Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Dr Collins was purely used because he was a Christian who believed in evolution to prove that evolution must be true. I was saying that doesn't make it true because someone from an opposing side being Christianity believes in evolution. I posted a couple of scientists who did believe in creation to counter Dr Collins merely to show that you can also find scientists that believe in creation as well.
I also once believed in evolution. It seemed logical on the surface and made sense.Its easy to be consumed by whats in front of you and hard to let go of that and put your toe in the waters of faith in things beyond the material world. Many want to be able to touch and see everything before they will take a step and trust and that can be easy to fall into in a world where everything is based on materialism.
Last I checked, Twitter is not a religious site.
Do you know anything about Newton's theological work? Does anyone even care about his theological work?
You quoted a scientist (Newton) who hadn't even heard of evolution by natural selection. Darwin came after Newton.
I have already explained on several occasions. I'm not doing that anymore. We're past that point.
You're understanding of evolution isn't sufficient to understand the papers.
I have already explained myself. You didn't listen.
For the last time, steve, he is a surgeon. He performs surgery on brains. That doesn't mean he knows how they work - that's neuroscience, not neurosurgery - or how they evolved. His opinion on the evolution of the brain is as irrelevant as his opinion on the evolution of the eye.
And yet, despite your lack of understanding, you have no qualms about pontificating on the matter.
You aren't listening. Being a brain surgeon doesn't mean that he understands the "inner workings of the brain." Understanding the inner workings of the brain is the task of the neurosciences. Understanding how to perform surgery on the brain to treat injury and disease is the task of neurosurgery. Carson is not an expert on the evolution of the brain and his neurosurgery background doesn't necessarily make him an expert on the "inner workings of the brain" either.
Yes, it has! Go read!
Seriously, steve, I'm done being polite. If you are genuinely interested in this, then go learn about it. Stop pontificating and start learning.
Why is it a poor example? It's a parallel to your own argument. You never justified why we should focus on life specifically. If the constants were to deviate even minutely, life wouldn't be the only aspect of the universe affected, so why single it out?
I'm sorry to hear about your bad experience. But there is only one thing you should be encouraging steve to do at this point: to get educated about what evolution really is and what it involves. That wasn't a "great post" and his logic was not "impeccable." Frankly, you're giving him the wrong idea.
This analogy tells me that you do not understand evolution. It's not like that at all.
AS I from a Christian or religious site. Dr Collins is a Christian. My point is a reference that has some connection with religion or Christianity is normally rejected and loses all credibility because of that connection. But you seem happy enough to use it to prove a point.
Thats not the point. The point is that great minds who are normally based in scientific thought and logic with everything they do can also accommodate a belief in God which goes against all that is scientific.
Thats still not the point. Why did you choose to use Dr Collins as an example for belief in evolution. Because he is a Christian and you thought that would give you more weight because someone from the other side of the debate agrees that evolution is true. I am doing the same by using a scientist who believes in science which goes against all that is belief in a God and supernatural things. I also included Professor Lennox. I could find a few more modern day scientists or ones that were around when Darwin made his theory like Albert Einstein, Ernst Haeckel or to be more specifically Gregor Mendel who is known as the father of modern genetics.
No the only thing you have mentioned is something that you have never elaborated on in which you say I was wrong on. I suspect it was to do with the convergent evolution in which we briefly discussed again a few posts back. That was clarified and still there is no consensus about what the evidence supports.
I agree but is yours at that level of peer reviewed science to be able to be assured to say I am totally wrong. Does that disqualify me from making comments on the subject overall or at the level for which I can understand. Does that make everything I say wrong.
You haven't gone into any detail of explanation. You have said that the course you are doing has a background in biology but thats all you've said. I honestly cant remember any detail from you on these topics. The majority of your replies have been how either myself or the evidence I post is suspect and wrong because of one reason or another.
I dont want to labor the point. Did you even listen to the video. He explained how the brain worked in his commentary. He explained in detail the steps for how the brain receives a message and then processes it. There must have been around 20 odd steps for this in which he seemed to know very well. The areas covered for which a brain surgeon covers are chemistry, organic chemistry, biology and physics.
Thats exactly what I have just pointed out. Otherwise only those who are qualified evolutionary biologists are allowed to comment. I would say this entire forum may have only 10% if that of qualified evolutionary biologists. But what we can do is refer to the qualified evolutionary biologists for their expertise. We can verify this through their papers. We can learn what they say and then investigate through commentary and comment as to what they are saying and if it stands up. Otherwise this site would be very limited and no one could comment. It just seems to me you are setting a very high bar for anyone who disagrees with evolution.
