Evolution and God

Theology, Religious Studies, religion, god, faith and other topics of a spiritual nature.

Re: Evolution and God

Postby davidm on May 29th, 2018, 1:05 pm 

2. The process of evolution does not work if you are protecting individuals from harm. For this to work, the only protecting involved would be that of protecting the environment needed for the evolution of life. And that includes an environment with serious challenges to survival.


So God cares only for the Volk and not the individual? This sounds rather fascistic to me. Why does God like evolution? Why do you think God exists at all?

Hardly... The problem was first stated before Christianity even existed by ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus from 270 BC ... All it requires is the belief in a being who is supposedly opposes evil and has the ability to do something about it, and the acknowledgement that evil exists in the world.


Yes, the problem was first stated before Christianity, but comes conspicuously into focus with Christianity, which formalizes the idea of an all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful God who nevertheless allows evil, both man-made and natural, to occur.
davidm
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 22
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Evolution and God

Postby mitchellmckain on May 29th, 2018, 2:03 pm 

davidm » May 29th, 2018, 12:05 pm wrote:
2. The process of evolution does not work if you are protecting individuals from harm. For this to work, the only protecting involved would be that of protecting the environment needed for the evolution of life. And that includes an environment with serious challenges to survival.

So God cares only for the Volk and not the individual? This sounds rather fascistic to me.

This does not follow. By same ridiculously stupid argument you would say that surgeons don't care about their patients but only their illnesses or that judges don't care about people but only about laws. It is absurdly childish. There is such a thing as responsibilities. Surgeons slice people open because they are the ones who have to deal with the problems which require this and judges are in much the same circumstance. Without a species there are no individual and thus this babble about caring for individuals as a basis for shirking what the very existence of those individuals requires in the first place, is the nonsensical drivel of someone indulging in willful ignorance due to my-side bias.

davidm » May 29th, 2018, 12:05 pm wrote:
Hardly... The problem was first stated before Christianity even existed by ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus from 270 BC ... All it requires is the belief in a being who is supposedly opposes evil and has the ability to do something about it, and the acknowledgement that evil exists in the world.


Yes, the problem was first stated before Christianity, but comes conspicuously into focus with Christianity, which formalizes the idea of an all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful God who nevertheless allows evil, both man-made and natural, to occur.

The only content I see in your words is your own particular conspicuous focus on "Christianity," though I have my doubts about whether you really know the meaning of this word. In any case, lots of religions satisfy those conditions. And if anything brings it "into focus" it is any talk of intelligent design and the Watchmaker conception of a creator. Of course, that sort of thing might be exactly what Christianity is equated with in whatever corner of the globe you crawled out of.

davidm » May 29th, 2018, 12:05 pm wrote: This sounds rather fascistic to me.

That's funny... you sound rather fascistic to me.

davidm » May 29th, 2018, 12:05 pm wrote: Why does God like evolution?

Why do surgeons like cutting people open?
Shall I summarize the above for the reading impaired?
1. Self-organization is the definition of life.
2. God is interested in life because he values love and freedom rather than power and control. Hard for some people to understand, I know. It seems that power and control is all that some people can comprehend.
3. Evolution is the learning process by which life develops.

davidm » May 29th, 2018, 12:05 pm wrote:Why do you think God exists at all?

Offends you that someone believes differently than you do, does it?
Regardless, this is a question for another thread, but here is where I have addressed this question when it has come up before. There you will find a list that begins with "1. As a physicist I have to ask..."

And before you start dusting off cans of old rhetoric, I suggest you read the thread "My Side" Bias and Distortion unless boring us all to death is what you want to accomplish.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Evolution and God

Postby davidm on May 29th, 2018, 2:51 pm 

My, my, touchy, aren't we? :-D

Does this place have smilies?
davidm
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 22
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Evolution and God

Postby Braininvat on May 29th, 2018, 3:10 pm 

I would ask posters to address the discursive points and steer clear of ad hominems. That approach is even better than smiley faces.

This is a religion forum, so you can critique faith-based beliefs, but hopefully after you've developed a solid knowledge of the particular faith you are targeting.

The PoE is common to many theistic religions. Let's move on.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6377
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Evolution and God

Postby davidm on May 29th, 2018, 3:37 pm 

Giver that I was subject to a torrent of unwarranted and even venemous insults, I’ll avoid engaging with the above poster in the future.

I do not think there is any necessary conflict between religious belief and evolution. It all depends on what the religious belief is, though.

Many Christians are fundamentalists who think the world was created in six days, 6,000 years ago. Such beliefs are in absolute conflict with evolution.

The Catholic Church accepts evolution, but maintains that at some point, God ensouled proto-humans. Nothing in evolutionary theory is in accordance with souls, or ensoulment. So the Catholic view of evolution, while accommodating, is nonetheless at variance with evolutionary theory.

