What to talk about...

[juvenissun]

Juvenissun, how do you think ions got into the oceans? were they always there?

1. through the dissolution power of water
2. as long as water was in the ocean (I do understand the thing called residential time)

I reply because I am curious about your wonderful followup questions. Don't disappoint me.

 

[juvenissun]

This, as I have come to expect from Juve, is absolute rubbish. The Cambrian explosion lasted about 40-60 million years which is about 10% of the history of multicellular life forms.

How this can be described as is beyond me, but par for the course for Juve spouting off about things he knows nothing about with that air of authority.

It depends on how do you look at it. The feature of "rapid emergence" of species seems indeed lasted for a longer period of time. But many new species simply appeared without any previous fossil record. No matter at what time in the Cambrian period they emerged, they still appeared in a sudden.

 

[Nathan Poe]

What would you do if people (include yourself) challenge your faith by science? There is no shortage of such people in this forum. Would that disturb your reconciliation between science and God?

Are you suggesting that someone has claimed that scientifically, there is no God?

I'd love to see that post.

 

[edrogati]

Are you suggesting that someone has claimed that scientifically, there is no God?

I'd love to see that post.

I'm not sure of procedure on cut and paste. It was claimed within the last couple of hours that the whole of science rules out the existence of a god. I'll go see if I can dig up the specific thread and post number.

 

[edrogati]

I'm not sure of procedure on cut and paste. It was claimed within the last couple of hours that the whole of science rules out the existence of a god. I'll go see if I can dig up the specific thread and post number.

"Question for Creationists", post #86

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

What would you do if people (include yourself) challenge your faith by science? There is no shortage of such people in this forum. Would that disturb your reconciliation between science and God?

Depends what evidence was presented. But either way, as I said before, reconciling the two is a matter of finding no contradiction; if there's a contradiction, something's wrong. So I'd look at the science and I'd look at my theology. I'd think long and hard until I determined what had to give. I've done it before and, if necessary, I'll do it again. I refuse to knowingly believe a lie.

OK, now that I've answered your question, how about you answer some of mine?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

No. Short thread.

My need for a God is personal, not scientific. Like I've said before, I don't believe in a god who only fits in the gaps in our knowledge.

This was my point, the need for a god is personal, because without a god or gods there are none of those nice comfort blankets; every religious person I know believes in an afterlife of eternity in their own personal paradise.

It would be just as easy to believe in a god, but with no afterlife; of course no one does because the afterlife and the comfort it brings is more important than just believing a god created the universe.

Which is where the special status for humans comes in, if we are indeed just another animal, no different than chimpanzees for example then either all life is special or no life is special, in the sense of being made in gods image.

The plain and simple truth is that we are no different to any other creature on this planet or any other planet in the universe, we all live, we all die and that’s that.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

"Question for Creationists", post #86

There you go

Without trying to mindread, I think Chalnoth's point is one that he made to me a while back: that the lack of (scientific) evidence for God is sufficient evidence not to believe. That is, in science many things are denied because of lack of evidence. Essentially it's Russell's Teapot.

To post links, "[u_r_l = (url goes here)]blah blah[/u_r_l]" without the underscores.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

It would be just as easy to believe in a god, but with no afterlife; of course no one does

What the smeg, CL? I just told you that I do just that:

Again, I don't have any particular belief on the afterlife. I think the message of Christ is related to the here and now, not vague nevernevers. But, again, that's probably just me. Interestingly, though, I don't think giving up the idea of eternal paradise was that hard for me. I certainly don't remember angsting over it at all.

 

[edrogati]

There you go

Without trying to mindread, I think Chalnoth's point is one that he made to me a while back: that the lack of (scientific) evidence for God is sufficient evidence not to believe. That is, in science many things are denied because of lack of evidence. Essentially it's Russell's Teapot.

To post links, "[u_r_l = (url goes here)]blah blah[/u_r_l]" without the underscores.

Thanks for the hyperlink lesson. As for the idea that things can be denied for lack of evidence, I understand the logical argument (I think), but does it hold truth as time goes on? For example, there was no definite evidence for other planets around other stars until astronomers and astrophysicists worked out a way to see and measure their presence. No science denied that they existed, as far as I know. Current lack of evidence only leads to current lack of existence. Or am I not stating this correctly?

