- Aug 12, 2003
- 5,373
- 998
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
The phenomenon and the explanation
- Thread starter Phred
- Start date
The details are different in every religion. The concept is the same - breaking out of a cycle to better things by redemptive thought and/or action.
Upvote
0
Ophiolite
Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
I see no evidence that you are arguing in good faith, but rather a series of pre-emptive assertions, implicit and explicit, that seem designed to provide a convenient back door through which you can escape any necessity to actually study any material I might present. When you are ready to treat this discussion seriously and sincerely I shall re-engage. Sadly, I expect a very long wait. I would be delighted to be disappointed.
Upvote
0
- May 28, 2018
- 13,092
- 5,667
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Oh no. Nonono. I already know my foundational presuppositions are not provable to you by your methods.
If Cause-and-effect isn't reliable to you, then First Cause certainly is not. No point in proceeding further.
Upvote
0
- Jan 9, 2018
- 3,132
- 871
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
For some the fundamentals are too.
Conceptually major differences. As explained. Whether a cow is sacred or food is a major difference.
Breaking out? Is that possible?
Redeemed? Is that Eastern thought?
Upvote
0
tas8831
Well-Known Member
- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 4,000
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
That is because all presuppositions are not provable - didn't you know that? I used to teach a freshman science class that discussed some philosophy of science a while back and this was covered. I'm wondering if you even know what the presuppositions of science are? There are different variations and such, but generally the basic ones are that the universe exists, it is amenable to being studied by using our senses, and our senses are generally reliable.
Is that so horrible?
Cop out. Cause and effect has its place, but First Cause is just sad theology/apologetics. You must be afraid that your little 'logical' argument cannot withstand much scrutiny. If that is your presupposition, then it is an illogical and arbitrary one, established SOLELY to prop up your failed theology.
So, I guess you have abandoned your pretense of addressing evidence and such?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 28, 2018
- 13,092
- 5,667
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
If presuppositions of science are not provable, then why say that Darwinian Evolution is established fact, and that Quantum Mechanics is based on what we already KNOW?
Scrutinize all you want. So far, First Cause is the only reasonable explanation for existence. EVERYTHING else I have heard so far, is illogical —as in, circular reasoning, begging the question, moving the goalposts, etc etc. To me, at least, it makes more sense that First Cause should exist, than even that I exist.
It seems you are attributing your superior notions, concerning my motivations, with more substance than they deserve. It would make more sense to say that I am using confirmation bias, than to say that I am employing the cosmological argument SOLELY to buttress my theology. How would you know of my reasons?
Without going back and re-reading all I have said to you on this thread, I don't recall what I have or have not claimed, re 'evidence'. I'm guessing that I have said that logical argument can serve for evidence, as it is what science does all the time. But since you don't consider my logical sequences to be logical, then what's the point? You may even have tried to show me how they are illogical, but I don't consider your rebuttal logical, so what's the point? To arrogantly call it 'pretense', however, smacks of condescension and suggests weakness to your own argument. You certainly have not convinced me of anything, nor motivated me to whimper my way back out of your withering gaze. Baugh!
Upvote
0
pitabread
Well-Known Member
- Jan 29, 2017
- 12,920
- 13,372
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
Conclusions in science are considered provisional within the framework of science.
Claiming something like the theory of evolution is a fact is in the context of something being so repeatedly verified that we have no reason to reasonably doubt it.
(I should also caveat that modern evolutionary theory is not specifically Darwinian Evolution; the theory of evolution has moved on quite a bit since Darwin's time).
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
To add on to the last post. All findings of science are provisional. But those findings tend to be far more reliable than any other "facts" that you will find in life. As I have pointed out before. Gravity is only tentatively true. It is still never a good idea to walk off of a cliff on the side of a mountain, unless you have special gear and a lot of training.
Upvote
0
- Aug 12, 2003
- 5,373
- 998
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Yeah, sure. You pushed the need for an explanation back a generation. None of that pesky need for theories and evidence. Just a handy God slapped onto everything and you're done.