A Deist conception of God, or an ID conception of a creator, is most in accord with evolution, as I see it. The deist God simply sets the ball rolling and gets out of the way. Whatever happens, happens, come what may. The ID conception is that some unspecified designer created organisms, or meddled in their evolution, presumably in pursuit of some unknown result. Both conceptions are consistent with the evil and suffering in the world. The Christian conception of God, broadly speaking, is not. Although the Problem of Evil was broadly mooted before Christianity, it is a fact, as I stated above, that it has most conspicuously come into focus with the Christian conception of a God that is all-knowing, all good, and all powerful, yet inexplicably permits evil to flourish and even triumph.

In addition, Christianity, it its broad outlines (different sects have different takes on this) posits a prelapsarian state. Adam and Eve fell, and introduced evil into the world. Christ was sent as the redeemer.

None of this is in concordance with evolutionary theory. Evolution shows that there was no prelapsarian state, no Garden of Eden, but that nature has always been red in tooth and claw. It also shows, as I noted upthread, that there could not have been a first man and woman. Population genetics shows that the original evolved human subpopulation could not have been less that about 1,500.

Evolution is a matter of contingency, not progress or teleology. Humans evolved contingently, and very late in the history of the world. If the 4.6 billion-year history of the world could be condensed into a single calendar year, beginning on Jan. 1 and ending on Dec. 31, then humans made their first appearance on earth at about one tenth of a second before midnight on the last day of the year. The inconsequentiality of humans to the history of the earth is breathtaking. By itself this does not rule out a God who is interested in humans, but in my opinion makes such an entity wildly implausible to say the least.
davidm
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 22
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Evolution and God

Postby mitchellmckain on May 29th, 2018, 4:47 pm 

It often happens that when someone comes in on the tail end of a discussion that they can be quite offensive without intending to. The thread begins with a request for some explanation for how scientists can believe in both evolution and God. I suppose it was inevitable that someone with an anti-religious chip on their shoulder would respond to any attempt to answer such a question with viscous intolerance. It seems those ready to abuse science with some pseudo-scientific rhetoric of how science is on their side and supports their subjective religious beliefs are a demonic legion.

davidm » May 29th, 2018, 2:37 pm wrote:I do not think there is any necessary conflict between religious belief and evolution. It all depends on what the religious belief is, though.

Exactly!

davidm » May 29th, 2018, 2:37 pm wrote:Many Christians are fundamentalists who think the world was created in six days, 6,000 years ago. Such beliefs are in absolute conflict with evolution.

..and geology and astronomy and the list goes on quite a ways...

davidm » May 29th, 2018, 2:37 pm wrote:The Catholic Church accepts evolution, but maintains that at some point, God ensouled proto-humans. Nothing in evolutionary theory is in accordance with souls, or ensoulment. So the Catholic view of evolution, while accommodating, is nonetheless at variance with evolutionary theory.

Seems you are a little confused about the meaning of "at variance." Logical inconsistencies with the objective evidence is one thing. Disagreeing with the quite separate philosophy of naturalism that equates reality with the limits of the objective evidence, is quite a different thing . While I don't agree with the Catholic viewpoint, there is NOTHING in your description which is logically inconsistent with the objective evidence. Coming to different subjective conclusions based on the evidence is a different thing entirely.

davidm » May 29th, 2018, 2:37 pm wrote:In addition, Christianity, it its broad outlines (different sects have different takes on this) posits a prelapsarian state. Adam and Eve fell, and introduced evil into the world. Christ was sent as the redeemer.

None of this is in concordance with evolutionary theory. Evolution shows that there was no prelapsarian state, no Garden of Eden, but that nature has always been red in tooth and claw. It also shows, as I noted upthread, that there could not have been a first man and woman. Population genetics shows that the original evolved human subpopulation could not have been less that about 1,500.

Incorrect. Since the so called prelapsarian state consists of a mere 16 or so years of the childhood of only two people this claim that evolution shows there was no such state sounds a lot like creationist complaints of missing links in the evolutionary chain. Both are so mired in their own ideological mental box, it appears they are unable to speak coherently about what the objective evidence shows. How in the world could evolution show that such a 16 year period in the lives of two people did not exist? That is completely absurd!

Instead let's stick with the facts.
1. Evolution requires that death was always a part of the development of life for at least 3.5 billion years.
2. Evolution shows that homo sapiens species did not begin with two individuals.
Does this have a significant impact on the claims by Christians? Absolutely!
1. The idea that Adam and Eve did something which brought death into the world is unreasonable.
2. The idea that Adam and Eve were the first of the homo sapiens species is unreasonble.
But the Bible is does not back up such claims very well.
1. Even before this event, eternal life is presented as something which has not been obtained and God speaks to Adam and Eve of death.
2. The text has Cain speaking of other people on the earth in Genesis 4:14.

