As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[Hishandmaiden]

I voted no, though I am actually unsure.
I believe men do not evolve.
But I am not sure about other species.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Did you get the screen captured imaged I sent you via private message?

Yes and thanks. I haven't read it all yet; as you can expect I don't understand it all in the first reading, anyway, so it will take a while; but since it seemed important to you I wanted to do more than just skim through it. The first paragraph jumped right out at me though. He says what I have always thought, but nobody usually seems to want to mention --that science takes a "what if" and tries to guess what that would look like, or how it would play out, predicting effects, and then tries to find those effects. If they are found, then the "what if" is supported, but of course, not yet proven. After all, those effects may be caused by something we thought worthy of being discarded or something we haven't even considered yet.

So it is with the "what if God?" --the first problem being, of course, so many opinions and so much noise, then the problem of rare coincidence between the apparently empirical and apparently non-empirical. This is one of the things that enthralls me --the conjunction of philosophy and science (sounds almost like quantum physics, lol) I believe will happen when we see the Creator as he is --but I digress.

I have done some other reading, mostly skimming, and I must confess I am not as impressed by the genome project as I had hoped to be. In fact, most I read seemed to pit the genome studies AGAINST either neutral evolution or selectivity or both, though of course the premise for evolution stands regardless. I'm not sure I understand the difference between the two ideas of evolution, since to me they are no-brainers --i.e. they say what I have always supposed, that what is weak does not survive. Some of the things I read almost sounded like the selective evolution was directed in some way beyond coincidence, and maybe that was the only difference between it and neutral.

Anyhow, the new combining of the two (as supported by the Genome studies) still sounds like what I always assumed was meant by Darwinian Evolution, but does not (to my mind) strengthen anything. Both, or all (3?), still depend on the assumption of a single ancestor differentiating out (rather very rapidly, at that) into all these surviving branches, by genetically enhancing mutation. (In one article I read, I purposely looked for, and could not even find the word, "mutation", almost as if they were trying to include instead of deny the Creation Science-sounding idea of evolution by changes in prevalence within present DNA information, rather than changes in the DNA itself). Actually, several articles that did use "mutation" also sounded like the changes may well be embedded within the genome and brought out by random chance and killed off if not beneficial rather than be actual changes happening to the genome. Thus the peppered moth can turn black and then white again in later generations, then return to black, as survives the differences in background.

Anyhow, thanks.

 

[46AND2]

Well, I thought so too, but then you said omnipotence was absurd, while I insist omnipotence is a necessary attribute of God. So I said so.

Maybe for you. There are a lot of ways that humans "define" god. I should clarify: Omnipotence is absurd based on "most" Christians' definition of omnipotence (of those who claim he is omnipotent; some don't).

My point about the tautology was this: you posit that if there is a god who is capable of defying logic, then this god can do logic defying things. That is the tautology.

Ok. So what?

I can also posit that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry.

I insist that evolutionary glaucoma is a necessary attribute of a Lepricorn. Therefore, if it exists, that explains the rift between creationists and evolutionists.

If that is to you an epistemological hindrance, I don't know why. I did not intend to prove his existence by saying it is a necessary attribute. It may or may not be false that he exists, but his omnipotence is a necessary condition in any consideration of what his existence would imply. Otherwise we are talking about some lesser being. Not God. Simple.

Really? You can't see how it would be a hindrance? You don't have to argue for his existence. Merely entertaining the concept is a hindrance. How can you possibly learn anything if you are constantly entertaining the possibility that a supernatural being might be making things appear to be different than they actually are? Literally no test could be performed with confidence if the results "might" be tainted by an hypothetical, immeasurable variable.

Upon rereading the posts leading up to here, I see I may not know what you are referring to by "that" in "that is a tautological argument".

I suppose you could be referring to my claim that if something is true (in this case, God's existence) it is useful regardless of our method of arriving at a good comprehension of what that truth is.