As long as you never ask where God came from. And if anyone does you just say, "God is eternal." You can't know this since you can't examine God or have any way of finding this out. You just whip out another platitude and you're done. The universe and everything in it all explained in two simple concepts. God and God always was.
But that's not illogical, circular reasoning, begging the question, not even having goalposts, etc, etc... It makes no sense. But let's call it "first cause" and just move along. Nothing to see here.
Upvote
0
- Aug 12, 2003
- 5,373
- 998
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Gravity is a fine example. We know that things fall but why? We believe that time causes gravity. But it could be that invisible fairies are everywhere and their only purpose in life is to grab things as you release them and pull them towards the earth. Since that's not completed IMpossible it's best not to annoy them. Or one day they might decide to just let you float off into space.
Upvote
0
tas8831
Well-Known Member
- May 5, 2017
- 5,611
- 4,000
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
If presuppositions of your faith are not provable, why claim God is real?
I guess you think maybe the universe is not real? That our senses are unreliable? That we cannot understand the universe? It looks to me like you are not even reading what I wrote.
Assertions are cool.
A presupposition is not provable as you have acknowledged. The difference between the presuppositions of science and those of religionism is that the outcomes of scientific research are not actually dependent upon those presuppositions. That is, a presupposition of the ToE is NOT that Darwin was right, it is that the universe exists. And we do not use that presupposition to argue in favor of evolution, exactly unlike yours. Whereas, the presupposition of your faith is that your God was the First cause - correct?
Can you not understand the difference?
By the way - you presume a first cause, but what if there was a cause before the one you really really want to be The One?
Yes yes, you say that, but I have not seen a single example from you, just repeated slurs to make yourself feel better about your choices, I suppose.. We'll see how you deal with evidence below.
Not to me, so your point is moot. You use your presupposition to support your mere beliefs, whereas in science, we just presume that we can learn.
You pretty much lay it all out, perhaps unwittingly.
Seems pretty obvious to me.
Clearly - you ignored it both times I posted it for you - the first time, you merely omitted it from your reply.
No, you just ignored it - which I guess you feel you must do in order to keep believing your inflammatory and unsupported charges of circular reasoning and the like. Third time a charm?
-------
I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it.
The tested methodology:
Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.
======================
Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592
Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.
==================================
Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677
Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies
DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.
Application of the tested methodology:
Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo
"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "
Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny
"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."
A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates
"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "
Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.
"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."
The tested methodology:
Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.
======================
Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592
Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.
==================================
Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677
Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies
DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.
Application of the tested methodology:
Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo
"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "
Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny
"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."
A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates
"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "
Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.
"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."
CONCLUSION:
This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- May 28, 2018
- 13,092
- 5,667
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
I refer to Darwinian Evolution as opposed to the simple obvious fact that things change.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
pitabread
Well-Known Member
- Jan 29, 2017
- 12,920
- 13,372
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
Calling it "Darwinian" evolution implies you're referring to Darwin's theory of evolution specifically (e.g. what he wrote in Origin). As I said, the modern theory of evolution has moved on quite a bit since that time. Continuing to use the term "Darwinian evolution" is misleading.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jan 9, 2018
- 3,132
- 871
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Well you brought it up as Eastern religion not me.
How so? I didn't think the word applied to Eastern religion. There is no redeemer that I know of.
Upvote
0
Ophiolite
Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
No, I didn't. I think that was @FrumiousBandersnatch. So, I was responding to your reaction to his post, not to his post.
What makes you think a redeemer is required in order to achieve redemption? Can you demonstrate a redeemer is always a pre-requisite?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- May 28, 2018
- 13,092
- 5,667
- 68
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Widowed
So you guys keep saying, and I keep saying then all unproven scientific presupposition is special pleading. You see a line of logic that goes unanswered, propose a hypothesis, and see if it works.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