So in summary, evolution like many scientific discoveries does alter what religious beliefs are reasonable. It certainly shows that some religious beliefs are unreasonable, whether they are actually believed by people or they are just how the other people choose to understand them. Regardless, there are many things which science cannot speak to because they are not a matter of objective evidence.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Evolution and God

Postby davidm on May 29th, 2018, 5:13 pm 

Not going to wade through the rest, but just briefly respond to this:

It often happens that when someone comes in on the tail end of a discussion that they can be quite offensive without intending to.


I can't see anything offensive in what I wrote, unless you think a request for some reason to believe in God is offensive.

The thread begins with a request for some explanation for how scientists can believe in both evolution and God. I suppose it was inevitable that someone with an anti-religious chip on their shoulder would respond to any attempt to answer such a question with viscous intolerance.


I don't have an anti-religioius chip on my shoulder, and nothing in my post can be construed as "vicious intolerance."

But anyway, that's enough. You're a bore -- as well as viciously intolerant.
davidm
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 22
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Evolution and God

Postby mitchellmckain on May 29th, 2018, 8:55 pm 

davidm » May 29th, 2018, 4:13 pm wrote:But anyway, that's enough. You're a bore -- as well as viciously intolerant.

And thus you name yourself, for I have only dished back what you have served. But a lot people cannot take what they are in the habit of dealing out to others.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Evolution and God

Postby mitchellmckain on June 2nd, 2018, 5:33 pm 

davidm » May 29th, 2018, 4:13 pm wrote:I can't see anything offensive in what I wrote, unless you think a request for some reason to believe in God is offensive.

As a sincere request, it isn't. But your attitude gave me good reason to doubt it was anything of the sort.

davidm » May 29th, 2018, 4:13 pm wrote:I don't have an anti-religioius chip on my shoulder

I am reminded of many claims in the south by people that they are not racist. People are often not conscious of the attitudes buried in their assumptions and the rhetoric they parrot.

davidm » May 29th, 2018, 4:13 pm wrote:nothing in my post can be construed as "vicious intolerance."

Agreed. Neither is there anything "fascistic" in what you said. That wasn't point. The point was that YOU used these same terms with no more justification than I had -- judgements that were so extremely subjective and knee-jerk they lacked any rational input. The question is, why were these demonstrations so ineffective at making this point? Apparently the "wiring" which connects your evaluation of what other people say and what you say is somewhat lacking -- you might call it an hypocrisy filter.

davidm » May 29th, 2018, 4:13 pm wrote:You're a bore -- as well as viciously intolerant.

I am rather intolerant of intolerance, it is true. But I think the idea that tolerance should include a tolerance of intolerance is complete nonsense.

As for being a bore, that is an extremely relative label. Sports enthusiasts and those enthused by reality tv shows would be extreme bores to me, while science and philosophy (not to mention theology) are undoubtedly a bore to the majority of the population. That our interests diverge is indeed evident. While your interests may include trashing the beliefs of others with a few worn out cliches, my interests lean more to the rational discussion in an atmosphere of tolerance.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Evolution and God

Postby davidm on June 5th, 2018, 4:54 pm 

Just skimmed quickly over your latest stuff. Sorry, still not going to
engage. You are a bore, as I said, and viciously intolerant, whereas I am
not.

You read all sorts of wrong things into a couple of spare paragraphs that
I wrote and then vomited a bunch of personal insults in response to me.
Anyone can see this makes you viciously intolerant, as well as —
obviously! — deeply insecure about the beliefs you profess to hold.

I think one should make a distinction between the philosophy of religion
and theology. The former is a fully justified field of study that examines
the philosophical presuppositions and implications of various forms of
religious beliefs, religious beliefs being a fact about the world. The
philosophy of religion, I would suggest, is therefore a subset of
metaphysics. Theology, on the other hand, is a field of study without an
existent topic, like enumerating the properties and behaviors of the tooth
fairy.

I have never seen anyone posit a god that isn’t exactly like one wishes
god or gods to be. You’re no different. That’s one reason your stuff is so
boring.

Yawn.
davidm
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 22
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Evolution and God

Postby mitchellmckain on June 5th, 2018, 8:16 pm 

davidm » June 5th, 2018, 3:54 pm wrote:Just skimmed quickly over your latest stuff. Sorry, still not going to
engage.

So you say as you engage. And like your previous posts, where you engage shows the truth of your interests.

Topic of evolution and God. NOPE... no interest there.
Question of why someone would believe in God? NOPE... no interest there.
Discussion with people who think differently than you do? Nope... no interest there.
Name calling and insults? Check. Full marks on that one.
Condemnation of people who dare to believe different things than yourself? Check. no lack of interest in that.

Hey, life is short and you have to choose what you will do with your time, so nobody can blame you for following your interests and avoid things which are outside your skill set.

davidm » June 5th, 2018, 3:54 pm wrote:You are a bore, as I said, and viciously intolerant, whereas I am
not.

