously) because they're too damn lazy to engage their brains and just claim everything is relative. Right now it poisons the Swedish philosophical debates. I don't know how it is over there, but here it's rediculous. You might get some post-modernist feminist talking about axioms. I mean, that's not what her thing is. It's talking about ethics. Yes, there is a truth. The problem may be that nobody sees it, but that's a completely different matter.

[anonymouse]

I fucking hate social relativists. Of the simple reason that most people seem to missunderstand it. It has to do with cognitive truth and not with the actual truth. If two people stand in the rain, the truth is that they'll get wet no matter how much they might disagree on the details about definitions of weather or degrees of wetness.

Language/linguistics is largely at fault here. To ask the question, "Is the glass half full or half empty?" denies the possibility that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be. 'Truth' here is so bound up in semantics it ignores context.

Apologies for the short reply ... it's been a long day

anonymouse

[TomOfSweden]

Language/linguistics is largely at fault here. To ask the question, "Is the glass half full or half empty?" denies the possibility that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be. 'Truth' here is so bound up in semantics it ignores context.

Apologies for the short reply ... it's been a long day

anonymouse

I totaly understand what relativism is all about. But as you say; it's largely about linguistics and not about truth at all.

I read "gods debris". I like Scott Adams. Thanks for the tip, he's fun. I'm guessing it's the result of taking a beginners course in philosophy because it usually covers just the problems he poses in the book. Even though none of it is very profound or new it was still a good read.

[Rhabbi]

I just want to touch on a couple of points raised early in this thread.

Historically speaking, all science originally began as philosophy. Over the past several millenia, philosophical debate about the nature of things turned up answers to philosophical questions. These 'answers' then broke away from philosophy and formed into various branches of science and art. It could be argued that this 'evolution of thought' is part of a wider evolutionary process.

There have been two very interesting books written in recent years to address the phenomenon of spiritual belief.

'God's Debris', written by Scott Addams, creator of the Dilbert series of comics, is available as a free PDF download (easily found by Googling it). It's a very enjoyable read that asks more questions than it answers.

'The God Part of the Brain' is another (I forget the author's name) takes a very interesting view that 'God exists' in a physiological sense in the same way that 'music exists'. Both are ubiquitous and universal across cultures and epochs, and neuroscience can now actually pinpoint the regions in the brain that are stimulated by both. More interestingly, the parts of the brain that are stimulated by music and spirituality are the 'pleasure zones' (for wont of the proper scientific name) -- the very same receptors that respond to eating and sex or, in other words, the receptors that are responsible for survival of species.

It should also be noted that the current academic zietgeist is one of a post-modernist making. Words like 'universals' and 'truth' are regarded by many these days as meaningless. This is interesting because truth, for example, exists on a truth - fallacy continuum. If there is no truth then, by extension, lies can't exist. "There were no weapons of mass destruction." The statement is meaningless unless truth exists.

Anyway, this is an interesting thread and I hope I haven't treaded on the toes of anybody who might have a different viewpoint to mine.

anonymouse

I do not think you have tread on anyone's toes, at least you have not tread on mine. I kind of started this debate because i wanted to make people think about evolution in a new way. My reading over the last few years has raised a lot more questions about evolution than I had thought existed and has shown me that the debate between science and religion has never been that, the debates are always about philosophy.

I think it is actually harder for the philosopher to modify his beliefs than it is for the man of faith to modify his. I often wonder about why this might be so, and have come to the conclusion that sinc a philosopher has nothing to believe in but his own intellect and its capacity to interpret the world around him, he would rather reject universal truth than admit he is wrong. If truth is relative, than everyone can be right and he does not need to adapt to change.

Whereas the man of faith recognizes universal truth to exist outside of himself, so if evidence actually proves him wrong about something he is able to adapt to the truth. Asd i have repeatedly said, I would be willing to admit that evolution is true if someone could supply me with objective evidence of some type.

[Rhabbi]

The only source I accept is an article from an accredited scientific journal. Sorry. Books fall under many genres, one of which is fiction.

That is too bad because I was about to recommend a book that raises some of the issues I think are pertinant to this discussion. It is The Language of God by Francis Collins. Dr Collins has a PhD in Medical Genetics, is an MD, and was head of the human genome project. His book is as unbiased a book as I have ever read, and raises some serious questions about the current levle of understanding of genetics and evolution. He also raises questions about theistic evolution, which is the model he seems to prefer.

Ok. Everyone knows that the Y chromosome is passed down along the male lineage, since boys are XY and only the father can contribute the Y.