An inconceivable truth is useless.
An indeterminable truth is mostly useless.
An hypothesized truth is mostly useful.
A verified truth is useful.

Agreed?

Which category do you think god falls into, and why? (disclaimer: I'm expecting we will disagree here, so your rationale input is encouraged)

Tautological? Bare assertion, perhaps. Epistemological hindrance? I don't see why. Epistemologically unuseable perhaps, though I'm not sure that applies either. (That is, if one assumes the unproven (as long as it is true), it can direct one in true directions, as they logically pursue proofs --such is the case with science. One makes a statement, and presupposing it to be so, makes predictions. If the statement is true, the predictions may bear it out. So if God's existence is true, certain things may well be in keeping with that.)

Or are you talking about something else?

It's interesting that the link that @sfs provided for you at biologos touches on this topic, indirectly. Science asks "what if," also. If common ancestry is true, what should we observe? How can we test that? What would falsify it?

Ultimately, we have learned that in order to discover truth, we actually need to try to DISPROVE the hypothesis.

Are you willing to try to disprove the god hypothesis?

 

[the iconoclast]

I can also posit that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry.

Hey hey 46and2

Im curious who do put forward that as a fact or as a basis for argument?

 

[46AND2]

Hey hey 46and2

Im curious who do put forward that as a fact or as a basis for argument?

Can you rephrase your question please? Not sure exactly what you are asking.

 

[the iconoclast]

Can you rephrase your question please? Not sure exactly what you are asking.

Hello sorry spell check and a mobile is not always a great combination

I read your recent statement (.eg "I can also posit that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)

When we consider posit /ˈpɒzɪt/ verb 1. put forward as fact or as a basis for argument.

Im curious how do you put forward that statement as a fact or as a basis for argument?

 

[USincognito]

Yes and thanks. I haven't read it all yet; as you can expect I don't understand it all in the first reading, anyway, so it will take a while; but since it seemed important to you I wanted to do more than just skim through it. The first paragraph jumped right out at me though. He says what I have always thought, but nobody usually seems to want to mention --that science takes a "what if" and tries to guess what that would look like, or how it would play out, predicting effects, and then tries to find those effects. If they are found, then the "what if" is supported, but of course, not yet proven. After all, those effects may be caused by something we thought worthy of being discarded or something we haven't even considered yet.

So it is with the "what if God?" --the first problem being, of course, so many opinions and so much noise, then the problem of rare coincidence between the apparently empirical and apparently non-empirical. This is one of the things that enthralls me --the conjunction of philosophy and science (sounds almost like quantum physics, lol) I believe will happen when we see the Creator as he is --but I digress.

I have done some other reading, mostly skimming, and I must confess I am not as impressed by the genome project as I had hoped to be. In fact, most I read seemed to pit the genome studies AGAINST either neutral evolution or selectivity or both, though of course the premise for evolution stands regardless. I'm not sure I understand the difference between the two ideas of evolution, since to me they are no-brainers --i.e. they say what I have always supposed, that what is weak does not survive. Some of the things I read almost sounded like the selective evolution was directed in some way beyond coincidence, and maybe that was the only difference between it and neutral.

Anyhow, the new combining of the two (as supported by the Genome studies) still sounds like what I always assumed was meant by Darwinian Evolution, but does not (to my mind) strengthen anything. Both, or all (3?), still depend on the assumption of a single ancestor differentiating out (rather very rapidly, at that) into all these surviving branches, by genetically enhancing mutation. (In one article I read, I purposely looked for, and could not even find the word, "mutation", almost as if they were trying to include instead of deny the Creation Science-sounding idea of evolution by changes in prevalence within present DNA information, rather than changes in the DNA itself). Actually, several articles that did use "mutation" also sounded like the changes may well be embedded within the genome and brought out by random chance and killed off if not beneficial rather than be actual changes happening to the genome. Thus the peppered moth can turn black and then white again in later generations, then return to black, as survives the differences in background.