The painful truth is that everyone is tolerant of some things and intolerant of other things. I can certainly agree that you are tolerant of intolerance whereas I am not. Where your tolerance is somewhat lacking is when it comes to people you disagree with. That is clear in the personal nature of your replies. As for me, when it comes to belief which I don't think are logically coherent, consistent with the scientific evidence or compatible with the ideals of a free society then I am not going to pussy foot around about making that clear whether the person feels insulted by it or not. But one thing I make crystal clear is that this does not include atheism, and thus I routinely defend atheism as a perfectly rational belief. But that doesn't mean that I will not call both atheists and theists out on their irrational claims.

davidm » June 5th, 2018, 3:54 pm wrote:You read all sorts of wrong things into a couple of spare paragraphs that
I wrote and then vomited a bunch of personal insults in response to me.
Anyone can see this makes you viciously intolerant, as well as —
obviously! — deeply insecure about the beliefs you profess to hold.

You read all sorts of wrong things into a couple of spare paragraphs that
I wrote and then vomited a bunch of personal insults in response to me.
Anyone can see this makes you viciously intolerant, as well as —
obviously! — deeply insecure about the beliefs you profess to hold.

YOU are the one who came out of nowhere with no knowledge of the person you are talking to except a bunch of idiot preconceptions. So... I bet you pull the same stunt wherever you go. Drop in out of nowhere with insults and presumptions and then throw up this smokescreen about how nobody knows anything about you. It is laughable.

davidm » June 5th, 2018, 3:54 pm wrote:I think one should make a distinction between the philosophy of religion
and theology.

That much is correct. But the rest is much like the nonsense I have heard from people about psychology -- saying there is nothing scientific about it. Now that is quite true of theology, it is not a science -- not by the modern meaning of that word. The thinking of the middle ages that theology is "the queen of the sciences," is one of things that separate that dark period from modern times. But the same pretty much goes for philosophy also -- it is not science. Psychology, however, adheres the same methodological ideals as the other science -- it is a soft science because these ideals are harder to realize in this subject.

So what is the distinction between philosophy of religion and theology? There is the same basic methodology of logic taking you from premises to conclusions with no measurements of objective evidence anywhere in sight. For the most part the differences are in the premises. What about authority which particular theologies give to certain books? Well even though it isn't as prominent, this is still comparable to the authority which particular philosophies give to books and their authors. On the other hand, theologies tend to be connected to religious organizations which tend to put the dictates of their authoritarian structure with some oversight over what works of theology are acceptable to them and which are not. But that last difference evaporates when no religious organizations are involved, and it is simply individuals discussing their personal stand on the issues. And then there is academic theology which like philosophy is more connected with universities and academia, sharing at least that one methodology of academic oversight through peer review, with the sciences.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Evolution and God

Postby edy420 on June 10th, 2018, 5:50 am 

davidm » 27 May 2018, 04:32 wrote:
edy420 » May 25th, 2018, 4:40 pm wrote:Is it fair to say, evolution is perfect, as an idea of perpetual self improvement..


Evolution is not "perfect," whatever that is supposed to mean, and has nothing to do with "perpetual self-improvement."


Quite simply, as time progresses incrementally, evolutionary subjects evolve in leaps of self improvement.
Therefore, if we think of time as having progressed indefinitely, then subjects of evolution will self improve indefinitely.
Or in other words, become perfect.
The “code” of evolution is therefore, perfect.
But there is only one who can creat something perfect /wink

Evolution and abiogenesis together, state that man was created from dust.


Evolution and abiogenesis does not state this.


Abiogenisis is just a bucket of sea water and rock zapped with lightning, and hey presto we have life.
In other words, life is created from dust.
Evolution states that man originated from abiogenisis.

I find it ironic that atheists laugh at the idea that man was made from dust because my statement is true.
According to science, man was made from dust.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Evolution and God

Postby edy420 on June 10th, 2018, 6:03 am 

Heard an interesting argument from a scientist/synthetic chemist who said he doesnt understand evolution.

He asks, how do we get DNA without a cell embryo, and how do we get a cell embryo without DNA.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Evolution and God

Postby davidm on June 10th, 2018, 2:21 pm 

edy420 » June 10th, 2018, 3:50 am wrote:
davidm » 27 May 2018, 04:32 wrote:
edy420 » May 25th, 2018, 4:40 pm wrote:Is it fair to say, evolution is perfect, as an idea of perpetual self improvement..


Evolution is not "perfect," whatever that is supposed to mean, and has nothing to do with "perpetual self-improvement."


Quite simply, as time progresses incrementally, evolutionary subjects evolve in leaps of self improvement.
Therefore, if we think of time as having progressed indefinitely, then subjects of evolution will self improve indefinitely.


No. Evolution is change in allele frequencies over time, due to things like natural selection, genetic drift and pure chance. Evolution is not improvement, just change.

Or in other words, become perfect.