Mitochondrial DNA is passed along the female lineage, because a fertilized egg cell, or zygote, already has a mitochondrion. When it divides, just like any other cell, the mitochondrion divides first, and then the cell divides. Sperm has no play in this, and so mitochondrial DNA is passed down from mother to child.

The reason I'm saying this is to give you a better understanding of why people even want to 'trace' mitochondrial DNA. However, tracing it 'all the way back' is pointless. Humans are not the only species with mitochondria, so if you want to find out where the organelle originates, you turn to the secondary endosymbiotic theory, which is a fancy way of saying "what you engulf and can't digest you make friends with."

Humans are genetically unique because we are the only species on Earth that has mitochondrial DNA? Interesting, isn't it? But coming up with a theory to explain that with no way of actually testing it seems pointless to me. I have tried to read up on this, but molecular biology is not my fielad and i will need some time to study the subject before I can reply in a manner that would make any sense to me. I do enjoy learning about these things though, so I hope that you will continue to educate me. I especially enjoyed the definition you gave about making friends with something if you cannot digest it. This is essentially waht we do everytime our digestive tract gets upset, our 'friendly' bacteria battle with the invading bacteria, and we adapt or die.

This is an extremely simplistic definition that does not hold true in many cases. Mules are one common example.

The way things are done now, they sequence the genome of a species and compare it to that of another. Good match means either same species or pretty close - but keep in mind, the difference is in the .01% or there abouts. I'm no expert on this, but what you stated is clearly wrong.

I can see that now, and am able to admit that I am wrong. But I am now faced with the problem that I have no definition of species, nor does anyone else. How are we supposed to debate a topic with no objective definition?

Reorganized is a better word.

Wasn't me. And by the way, this means nothing. Another example of this is D. Melanogaster mating with D. Yakuba. Big deal; they're unlikely to create viable offspring due to post-zygotic mating barriers. Nothing is being 'diluted,' whatever you mean by that.

You are diluting it, but not entirely. Let me add some detail but still keep it really simplistic.

Basically, under the right conditions (reducing atmosphere, lightning, whatever) you form organic (organic simply means containing carbon) molecules that are polar on one side and non-polar on the other side. In an aqueous solution, the non-polar sides get pushed together and you get a very rudimentary membrane, allowing some separation. This means you can do things inside your membrane that couldn't go on outside. Once you have something that reproduces itself, like some self replicating RNA enzymes ('ribozymes') the cat's out of the bag and whatever replicates the fastest sticks around.

If you're at a loss, let me explain. Something that reproduces asexually can very quickly 'fill up' a niche that it is well suited to. Any change in that niche that makes it unfavorable for one of these creatures makes it unfavorable for all of the creatures since they're basically clones, and they all die.

And clearly environments change over time. Life is basically adapted to survive stressors. So, some mechanism that enhances variation among a species was highly selected for - since everything else died out once the environment changed.

Or, some creature multiplied so fast mutations became significant and added to the variation. Viruses and bacteria are like this; mutations add a lot of variation to a culture of bacteria because they reproduce something like once every couple hours.

Although bacteria can also reproduce sexually, at a greater cost. If you stress them, by say adding antibiotics, then the 'cost' of reproducing sexually outweighs the 'cost' of dying to the antibiotics, and they all suddenly start reproducing sexually and passinga round resistance genes.

I typed this a little rushed so I apologize for any spelling/nonsense errors.

I certainly will not complain aboiut spelling and nonsense errors as I make more than my share of those. I have a question for you though, are you saying that bacteria have been observed to reproduse sexually? I thought that the mutations that you spoke of where selected for when all the competing bacteria died out from the antibiotics.

[Rhabbi]

Unfortunately, this particular debate is a little one sided (what with there being myriads of scientific articles on evolution), but it's still interesting (for me).

there is a growing body of scientific evidence and articles from other points of view, so it not as one sided as it used to be.

[TomOfSweden]

I think it is actually harder for the philosopher to modify his beliefs than it is for the man of faith to modify his. I often wonder about why this might be so, and have come to the conclusion that sinc a philosopher has nothing to believe in but his own intellect and its capacity to interpret the world around him, he would rather reject universal truth than admit he is wrong. If truth is relative, than everyone can be right and he does not need to adapt to change.

Whereas the man of faith recognizes universal truth to exist outside of himself, so if evidence actually proves him wrong about something he is able to adapt to the truth. Asd i have repeatedly said, I would be willing to admit that evolution is true if someone could supply me with objective evidence of some type.