Anyhow, thanks.

Good. Take your time with it. I'll add @sfs to the conversation so he can see the screen caps. You can discuss the content with him here in the thread.

 

[46AND2]

Hello

I read your recent statement (.eg "I can also posit that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)

When we consider posit /ˈpɒzɪt/ verb 1. put forward as fact or as a basis for argument.

Im curious who do you put forward that statement as a fact or as a basis for argument?

I'm not the one claiming that a supernatural entity exists. He is. And you are. My point was a literary device to show that your claim is similarly empty. The "who originated the claim" is largely irrelevant. Until you demonstrate that such an entity has influence on what we observe, we have no reason to try to measure such an influence.

 

[the iconoclast]

I'm not the one claiming that a supernatural entity exists.

Hey hey

46and2 - "I can also posit (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?"

This statement suggest you do claim supernatural entity exists ie you can posit.

Would you preach this leprechaun entity to me?

My point was a literary device to show that your claim is similarly empty

What are these claims you find similar when we consider this entity you speak of? (a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry.)

Is this your arguement.

Samuel believes A is true, Daniel believes B is fiction. Y believes B and A are similar, B is fiction therefore A must also be fiction?

Is this your logic.

Daniel believe A is true. Samuel believes B is fiction. Samuel belives B and A are similar therefore A must also be fiction?

Please correct me if iam wrong and if you could be so kind as to show me - using the same technique ie daniel, samuel,b and a.

Cheers

 

[46AND2]

Hey hey

46and2 - "I can also posit (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?"

This statement suggest you do claim supernatural entity exists ie you can posit.

No it doesn't. It says that I CAN....and (the point of the analogy), IF I DID, it would be no different from somebody claiming that there exists a supernatural being who created the entire universe.

Would you preach this leprechaun entity to me?

Sure, and then I'll try to incorporate it into public schools, pressure the government to display his icons on public property, and include his name, Ralph, into the Pledge of Allegiance.

How does that sound?

What are these claims you find similar when we consider this entity you speak of? (.eg a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry.)

Cheers

Easy: Magic.

 

[46AND2]

again irrelevant. if we have 10^100 possible combinations and we have only 2 functional sequences among this space the chance to get a functional sequence is very low even considering the age of the earth. this is different from the birth analogy since in a birth any possible option is ok.

No. Any birth is not ok. 100,000 years ago (or even 6,000 yo), the chances, then, that YOU, AND EXACTLY YOU, would show up is ASTRONOMICAL. Far greater than any estimate I've seen for abiogenesis. And yes, I'd be happy to give you a rough estimate.

 

[the iconoclast]

No it doesn't. It says that I CAN....and (the point of the analogy), IF I DID, it would be no different from somebody claiming that there exists a supernatural being who created the entire universe.

Hey hey wow quick reply

So if you can then it should not be a problem for you to put this leprechaun forward as a fact or as a basis for argument or can you not?

Sure, and then I'll try to incorporate it into public schools, pressure the government to display his icons on public property, and include his name, Ralph, into the Pledge of Allegiance. How does that sound?

Nice!!! Hahaha. It sounds like you answer with sarcasm instead of an arguement, interesting my friend.

I get the impression that you would not teach that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?

You would not put this leprechaun forward as a fact or as a basis for argument?

46and2 - "I can also posit (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?"

When we consider the substance of our discussion, is this your arguement below?

You are represented as samuel.

Daniel believes A is true. Samuel believes B is fiction. Samuel assumes B and A are similar therefore A must also be fiction. If i have misrepresented you, What would be your agruement for this special leprechaun using the same method and terminology?

Easy. Magic.

To prove your posit, would you put forward magic as a fact or as a basis for your argument?

46and2 - "I can also posit (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?"

Go for it my dear, preach this leprechaun to me and show me how magic is a fact or as a basis for your argument for this Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?? - that you dont believe exists?

Or do atheists preach such supernatural beings to Christians?