No. See above. Are birds “improved” over dinosaurs? Yet birds are dinosaurs.

The “code” of evolution is therefore, perfect.


No. And evolution is not a code.

But there is only one who can creat something perfect /wink


No.

Abiogenisis is just a bucket of sea water and rock zapped with lightning, and hey presto we have life.


No. A ridiculous strawman to which no evolutionary biologist subscribes.

In other words, life is created from dust.


No. Life is a chemical process. Chemistry has a number of different replicators. Most likely life started from very simple replicators that became subject to selection. Also, simple does not mean “less perfect” than complex. Most engineering solutions are fairly simple. Complex life is raddled with imperfections that would shame any competent designer.

Evolution states that man originated from abiogenisis.


Evolution states no such thing. Evolution and abiogenesis are different fields of study.

I find it ironic that atheists laugh at the idea that man was made from dust because my statement is true.


No, it isn't.

According to science, man was made from dust.


Wrong.
davidm
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 22
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Evolution and God

Postby mitchellmckain on June 10th, 2018, 11:07 pm 

edy420 » June 10th, 2018, 4:50 am wrote:Quite simply, as time progresses incrementally, evolutionary subjects evolve in leaps of self improvement.

The words "adaptation" and "self-organization" are certainly applicable.
You can also say that the evolution is a learning process operating on species level rather than an individual level because because the same basic idea of trying things, seeing what works, and recording the results still describe what is happening.

It is also applicable because a common distortion in the way evolution is often presented as purely random can be dis-proven by studying mutagenesis. You find that even the most primitive organisms (such as E-coli) promote genetic variation in a controlled manner. You see this in the way they selectively protect sections of their DNA damaged by UV from their own DNA repair mechanisms.

Watching toddlers learn you see something similar. At first what they do can seem very random and foolish, but as they learn, the things they try out become more guided as they apply what they have learned about what doesn't work or what gets a negative reaction in some way.

edy420 » June 10th, 2018, 4:50 am wrote:Therefore, if we think of time as having progressed indefinitely, then subjects of evolution will self improve indefinitely.
Or in other words, become perfect.

Incorrect. First of all the driving force of evolution is variation, NOT natural selection. That fact alone precludes both of your conclusions. The most you can is that living things/species are constantly learning/adapting to survive in whatever way the changes in the environment allow. Since it is quite possible for the environment to change so that only the most primitive organisms can survive, then any thought about improvement or advancement being implied by this is misguided.

edy420 » June 10th, 2018, 4:50 am wrote:The “code” of evolution is therefore, perfect.
But there is only one who can create something perfect /wink

Say rather that the learning/adaptation nature of life is such that organism can in principle become more than they are, and therein, like the process of addition, there is an implication of an infinite limit. So if you believe in God creating the conditions for life then you might see this as an actual infinity creating potential infinity as a kind of image.

So yes... theists like us CAN see God in evolution much as any child can see rabbits in the clouds. As long as we are frank about the subjective nature of the patterns we see in this way, then the objections by such as davidm will amount to nothing more than their own intolerance.

edy420 » June 10th, 2018, 4:50 am wrote:Evolution and abiogenesis together, state that man was created from dust.


davidm is correct, evolution and abiogenesis does not say this. You should instead say that if we interpret "dust" in our religious poetry to mean the atomic material substance of the universe then evolution and abiogenesis is a process of self-organization by which living things create themselves from dust.

However, if you believe there is a God interacting with the world via the one lack of closure of causality in science (quantum indeterminacy) then you might think this God can play a subtle role like that of a farmer, shepherd, or teacher in guiding this process -- accepting that it does not amount to anything like design.

edy420 » June 10th, 2018, 4:50 am wrote:Abiogenisis is just a bucket of sea water and rock zapped with lightning, and hey presto we have life.

That will get you some of the molecules of life, not life itself. There has been considerable development in abiogenesis under the names "metabolism first theories" and "pre-biotic evolution."

edy420 » June 10th, 2018, 4:50 am wrote:Evolution states that man originated from abiogenisis.

Incorrect. Evolution is about the origin of the species not the origin of life. Abiogenesis is the most natural hypothesis for the ultimate origin of life, and it implies that there is a continuous spectrum going from non-life to life. This is supported by the great abundance of self-organizing phenomenon we can see in the universe.

edy420 » June 10th, 2018, 4:50 am wrote:I find it ironic that atheists laugh at the idea that man was made from dust because my statement is true.
According to science, man was made from dust.

When you say it like that you are only going to make them laugh harder, citing that the body is 70% water.. Instead, I suggest you refrain from laughing at the thinking of others and simply state your own idea about what the word "dust" can mean in poetry and ancient texts written before modern scientific terminology.

edy420 » June 10th, 2018, 5:03 am wrote:Heard an interesting argument from a scientist/synthetic chemist who said he doesnt understand evolution.

He asks, how do we get DNA without a cell embryo, and how do we get a cell embryo without DNA.