I just thought I'd point out that all the religious beliefs are all philosophical schools. Nothing in this post makes any sense. It's comparing Toyotas to cars. The idea of objective truth is Aristotelian, and is just one of the pre-christian ideas incorporated into christianity. There is nothing in christianity philosophy which even at its inception that was original or new. The Bible is a collection of moral values that where commonly shared by most people at the time of its compilation, (ie ca 300 AD).

And you are on top of this wrong. If two philosophers have a discussion where one of them is open to every avenue and the other only is open to a world of objective, (ie external) truths. Who is the most open to new ideas?

You might have found that in general christians are more open to new ideas than non-christian philosophers, which is a gross generalisation. It's a value judgement impossible to measure of verify. Just a bag of wind, right?

All we have is our own intellect. You believe god gave you free will right? If its not your intellect at work, then what is?

[Rhabbi]

Don't weasel your way out of it. Evolution isn't random and the mutations of genes is limited to modifications of it's base pairs. There's physical limits to what's possible. So it's not totaly random. Since we don't know what all genes do we can't say in what way they aren't random. We can just make that statement.

To make it simple
Evolution = not random
Genetic mutations = sort of random

Interesting, but the argument lacks a foundation. The physical limits on possiblity would tend to argue agaiiiiinst evolution, not for it. There is a gap in our understanding in the process that has not yet been crossed, and until then all scientist can do is offer conjecture. I have no problem with that, as long as they clearly lable it as such.

You've got to be kidding. It's the oposite situation. In the west evolutionists have been fighting midieval christian superstition for over a century now. In spite of the christians having nothing but fairytales, extrapolations from arguments from ignorance and strictly theoretical mathematical models.

There's been more money put into proving the Bible and christian god than any other field of study in the world. No other area is even close. You making that claim isn't even funny. It's ignorant to the extreme. Isaac Newtons complete catalogue of articles are without exception only about proving gods existance. It's not from lack of trying or funding. There's just a lack of results.

Not quite true, the money spent on proving the bible has been far outspent by those trying to disprove it. The one thing that clouds this is that so many people who decided to spend their time and money to disprove the Bible have ended up accepting it that they get counted as the ones trying to prove it.

The theory of evolution came at the same time as Nietschze denied god openly. This instantly become a symbolic issue for the christian comunity. And today it's only the religious fundamentalists who cling to the idea of creation. Only.

Prove that statement.

No, it doesn't. You've floated a theory about that speciasation doesn't occur spontaneously in nature which I've yet to find any credible source agreeing with. It seems to be some religious objection, which the scientific comunity doesn't seem to aknowledge as a problem.

This proves my earlier argument about the ridicule that you dismissed so cavalierly. If someone disagrees with evolution, they are fundamentalists christians, and thus not credible.

What makes one credible?[LIST][*]A Phd in Biochemistry? Dr. Michael Behe[*]A PhD in Philosophy and a Doctorate in Mathematics? Dr. William Dembski[*]A PhD in Phyiscal Chemistry Dr. James Eberhart

In addition there is an intersting book By Klaus Dose, The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers in which he states:

More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.

The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers (Dose 1988, p. 348)

A geographically limited group of creatures will constantly mutate and evolve. Ever so slightly, a little at a time. This much I know we can prove. In time they will differ so much from their original group that their genes are incompatible. I don't get what's not to understand? It takes so long and is so gradual that it may very well be, that it hasn't been seen in a laboratory. But that's not a argument against the theory. We know how mutations occur and we know they can become stable. From this we can extrapolate. Where's the holes in it?

You mean other than the fact that it has only been seen in a limited ssense of adaptation to environment than in the sense of changing from a simple bacteria to a multi-celluar creature? Or evolving from a fruit fly to a bee? If we cannot see an example in life forms that we have the equivelant data of millions or even billions of generations, how gradual is this process? I know we have only been watching for a couple of centuries, but early experiments have all proven to be faulty, and even the reducing atmosphere that was supposed to provide the perfect environment for producing life is being question by reputable scientists.

We didn't see the big bang either. Good luck denying that one.

In the beginning God said "Let there be light, and there was light." Why deny it?

[Rhabbi]

i need that physical proof before i believe something to be true. i can't spend my entire life worshipping a god just because he MIGHT have created us. imagine how much it would suck to die and be like...oh fuck...where's heaven? lol i'm not singling out Christianity here either. i'm talking about all faith-based religions.

so yeah basically until god comes to me and says "yo dumbass..." sorry...me believing in ID just isn't gonna happen.