Cheers i look forward to this

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

realy?

Yes.

1) we know that things like sonar and motors are the result of design. we find such systems in nature so only design can explain the existence of such systems.

2) a creature cant evolve into a different creature because there are no small steps from one creature to another one. if we had a self replicating car for instance it will never evolve into something like an airplane.

3) according to this paper we will need about 10^77 mutations to evolve a specific functional protein:

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI

it means that we will need a lot of time to evolvle even a single protein.

None of these are valid scientific objections, as has been explained to you countless times by plenty of people.

1 is a false equivalence
2 is a strawmen coupled with a false equivalence
3 is an argument from ignorance and a teleological fallacy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Granted, but the claim that proof must be present in order for rational belief to prevail is also misleading

Who's making that claim?

I never meant to imply that "therefore it's valid", in that context. I agree that is bad logic. The same goes for those who claim since religion is false, therefore whatever the scientific community (or even science, for that matter) comes up with is true.

Anyone who understands how science is done, understands that science is always tentative / provisional. There's no such thing as "believing science is true" in the sense of how theists tend to believe that their religion is "true".

Science is about finding the best possible explanation for the data currently at our disposal. Fully being aware that tomorrow, you might discover data that shows your model that seemed accurate today to be lacking or even just wrong.

Evolution theory, like any other theory, therefor is not "true" in the absolute sense. It is rather accurate in the sense of "fully consistent with all the data we have and contradicted by none". Does that preclude that you might discover data tomorrow that shows evolution lacking or even wrong? No. No matter how unlikely it seems that evolution theory will turn out to be false.

And this is the case for every theory in science.

Science, when it comes to building explanatory models of reality, doesn't deal in such certainties or proofs.

I disagree supportive evidence is only thing that makes acceptance valid

I know, that was rather clear already.

The logic may be terrible, and the belief ignorant --yet if what is believed is true, it is by definition valid, and so it is valid to accept that truth.

"if".

Yes, if what you believe is true, then what you believe is true. Here we go again with the meaningless tautologies........

HOW do you know if what you believe is accurate, if not by supportive evidence???

Why would you believe an undemonstrated claim that has no evidence at all? Especially if that claim is extra-ordinary as well?

I maintain that you wouldn't believe such claims. You reject such claims every day of the week. This is why you probably don't believe in alien abduction, bigfoot or the lochness monster. But you make an exception for those claims that belong to your religion. For some reason, theists tend to have a special spot reserved for such claims. For some reason, different standards apply for such claims. For some reason, such claims are exempt to them from the standards that they apply to any other claim.

My personal take on such a situation is that such truths are maybe always poorly conceived or poorly understood and certainly poorly defined. This is one of my biggest problems with Christian thinking nowadays --that since "we have the truth" others are to be criticized for their lack of belief --and thus we (Christians) ignore the fact that we ourselves are nowhere near to understanding what we believe. (We, for example, believe the Gospel, and yes indeed I believe the Gospel is true, yet I don't understand it --it takes me all the way back to why God would create and how it is even possible for the creature to be able to rebel against the Creator --I find it impossible to fathom. (Yet, my lack of understanding does not invalidate it.))

Why do you believe things that you can't support with evidence, that you can't understand and which can't be shown to be accurate by anyone?

Serious question.

 

[46AND2]

Hey hey wow quick reply

So if you can then it should not be a problem for you to put this leprechaun forward as a fact or as a basis for argument or can you not?

You understand that this is an analogy, right? I mean, I suspect English is not your first language, but...I'm essentially asking YOU to put forward god as fact or basis for argument...and I'm doing so by way of metaphor.

Nice!!! Hahaha. It sounds like you answer with sarcasm instead of an arguement, interesting my friend.

A sarcastic question deserves a sarcastic answer. Please re-read what your request was.

I get the impression that you would not teach that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?

You would not put this leprechaun forward as a fact or as a basis for argument?

46and2 - "I can also posit (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?"