It is called artificial gene synthesis or DNA printing.

This is frankly, a very silly thing for this "scientist" to say, since there are lots of organisms which synthesize DNA without any kind of embryo, though you could say that even viruses need a cell of some kind to synthesize DNA. But there is no reason to believe that the first synthesis of DNA in abiogenesis occurred in something which fits the definition of a cell. So we can quite agree that this chemist does not understand evolution or indeed much of the whole science of biology.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Evolution and God

Postby mitchellmckain on June 11th, 2018, 3:55 pm 

edy420 » June 10th, 2018, 4:50 am wrote:But there is only one who can creat something perfect /wink

I do wonder where this nonsense about perfection in Christian theology came from -- not from the Bible to be sure. The adjectives God gave for his creations are "good" and "very good," not "perfect."

davidm » June 10th, 2018, 1:21 pm wrote:
But there is only one who can creat something perfect /wink


No.

Agreed!

The greatest difficulty here is defining what one can possibly mean by creating "something perfect." This is not made any easier by the fact that it is hard to imagine this adjective applying to the things usually said to be created by God.

BUT, if we can set up a definition for the word "perfect" according to which we can determine if this is satisfied, such as by asking whether a thing created satisfies the specifications or purpose for which a thing was created, then I think we would have little problem finding examples where people satisfy the definition in what they have created. No... I suspect this is an example of an imaginary logic, where you concoct a vague idea which sounds good without any real substance to go with it.

And the Wikipedia definition?
per·fect
adjective
ˈpərfikt/Submit
1.
having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.
"she strove to be the perfect wife"
synonyms: ideal, model, without fault, faultless, flawless, consummate, quintessential, exemplary, best, ultimate, copybook; More
2.
absolute; complete (used for emphasis).
"a perfect stranger"
synonyms: absolute, complete, total, real, out-and-out, thorough, thoroughgoing, downright, utter, sheer, arrant, unmitigated, unqualified, veritable, in every respect, unalloyed
"she felt like a perfect idiot"


Certainly people have completed creations which have all the required and desired attributes (as understood or described when the project was stared. Though most non-trivial creations can endlessly be improved upon, and most of the time we never reach a point where no improvements are possible. On the other hand, if the objective is simple and the requirements are narrow enough then it is possible that there is a singular optimal solution and in that case people have made creations which are accordingly "perfect."
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Evolution and God

Postby edy420 on June 12th, 2018, 1:31 pm 

Davidm,

The Millar-Urey experiment is quite literally a beaker of water, heated and then zapped with lightning.
There is no one, accepted theory of the origin of life.

I’ve been referring to the process of how we evolved, not the theory of evolution.
The process of how we came to be, does involve natural selection, the environment etc
The only time you can isolate evolution is in a lab or theory, so I don’t see why we would isolate it when referring to God, Man and belief?
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Evolution and God

Postby davidm on June 12th, 2018, 2:55 pm 

edy420 » June 12th, 2018, 11:31 am wrote:Davidm,

The Millar-Urey experiment is quite literally a beaker of water, heated and then zapped with lightning.


An experiment which did not produce life. It produced amino acids.

So when you write, "Abiogenisis is just a bucket of sea water and rock zapped with lightning, and hey presto we have life," that is wrong. No scientist believes this, and there is no evidence for this.
davidm
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 22
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Evolution and God

Postby edy420 on June 13th, 2018, 1:19 pm 

A little over simplified, but you can’t make a baby without a mans amino acids, nor can you have abiogenisis without Miller-Ureys amino acids.

It’s hard to vouch for all scientists, because they are never unanimous on any fact.
I’m sure all scientists would agree, you can’t create life without amino acids.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Evolution and God

Postby mitchellmckain on June 13th, 2018, 5:38 pm 

edy420 » June 13th, 2018, 12:19 pm wrote:A little over simplified, but you can’t make a baby without a mans amino acids, nor can you have abiogenisis without Miller-Ureys amino acids.

It’s hard to vouch for all scientists, because they are never unanimous on any fact.
I’m sure all scientists would agree, you can’t create life without amino acids.

I don't think anyone is saying the experiment isn't significant. We are just objecting to your oversimplification.

To be sure, you cannot make dinner on a camping trip without lighting a fire, but to say that cooking dinner is just a matter of igniting a few twigs is a bit absurd.

There is clearly a lot more to the story and considerable work has been done recently in that direction, but we don't even have enough to properly call abiogenesis a scientific theory. It is still pretty much in the hypothesis stage of scientific inquiry -- though I greatly look forward to a change on this front in my lifetime. Evolution is another matter entirely. No scientific theory has more supporting evidence and thus it has become the only foundation for theoretical science in biology. With a working theory of abiogenesis we will better be able to define life with measurements -- to quantify life itself.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Evolution and God

Postby edy420 on June 17th, 2018, 3:38 am 

Agreed, I digress.