I am not going to ask you to believe in ID, or even God, but let me make a quick point.

If I dedicate my life to God, which I am doing, and I die and find oput I am wrong, what have I lost? My life of somewhere around 100 years, if I am lucky.

If you dedicate your life to yourself and die and find out there is a God, what have you lost? Eternity. Just something to think about.

[Rhabbi]

You and me both, man. I think it's down to simple and stupid pride. As if it's more important to have your name on stuff than having a consitant terminology.

There's plenty of faults in science. It's a pride driven machine, which brings with it many undesirable side affects. Still it's the best system we've got for finding the truth. I hope you're with me on that one?

Well, I have to say we seem to agree on something here, is the world going to end?

[Rhabbi]

You might have found that in general christians are more open to new ideas than non-christian philosophers, which is a gross generalisation. It's a value judgement impossible to measure of verify. Just a bag of wind, right?

All we have is our own intellect. You believe god gave you free will right? If its not your intellect at work, then what is?

Actually Tom, I have not found this. I would like to point out that though I am a Christian, you are the one that keeps bringing up Christianity. I have found that most 'christians' are closed minded bigots. I am a believer in a God that is bigger than I am, so I do not have to defend him at the expense of truth. This allows me to apply all of my mind to a discusssion and not be offended when someone disagrees. I know that eventuall the truth will be found out, whatever it is.

[fantassy]

If I dedicate my life to God, which I am doing, and I die and find oput I am wrong, what have I lost? My life of somewhere around 100 years, if I am lucky.

But if this 100 years is all you get, you have lost everything.

fantassy

[fantassy]

If you dedicate your life to yourself and die and find out there is a God, what have you lost? Eternity.

A God worth spending eternity with would look more at the quality of life I've lived. What use did I make of the time I had - did I help my fellow creatures, etc., rather than merely judging me on lack of religious belief. So I will have lost nothing.

If God merely judges a person on their religious belief and not their good deeds, I've saved myself from spending eternity with a vain unworthy God.

fantassy

[gloombunny]

I am not going to ask you to believe in ID, or even God, but let me make a quick point.

If I dedicate my life to God, which I am doing, and I die and find oput I am wrong, what have I lost? My life of somewhere around 100 years, if I am lucky.

If you dedicate your life to yourself and die and find out there is a God, what have you lost? Eternity. Just something to think about.

Hey, it's Pascal's Wager.

It's been thoroughly discredited by many people more eloquent than me, but I can at least try to sum things up a bit by pointing out that it only "works" because you've carefully framed it as a consideration between two arbitrary possibilities that are in fact no more likely than any others. (Hint: "no gods or afterlife at all" and "my specific version of Christianity" are not the only two ways the universe could conceivably work.)

[~hellish one~]

Hey, it's Pascal's Wager.

It's been thoroughly discredited by many people more eloquent than me, but I can at least try to sum things up a bit by pointing out that it only "works" because you've carefully framed it as a consideration between two arbitrary possibilities that are in fact no more likely than any others. (Hint: "no gods or afterlife at all" and "my specific version of Christianity" are not the only two ways the universe could conceivably work.)

agreed. and i agree with fantassy as well. very wise words hun.

there are a million different possibilities. nothing after death, heaven, reincarnation...all of which are just as plausible as the other.

but there is no way i could pretend to worship a god for my entire lifetime just because there is the possibility that i might go to hell if i don't. there is also the possibility that i might be reincarnated. ~shrugs~ like i said...i need that proof. i doubt i will ever get it. but i'm not belittling your choice to believe in what you do, Rhabbi. there are so many different faiths around the world, it just blows my mind that any one could think they are the one true religion....ya know?

[TomOfSweden]

Sorry Rhabbi, I'll get back to answering your earlier posts. I'm a bit pressed for time. I thought I'd add this real quick since it's relevant. I got an answer from my PhD friend in molecular biology and I'll have to interpret since she's Swedish.

There's a long list of observed speciasation that has occured both in laboratory and in nature. She didn't go into detail but Diane Dodd proved it without a doubt in 1989. There's always critique about every experiment, especially if it gets this much attention. Just because a scientist words some critcism about a method doesn't mean that they don't accept the result. Nobody has been able to invalidate her experiment which is the important detail. Her experiment has been repeated many times and we always get the same result. Dodd did it on fruit flies and it's been done many times after that with other creatures and plants.