I didn't say he was an expert. I said surely he knows something more than most about the complexity of the brain and what it takes to make a brain more than most. This gives him an insight into the pathways for which the brain operates. He may not understand the detail within those pathways but he understands the broader workings. (He is seen describing the processes of the brain on the video). That then allows him to understand the basics of what it may take to make up a brain through the evolutionary process. Even I know that a single mutation cannot build multi sections of the brain and that many mutations would be needed. So he should have more understanding than the average person.
I would have thought you would have posted something here if you are so confident and proven your point once and for all here. A simple link to some evidence for what you say would have been easy. Its like you are avoiding this or making it hard for anyone to prove anything. If I cant find it you will say I didn't look hard enough. If I find something that disputes this you will discredit the source.
I am learning and have been. Am I pontificating or just being persistent in what I say and not allowing someone to put one over me. Put it this way, if you were to respond by coming up with some decent evidence that showed me where I am wrong or better still where the support I have posted is wrong then I would graciously concede that I need to rethink things. I am not to big to admit when I am wrong. But I am not stupid to just accept something without any support. I guess if thats not going to happen then there's not much point of going on either because it will just become to frustrating for both of us..
Its completely different and quite possible for you and I to be born and meet on this site. When you break it down you will see the logic of why that may be possible. For one humans want to have babies. Humans in our particular countries will have kids and the chances of those kids being able to have the freedom to go on the internet and sites like this are more possible than other countries. Because you seem to have an interest in these topics and so do I the chances of people like us meeting are greater. If you keep adding those things in then you can see that its not such a big deal.
No, steve. Not going over this again.
Nope, the jury's not out. The verdict was already handed in.
Yes, I know. You misunderstood.
As you've demonstrated.
When you make a claim and cite papers that contradict that claim, it's fairly clear that you are wrong.
Wouldn't you rather make informed and educated comments?
I'm not critiquing the papers, but your understanding and interpretation of them.
Yes, I did, several times. You won't listen.
I would point out that Carson isn't an expert on evolution and that his neurosurgery background doesn't necessarily make him an expert on the "inner workings of the brain," but then I'd be repeating myself.
According to his Wikipedia page, Carson said the following in a 2006 debate: "I don't believe in evolution...I simply don't have enough faith to believe that something as complex as our ability to rationalize, think, and plan, and have a moral sense of what's right and wrong, just appeared" (emphasis added). Based on that comment, Carson either doesn't understand evolution well enough or he is misrepresenting it.
I'm not setting the bar too high. You don't have to be an evolutionary biologist to comment. But you do have to have an adequate understanding of what evolution is.
No, that doesn't follow. For the last time, his training is in neurosurgery. Why should he be expected to know what would be required for the brain to evolve? Based on the comment above, it appears that he doesn't even fully understand how evolution works. If you want to know something about how the brain evolved, then Carson is not an expert. It's not his area.
I provided a "simple link" to educational resources to teach you the fundamentals of evolution. I see no reason to provide links to other sources while you still lack a basic understanding of it.
Pontificating.
No, you wouldn't, because I've already done that, multiple times. You don't listen. You just ramble on.
It's already frustrating for me. It was frustrating for me several pages ago You don't listen. You pretend to, but then you just carry on as normal. I provide links. You ignore them. I explain how you have misinterpreted the papers. You ignore my explanation and just ramble on. Then you write a post this, pretending that you will graciously concede if only I do exactly what I have already done.
Then you understand why the fine-tuning argument doesn't work. Lawrence Krauss does a good job of explaining it in this piece.
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
Who said that randomness/chance were the only options?
The point is, as Collins acknowledges, that the evidence for evolution is "truly overwhelming."
So you are now claiming that theism "goes against all that is scientific"? This is in direct contrast to what you usually claim, which is that science is increasingly pointing to god. So which is it?
Why? Because he acknowledges the evidence.
He happens to be Christian, yes.
Yes, many scientists also happen to be theists. What point are you trying to draw from this? By the way, Einstein considered the concept of a personal god childish.
So if I said the same man said that God is real would you take that as being just as valid. Or do you just pick and choose what he said as being valid.
They go hand in hand. You cant have one without the other. Science makes believing in God more real. Science will open up all the doors and show us the amazing complexity of how things work. We can then see how amazing God is by His handy work. But if we didn't see this then we would only be imagining which is OK but seeing how it all works makes it more real. Then we can get to that point where the science can no longer explain things anymore such as where science is getting to now. Just like how quantum physics is dealing with something from nothing. Trying to work out what nothing is and how matter comes into reality. This is showing us that everything in this tiny world which is really what makes up everything is working differently to the reality that we see around us. There is almost a magical quality about it that deifies the physics that works in the world we see.