 

[MarcusHill]

As for the idea that things can be denied for lack of evidence, I understand the logical argument (I think), but does it hold truth as time goes on? For example, there was no definite evidence for other planets around other stars until astronomers and astrophysicists worked out a way to see and measure their presence. No science denied that they existed, as far as I know. Current lack of evidence only leads to current lack of existence. Or am I not stating this correctly?

Well, no, not existence, but acceptance or belief. Planets existed long before any humans discovered them, but there was no point in acting as if they existed until we knew what and where they were.

We currently have no evidence that any part of the solar system beyond the Earth's atmosphere is habitable by humans who don't take oxygen, water and food or a way of generating them on their spacecraft. We therefore don't believe that there is such a place, nor do we act as if it exists. Specifically, we don't send out manned spacecraft with enough air to get to somewhere that we haven't looked at properly that just might have breathable air, nor do we send unmanned craft to scour the asteroid belt for hollow air-filled bodies. The risks and effort/cost involved aren't warranted given the lack of evidence that they would have positive results. However, if a place within the solar system with breathable air were somehow discovered, we'd be launching probes and craft as fast as we could.

The atheist attitude to the nonexistence of gods is similar, though the risk/reward calculations are far less clear cut than the example I gave. We see no evidence for the existence of any gods, therefore we act as if they don't exist, and don't expend time, effort or money that could be better used based on better evidenced assumptions. However, if any of us sees evidence of the existence of any gods and evidence of what actions would gain benefits from them, we'll be doing that stuff in an eyeblink.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

What the smeg, CL? I just told you that I do just that:

My apologies: out of interest how many people do you know that believe in a god that created the universe, but not in an afterlife?

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

My apologies: out of interest how many people do you know that believe in a god that created the universe, but not in an afterlife?

No worries. Sorry if I was a bit... reactionary -- I was just peeved at being "no one" As to your question, I don't think I'm the best person to sample. I suspect, though, that such a belief is strongly in the minority. However, what people's motivations are to believe in an afterlife is another question entirely. You are probably right that in many cases it is comfort. But perhaps not a "don't take my Santa Claus away! Lalalala I'm not listening!" kind of reality-denial, but rather a deep belief in some kind of order/justice/whatever in the universe.

 

[Bombila]

...But perhaps not a "don't take my Santa Claus away! Lalalala I'm not listening!" kind of reality-denial, but rather a deep belief in some kind of order/justice/whatever in the universe.

In many cases, I imagine a belief in an afterlife is a positive evaluation of the value of a human personality; that it shouldn't blink out on death, it has worth. Many people, against any Biblical evidence I've ever seen, extend the belief to their pets.

 

[Naraoia]

The Cambrian explosion issue is hard because it involves several major aspects, such as biology, chemistry, and, of course, the controls of physics/astronomy are hidden.

I agree it's a very complex issue. That's one reason why I don't believe in a single-factor explanation. Though, would you mind enlightening me? What do these "controls of physics/astronomy" have to do with the Cambrian?

Nevertheless, one of the major hurdle is the TIME constrain. All the processes had to be done in a geologically very short period of time.

The way I see it is that at least some of the "explosion" is an artefact of preservation. Complex animals could be (and, apparently, were*) there long before the Lower Cambrian and you wouldn't see them because they didn't have hard parts, were too small to have much chance of preservation, or were only preserved as trace fossils.

Or perhaps you wouldn't be able to tell what they are because their preservation isn't as detailed as, say, that of Burgess Shale or Chengjiang organisms. Creatures from the Burgess Shale could still be controversial (Odontogriphus is one example that comes to mind). How many Ediacaran fossils are preserved in Burgess Shale level detail?

In any case, there are tens of millions of years between the appearance of Ediacaran fossils, some of which may be related to Cambrian animals*, and the Lower Cambrian. An awful lot can happen in that time, especially if all the conditions for an adaptive radiation are present. And if the awful lot happens to soft-bodied animals you are very lucky to see even a few fragments of the story.