And then she went on about how sick she is of religious fanatics and militant vegans, which are a nuisance in her field. She also said that most of their results get miss-quoted in the press to make better head-lines. You really need to read the reports themselves to get a fair picture of what they are doing. Admitedly you also need to have studied the field to understand the terminology.

She didn't write this in the letter but I know from earlier that she moved to Australia, (from Sweden) because it's the most liberal place to do genetic research. That and South Korea.

[TomOfSweden]

Interesting, but the argument lacks a foundation. The physical limits on possiblity would tend to argue agaiiiiinst evolution, not for it. There is a gap in our understanding in the process that has not yet been crossed, and until then all scientist can do is offer conjecture. I have no problem with that, as long as they clearly lable it as such.

You're going to have to walk me through that one, because I don't underdtand your objection.

If you toss a coin into the air randomly and your dimensions is whether or not the coin lands on a flat side or an edge the chances are pretty good you'll get 100% on a flat side no matter how many times you do it. You still toss the coins randomly, but the result isn't random. It's the same situation with DNA. Physical constraints.

Not quite true, the money spent on proving the bible has been far outspent by those trying to disprove it. The one thing that clouds this is that so many people who decided to spend their time and money to disprove the Bible have ended up accepting it that they get counted as the ones trying to prove it.

All research that didn't suport the christian view of the world was illegal in all western countries for over a thousand years. It's an impressive feat of revisionism you're trying to pull off. I doubt even most christians will fall for that one. I'm guessing this little detail just slipped your mind. Christian fundamentalism has been the norm for so much of western history its easy to forget that it was only just recently we as a culture became free of its opression.

If you try to find a grant for your research, most grants are still religious all over the world. Christian scholars in particular are, compared to their secular counterparts still rolling in money.

Prove that statement.

Science can prove evolution. If you deny it, that means that you have another source for your truths of the world. In todays vocabularly we tend to call people who fanatically cling to religous texts above all else as religious fundamentalists. Its only down to linguistic use.

This proves my earlier argument about the ridicule that you dismissed so cavalierly. If someone disagrees with evolution, they are fundamentalists christians, and thus not credible.

According to my molecular biologist friend, (who also has a Phd) there is no controversy in the scientific comunity. All scientists in biology quoted for denying evolution have all been missquoted. The debate on evolution is on minor details about how it works, not if it works. The blunt truth is that the problems found by the religious comunities just don't exist. It's not a question about creationism being ignored unfairly. They don't have a case yet. They lack a theory. Utterly and completely. Creationsim is an idea for a theory. What needs to be done now is for a scientist who believes in ID, to sit down and make a cohesive theory and then test it. This has yet to happen.

I'm just speculating now, but it could also be down to money. The christian market for having their faith confirmed by a scientist is huge.

You mean other than the fact that it has only been seen in a limited ssense of adaptation to environment than in the sense of changing from a simple bacteria to a multi-celluar creature? Or evolving from a fruit fly to a bee? If we cannot see an example in life forms that we have the equivelant data of millions or even billions of generations, how gradual is this process? I know we have only been watching for a couple of centuries, but early experiments have all proven to be faulty, and even the reducing atmosphere that was supposed to provide the perfect environment for producing life is being question by reputable scientists.

My friend answered that one. Evolution just works and plenty of proof exists.

In the beginning God said "Let there be light, and there was light." Why deny it?

He he. That whole book is nothing but metaphors. You can justify and explain anything with the Bible. Anything.

[TomOfSweden]

I am not going to ask you to believe in ID, or even God, but let me make a quick point.

If I dedicate my life to God, which I am doing, and I die and find oput I am wrong, what have I lost? My life of somewhere around 100 years, if I am lucky.

If you dedicate your life to yourself and die and find out there is a God, what have you lost? Eternity. Just something to think about.

Why not do the maths instead. We know we have this life. This is all we know. We don't know if we have an afterlife. If we assume there may be, we have the problem of working out what this afterlife entails and how we can make it better. We have no clues. The existance of an afterlife is pure assumption. The existance of god is pure assumption. The belief in that there exists a god that has an intelligence and that god cares about earth and humans is equally assumption. If we sit down and make a compilation over the possible varieties of heaven our human brains can conjour up, (all on equal merit to the Bibles version) we will find that the result is one chance in an infinity.

So the scenario you presented is skewed. It's not a choice between two equal possibilities. They're not even almost equal. One is pure guesswork and the other is fact.

edit: Ninjad. NatalieD beat me to it. I bow to your great wisdom.

[Rhabbi]

Hey, it's Pascal's Wager.