When we consider the substance of our discussion, is this your arguement below?

You are represented as samuel.

Daniel believes A is true. Samuel believes B is fiction. Samuel assumes B and A are similar therefore A must also be fiction. If i have misrepresented you, What would be your agruement for this special leprechaun using the same method and terminology?

If you were reading the entire conversation, you would know that my issue is this:

Daniel believes A. Daniel says that if A is true, then everything sub-A is true. Samuel says: Ok, I believe B is true. If B is true, then everything sub-B is true.

How do you determine who is correct?

In the above scenario, I represent neither Daniel nor Samuel.

To prove your reposit, would you put forward magic as a fact or as a basis for your argument?

46and2 - "I can also posit (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?"

Go for it my dear, preach this leprechaun to me and show me how magic is a fact or as a basis for your argument for this Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?? - that you believe exists?

Cheers i look forward to this

How many times must I explain that I do not claim Lepricorns exist?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All true, except for your apparent idea of the sort of thing I might be referring to by "absurd". An example of what I am talking about, is the supposed proof that there can be no omnipotent being

Who here is claiming that such "proof" exists?
Certainly not me....

The idea of an "omnipotent being" is an unfalsifiable proposition. By definition of "unfalsifiable", there can be no proof or disproof for such a thing.

The question is absurd in more than one way. It assumes validity to a self-contradictory concept. It also ignores that such a being would have no reason to do so, and certainly not for the purpose of entertaining the mental vagaries of lesser beings; and since such a being (the very inventor of "what is", or he is not self-existent God) has no reason for doing so, the proposed scenario is a non-thing by definition, and therefore absurd.

My take on such a claim (that such a being exists) is rather simple: I have exactly zero reason to accept it as accurate or even only likely. Zero reason. So as a result, I don't accept that claim as true / accurate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

realy? so you have no problem to accept that its possible to get a complex eye at once?

Complex eyes evolved over many many millions of years.
They didn't pop up "at once".

You should really inform yourself one of these days. It's getting even more ridiculous then it already was....

why do you think that no scientist believe that its possible to get a complex biological system in a single event?

Because that's not how evolution works.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Only IF he does in fact exist. And by God, I mean Self-Existent First Cause With Intent, the One and Only such being. Omnipotence is by no means absurd for such a being. Our stance and comprehension and evidences for such are irrelevance as to his existence.

If we find evidences, so much the better, but the facts remain regardless of our view of them. As such the facts are of value (again, IF it is a fact he exists), and so is apprehension to them, regardless of the reasons.

You could replace "god" and "self-existent first cause with intentent" in this post with literally ANYTHING your imagination can produce and which is unfalsifiable, and your argument would remain virtually unchanged in terms of merrit and validity.

That should be a hint about how meaningless it is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe men do not evolve.

Why do you believe that?

 

[46AND2]

Hey hey wow quick reply

So if you can then it should not be a problem for you to put this leprechaun forward as a fact or as a basis for argument or can you not?



Nice!!! Hahaha. It sounds like you answer with sarcasm instead of an arguement, interesting my friend.

I get the impression that you would not teach that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?

You would not put this leprechaun forward as a fact or as a basis for argument?

46and2 - "I can also posit (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?"

When we consider the substance of our discussion, is this your arguement below?

You are represented as samuel.

Daniel believes A is true. Samuel believes B is fiction. Samuel assumes B and A are similar therefore A must also be fiction. If i have misrepresented you, What would be your agruement for this special leprechaun using the same method and terminology?



To prove your posit, would you put forward magic as a fact or as a basis for your argument?

46and2 - "I can also posit (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?"

Go for it my dear, preach this leprechaun to me and show me how magic is a fact or as a basis for your argument for this Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?? - that you dont believe exists?

Or do atheists preach such supernatural beings to Christians?

Cheers i look forward to this

Seriously, it is no surprise you can't understand your own Bible. I speak modern English, and you miss the point entirely.