So dont you think that is in conflict with what you believe. Don't you think for someone you have just used as a support for evolution which for most says there is no God is also supporting the idea of many things that science doesn't support. Most people who dont believe in God would say Dr Collins is not a good example because he is in two minds and believes in fairy tales. That a person who believes in a supernatural God cannot be credible for support of anything.
The point is those scientists believe in a supernatural God which is going against all that is scientific. They are doing what science says that shouldn't do. So if you want to use them for support for evolution then they can just as easily be used for support for God and creation. Creation in the sense that God created all the ingredients to start life and without Him there would be any evolution.
You're confusing the point at issue, steve. Collins' religious opinions are irrelevant. The only reason to mention his religious opinions is to note that they are not clouding his judgment of the evidence for evolution.
No, those two statements are contradictory. You usually claim that science is increasingly pointing toward theism. Yet here you claimed that theism "goes against all that is scientific." Which is it, steve? You can't claim that science increasingly makes the case for theism and that theism "goes against all that is scientific."
This is just your usual argument from ignorance. If we cannot explain how something works, then we are ignorant; we don't know. Wouldn't we be fooling ourselves by feigning knowledge that we do not possess?
How does Francis Collins "use science as a way to show God"? How do you reconcile this with your earlier claim that theism "goes against all that is scientific"?
No. Once again, you are confusing the point at issue. We aren't discussing Collins' religious opinions. They are irrelevant. Shall we discuss his political opinions too?
You are contradicting yourself again. Either their scientific work makes the case for theism, as you often claim it does, or theism "goes against all that is scientific." You cannot claim that both these statements are true.
Once again, you are confusing the point at issue. We aren't discussing the religious opinions of these individuals. If you want to do that, then first take note of the fact that their opinions all differ. Newton was raised in an Anglican family, though many of the views he later developed did not align with conventional Anglicanism. Mendel was a Roman Catholic. Einstein thought that the concept of a personal creator was childish. Collins is an evangelical Christian. Increase the sample size and you'll find an even greater diversity of religious thought among scientists. You'll also find that many scientists are not religious. So what are we to make of this? Should we hold Einstein's opinion above Newtons, or should we endorse Collins' evangelical views? Is there any reason that we should privilege the religious opinions of one scientist over another?
No you brought his religious status into it by using him of all people. You only say that his religious views dont cloud his judgement of evolution because you are already assuming that evolution is true. But if we go by how anti religious people normally go Dr Collins believes in fairy tales so therefore his views of everything are suspect. Otherwise if they are not then surely his views on religion and God are just as valid as those on evolution. Unless you want to say that he is together on his views of evolution and out of whack on his views of God and religion.
Science goes against religious belief as far as the way it determines what is fact in our reality. It has to be testable and verified. Science cant test belief or the supernatural. In that sense it goes against all that is God and belief. When I say they can go hand in hand I mean that a person just like Dr Collins who has a mind based in science can also have a personal faith in God. Science can only tell us how something works or happened. Faith can only answer the questions of why it happened. But science may only be able to explain so much. There maybe things that cant be explained by the scientific method.
You have misunderstood what I mean by this. As I have said before it is not an argument from ignorance because we know what the parameters for the type of things that will answer these questions we find hard to answer at the moment. We know what realm the answers will be in because the scientists themselves have told us what it will be like. The type of answers they have use in an attempt to answer this are in the realms of being out of this world and our reality.
Ive already explained this. It goes against all that is science by not being able to be tested in the way science can verify things. But because science can get us to a point where it breaks down itself and what it sees cannot be verified by the usual parameters that science uses for falsification it can reveal the qualities of God. So in that sense science can reveal God.
It is relevant because this is a religious forum and not a political one. This topic is natural selection which is on the scientific side and intelligent design which is on the religious side. Like I said you used Dr Collins as an example because he was a Christian. So you have introduced this yourself.
Ive already explained this.
AS I said why did you choose DR Collins out of all the scientists to prove your case for evolution. You did because some Christians believe in evolution. The scientists I am using believe in God and therefore a form of creation. Thats all that matters not their particular religion for this point. The point being that you chose a Christian/religious person to make a point that even a Christian/religious person believes in evolution so it must be true. I just countered that by saying that even some scientists believe in God and his creation.
I think that was the point I was making. That they shouldn't be confused with each other. That just because you have a religious connection doesn't mean that your scientific knowledge is wrong. But that is exactly the assumption that some people who believe in evolution come to when scientific evidence is presented which may have even the slightest connection with God or religion. Even if the person is an expert in their field they still lose all credibility as soon as the connection is made.
It doesn't matter if they are a Christian or not. The point was more about the persons believe in God and his creation. I think Newton qualifies from the statement I posted. But if you want I can find many other Christian scientists to make the point.