It's been thoroughly discredited by many people more eloquent than me, but I can at least try to sum things up a bit by pointing out that it only "works" because you've carefully framed it as a consideration between two arbitrary possibilities that are in fact no more likely than any others. (Hint: "no gods or afterlife at all" and "my specific version of Christianity" are not the only two ways the universe could conceivably work.)

I have actually seen this response before, which is why I did not try to push my version of Christianity. But I should have added a third choice, as a subset to the first, to deal with this answer. It is actually possible that I am totally wrong about the way to serve God, whiloe being right about there being a God.

[Rhabbi]

A God worth spending eternity with would look more at the quality of life I've lived. What use did I make of the time I had - did I help my fellow creatures, etc., rather than merely judging me on lack of religious belief. So I will have lost nothing.

If God merely judges a person on their religious belief and not their good deeds, I've saved myself from spending eternity with a vain unworthy God.

I could not agree with you more, but you have to remember that that quaility of life would still be defined by Him. I do not believe that God judges people solely on their religious beliefs, but on their life and what they do with it. This is actually told to me in the Bible, so I have confidence in it.

That said, I wonder if you are living a qualioty life, or one that serves only yourself. I am not asking you this so that I will know, but so that you will think.

But if this 100 years is all you get, you have lost everything.

fantassy

I am going to answer both of these in one post because they kind of belong together.

That is my choice, and as long as I live life fully while serving God, I will have no complaints. I am happy with my life and who I am.

[Rhabbi]

agreed. and i agree with fantassy as well. very wise words hun.

there are a million different possibilities. nothing after death, heaven, reincarnation...all of which are just as plausible as the other.

but there is no way i could pretend to worship a god for my entire lifetime just because there is the possibility that i might go to hell if i don't. there is also the possibility that i might be reincarnated. ~shrugs~ like i said...i need that proof. i doubt i will ever get it. but i'm not belittling your choice to believe in what you do, Rhabbi. there are so many different faiths around the world, it just blows my mind that any one could think they are the one true religion....ya know?

I agree with that sentiment, it does blow my mind as well. The most surprising thing in my life was the day I came to believe in God. If you are curious about the way this feels, there is actually a book that describes it better than I could, because if I tried to I would end up using his ideas and descriptions. If you do not mind reading a book that is about religion and one man's journey from atheism to belief I recommend "Surprised by Joy" by C. S. Lewis.

[TomOfSweden]

Actually Tom, I have not found this. I would like to point out that though I am a Christian, you are the one that keeps bringing up Christianity. I have found that most 'christians' are closed minded bigots. I am a believer in a God that is bigger than I am, so I do not have to defend him at the expense of truth. This allows me to apply all of my mind to a discusssion and not be offended when someone disagrees. I know that eventuall the truth will be found out, whatever it is.

I bring up christianity because you are christian. You made a statement where you claimed that philosophers have more rigid mind-sets than men of faith.

"I think it is actually harder for the philosopher to modify his beliefs than it is for the man of faith to modify his. I often wonder about why this might be so, and have come to the conclusion that sinc a philosopher has nothing to believe in but his own intellect and its capacity to interpret the world around him, he would rather reject universal truth than admit he is wrong. If truth is relative, than everyone can be right and he does not need to adapt to change.

Whereas the man of faith recognizes universal truth to exist outside of himself, so if evidence actually proves him wrong about something he is able to adapt to the truth. Asd i have repeatedly said, I would be willing to admit that evolution is true if someone could supply me with objective evidence of some type."



Which means that you believe that more than half of all people are closed minded biggots. Or put in a more mathematical terms.

L = Level of closed minded biggotry
(L*philosopher)>(L*men of faith) && (L*men of faith)> (all people*L biggotry/all people)= Rhabbi's view of biggotry

So if the most men of faith are closed minded biggots but are:

"Whereas the man of faith recognizes universal truth to exist outside of himself, so if evidence actually proves him wrong about something he is able to adapt to the truth."

Please explain how a person of faith adapt to the truth if they at the same time are "closed minded biggots"?

I believe all people are social creatures. We like to share beliefs with people around us. No matter what. It's not a question of being closed minded, it's a question of from which sources of facts we are open to. Nobody is trully closed minded. I think it goes against our primeival instincts. No matter how rigid we are in our beliefs in certain situations, we will never see ourselves as closed minded, because none of us are. It's good that we are selective in where we get our information or our whole heads would also be filled with questionable truths given to us by TV-shoping channels.

At least it explains why a particular religious faith is geographically contained.