As for creating perfection, Jesus was the perfect human vessel, hand forged by God.
Perfect mind body and soul.
Able to fast for 40 days and forgive those who physically torture him.

It is also applicable because a common distortion in the way evolution is often presented as purely random can be dis-proven by studying mutagenesis. You find that even the most primitive organisms (such as E-coli) promote genetic variation in a controlled manner. You see this in the way they selectively protect sections of their DNA damaged by UV from their own DNA repair mechanisms.


Is this what Pope John Paul II is referring to when he said evolution is more than just hypothesis?
After a little reading, I’m surprised to find that Catholics can and do believe in evolution.
Probably as surprised as the OP when finding out that scientists can have faith in God :p
Pro evolution Catholics deny neo-Darwinian evolution of randomness, but accept evolution with intelligent design.

Richard Dawkins was asked in an interview about some issues in genetics, and why it seems like there is intelligent design.
His response was that aliens evolved naturally by Darwinian evolution to become intelligent.
These aliens then designed life on earth.

So, assuming there is intelligent design in genetics/life on earth, the question becomes,

Do we believe we are the result of Gods creation.
Or do we adopt the Darwinian/Dawkins model and believe we were created by Aliens?
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Evolution and God

Postby davidm on June 17th, 2018, 11:06 am 

edy420 » June 17th, 2018, 1:38 am wrote:Agreed, I digress.

As for creating perfection, Jesus was the perfect human vessel, hand forged by God.
Perfect mind body and soul.
Able to fast for 40 days and forgive those who physically torture him.


Do you have supporting evidence of the above? I know of none.



Pro evolution Catholics deny neo-Darwinian evolution of randomness, but accept evolution with intelligent design.


The Catholic Church accepts the totality of evolution, with one exception: the church believes that humans, at some point in their evolution, were "ensouled" by God. However, evolutionary theory omits souls altogether.

Richard Dawkins was asked in an interview about some issues in genetics, and why it seems like there is intelligent design.
His response was that aliens evolved naturally by Darwinian evolution to become intelligent.
These aliens then designed life on earth.


That is NOT what he bloody well said.

So, assuming there is intelligent design in genetics/life on earth, the question becomes,

Do we believe we are the result of Gods creation.
Or do we adopt the Darwinian/Dawkins model and believe we were created by Aliens?



There is no evidence of any kind of intelligent design, and Dawkins never said that there was.
davidm
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 22
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Evolution and God

Postby mitchellmckain on June 17th, 2018, 12:08 pm 

edy420 » June 17th, 2018, 2:38 am wrote:Agreed, I digress.

As for creating perfection, Jesus was the perfect human vessel, hand forged by God.
Perfect mind body and soul.
Able to fast for 40 days and forgive those who physically torture him.

Ah yes... Matthew 5:48 "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." ...and Romans 8:29 "to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren."

To be sure, Jesus is indeed the guide for Christians to which we aspire to be conformed by the hand of God, if we can understand what is meant by this for I do not think this means we must all be male, or Jew, or preacher, but only that we have his heart for God and our fellow human beings.

But Jesus is not a creation. Surely you are not a Jehovah Witness, who say such a thing.

Or perhaps you are thinking of 1 Cor 15:45 which names Jesus as the 2nd Adam and taking this a bit too literally. For it is true that Jesus is meant to take the place of the 1st Adam as the one from whom we are to have a new inheritance of our humanity without the self-destructive habits (i.e. sin) of the first. But this is not to say that Jesus and Adam are the same like the Adoptionists. To be sure He is fully man, but He is also fully God, showing that the two are not incompatible. But He was always God and became one of us by choice and thus I do not see how this is an example of a perfect creation. I do not think Catholics believe such a thing so you may want to check with a priest or the Catechism on this, if I am right in thinking you are Catholic.

edy420 » June 17th, 2018, 2:38 am wrote:
It is also applicable because a common distortion in the way evolution is often presented as purely random can be dis-proven by studying mutagenesis. You find that even the most primitive organisms (such as E-coli) promote genetic variation in a controlled manner. You see this in the way they selectively protect sections of their DNA damaged by UV from their own DNA repair mechanisms.


Is this what Pope John Paul II is referring to when he said evolution is more than just hypothesis?
After a little reading, I’m surprised to find that Catholics can and do believe in evolution.
Probably as surprised as the OP when finding out that scientists can have faith in God :p
Pro evolution Catholics deny neo-Darwinian evolution of randomness, but accept evolution with intelligent design.

Evolution and intelligent design are not compatible. Design is not even compatible with life. It is only life because it is a product of self-organization, doing things for its own reasons. The most you can say is that living things do not do so in a vacuum but in an environment which can include farmers, shepherd, and teachers -- but what they do is not design. They participate in the lives of their crops, flocks, and students to provide some help towards goals which are far from the cookie cutter nature of design. Thus we make our own decisions hopefully informed by those who care for us.