*My favourite example is Parvancorina as a potential early relative of trilobites [discussion of trilobite origins at trilobites.info]. Another find I'm simply thrilled by is the Precambrian fossil embryos from China, which apparently represent fairly complex animals [pharyngula entry] [paper]

 

[Naraoia]

This thread is not the place for it. But if you ever tried to dive into a detail debate on any evolution issue, chances are that neither side could ever get out of the debate and claim winning.

Really? What I've seen so far tends to resemble another situation. One side clearly wins the argument and the other refuses to admit it. But of course I'm on only one side of the debate

This nature of CvE debate says strongly: evolution has problems everywhere (even it is so to Creation too).

Why would it say anything like that? At most it says that both sides are stubborn as all hell.

Anyway, it's a natural part of science that there are problems to be solved. As far as I can tell, that's what science is about. But I'm hard pressed to recall a problem that seriously threatens the theory of evolution (now, not 150 or 50 or 20 years ago).

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Thanks for the hyperlink lesson. As for the idea that things can be denied for lack of evidence, I understand the logical argument (I think), but does it hold truth as time goes on? For example, there was no definite evidence for other planets around other stars until astronomers and astrophysicists worked out a way to see and measure their presence. No science denied that they existed, as far as I know. Current lack of evidence only leads to current lack of existence. Or am I not stating this correctly?

Basically what MarcusHill said.

An example Chalnoth used (assuming "God" = "interventionist deity that listens to prayers and answers them, sometimes with miraculous power"):

There are NO documented cases of amputees regrowing limbs. None. This is a problem for God. If God exists, we should expect to see some amount of limb-regrowing evidence. The lack of evidence is more than just, well, a lack of evidence -- it's evidence of God's absence. IOW, if we should see some effect and we don't, then we have evidence against whatever was supposed to cause that effect (cf the aether and the Michelson-Morley (sp?) experiment).

 

[Naraoia]

I don't know a thing on what you said.

I suggest you learn about them, then. Chromosome two and endogenous retroviruses are among the best pieces of evidence for our common ancestry with other apes.

But that is ONE issue. There are at least 99 others.

One issue shows beyond reasonable doubt that chimps humans are related by descent. If those 99 other issues are to make a difference they should invalidate the evidence of the other 1 and not just pose unanswered questions about the details.

The one I favored (not I know much) is the difference on "intelligence". Is that also a biological issue?

Very much so, but not only. As MasterOfKrikkit said, it's also a matter of nurture. (I wonder how much of the linguistic and cognitive capability of apes like Kanzi or Koko, or the parrots Alex and Griffin, would've developed if they weren't taught by humans)

Which gene is responsible for that?

Which gene is responsible for your height? The answer to both questions is: many genes. This is simply because intelligence is a very complex phenomenon, a composite of many abilities and needs a big brain with a complex structure, biochemistry and physiology. No way to make that all with one gene.

 

[Bombila]

This thread is not the place for it. But if you ever tried to dive into a detail debate on any evolution issue, chances are that neither side could ever get out of the debate and claim winning. This nature of CvE debate says strongly: evolution has problems everywhere (even it is so to Creation too).

Juvenissun, do you frequent other places where evolution is discussed that are not first and foremost Christian forums overpopulated with American creationists? Converse on sites dedicated to zoology or microbiology or marine biology or paleontology?

In secular conversation - not atheist, mind you, just secular - evolution is discussed as an entirely accepted and hugely explanatory and predictive theory. The subjects of discussion are not if living creatures evolved, but how they evolved, what mechanisms were influential or causative, the likely sequences and relationships, the practical uses to which such knowledge can be put; the nuts and bolts of how evolution works.

I don't even personally know a single creationist under the age of eighty, and even at that age they are a rare find in my neck of the woods. It is primarily the peculiar direction a large subset of American Christianity has taken that causes anyone to think there is any meaningful controversy to speak of. In most other developed countries, creationists are a vanishing small minority, and most don't try to wedge their notions into the educational system, as they know they would be doomed to failure from the start.

Don't base your assessment of the CvE balance of argument on CF or other religious forums where Americans dominate the conversation, because it will not present to you an accurate reality.

 

[juvenissun]

Are you suggesting that someone has claimed that scientifically, there is no God?

I'd love to see that post.

Are you saying that science could NOT prove that there is no God?

Great, I wish you can broadcast it. I may even contribute some money for your work.