Only thus can Christians stand behind evolution and yet say God created us in the only way that living things can be created, which is in the same way that farmers create their crops, shepherds their sheep, and teachers their students -- by participation and not by design. Consider the choice between a God of power and control and a God of love and freedom, for while the former would only create by design, the latter might create as I have suggested instead.

edy420 » June 17th, 2018, 2:38 am wrote:Richard Dawkins was asked in an interview about some issues in genetics, and why it seems like there is intelligent design.
His response was that aliens evolved naturally by Darwinian evolution to become intelligent.
These aliens then designed life on earth.

So, assuming there is intelligent design in genetics/life on earth, the question becomes,

Do we believe we are the result of Gods creation.
Or do we adopt the Darwinian/Dawkins model and believe we were created by Aliens?

This doesn't sound like Richard Dawkins at all. He may have mentioned panspermia as an alternate hypothesis to that of abiogenesis but I don't think he ever advocated this or stated it to be what he believes happened. This is a spin overlaid upon him by mocking opponents and thus as dishonest a distorition as has ever been made by intolerant rhetoric. If you google this, you will find his repudiations. Richard Dawkins is the one who has coined the term "designoid" for things which have the appearance of design but which are not. Thus the answer which is more consistent with what he has written, would be that he denies that there is any intelligent design in the evolution of the species just as I would.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Evolution and God

Postby mitchellmckain on June 17th, 2018, 12:51 pm 

I was following some of the twitter with Dawkins on this site. I was particularly interested in his demand that evolution be called fact rather than theory because opponents refuse to listen to explanations that scientists use the word "theory" differently. Well... I am more philosophical than Dawkins and refuse to let the one-liner rhetoric bombasts have their way. I quite agree with Dawkins that evolution is FACT and go on to explain what this means, for it wins nothing to let opponents distort the understanding of the work of science. Scientific fact is defined by what scientists have come to routinely use as their tools in scientific inquiry. And likewise I insist that we defend the scientific use of the word "theory" as a general explanation of a broad range of phenomenon and thus a basis for theoretical science. This is not to be confused with nonscientific usage synonymous with "guess" which is more like what scientists use the word "hypothesis" for.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Evolution and God

Postby mitchellmckain on June 18th, 2018, 4:17 am 

The thing about willfully ignorant people, and creationists certainly count as such in spades, is that they are going to believe what they want to believe no matter what you say. So letting them dictate the language, with the unlikely idea that it will make an impact on their thinking, simply isn't worthwhile.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Evolution and God

Postby edy420 on June 18th, 2018, 6:22 am 

davidm » 18 Jun 2018, 00:06 wrote:
edy420 » June 17th, 2018, 1:38 am wrote:
As for creating perfection, Jesus was the perfect human vessel, hand forged by God.
Perfect mind body and soul.
Able to fast for 40 days and forgive those who physically torture him.


Do you have supporting evidence of the above? I know of none.


It’s in my pocket.

The Catholic Church accepts the totality of evolution, with one exception: the church believes that humans, at some point in their evolution, were "ensouled" by God. However, evolutionary theory omits souls altogether.


How do you figure that?
It’s not what our Church teaches.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opin ... ature.html
———
“The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that "the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution”
———

Richard Dawkins was asked in an interview about some issues in genetics, and why it seems like there is intelligent design.
His response was that aliens evolved naturally by Darwinian evolution to become intelligent.
These aliens then designed life on earth.


That is NOT what he bloody well said.
...

There is no evidence of any kind of intelligent design, and Dawkins never said that there was


“If you look at the details of bio chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe, but that higher intelligence would itself have had to of come about by some ultimately explicable process”
-Richard Dawkins in an interview



I was paraphrasing, but it sounds a lot like aliens.
My only question is, who created the aliens.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Evolution and God

Postby edy420 on June 18th, 2018, 6:39 am 

mitchellmckain,

I’m a long time agnostic, recently turned Catholic.
As an agnostic, I came up with the idea of using video games as an anology for the God in the Bible.
A video game is an entire universe, and it has an omnipotent creator.( the game developer)
That creator is omnipotent, all knowing and amoral when it comes to interacting with his creation.
Omnipotent, because he can interact within the game and out of the game, the laws of physics and time don’t apply to him.
All knowing because he can bring up a debug menu and find out anything he wants.
Amoral, because most game developers will burn their A.I when testing fire mechanics, and there is no moral boundaries because of the omnipotence factor.

When Thinking of Jesus in this analogy, his will is coded to have max setting for love and compassion.
The DNA which determines his bodies characteristics and resilience is coded by hand via the Holy Spirit.
So, by the definition you gave to the term perfect, Jesus is a perfect creation.
Although, “begotten not made” clearly states this is inaccurate.

I’m still new to the teaching of Catholicism, so maybe this analogy fits less than I though.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Evolution and God

Postby mitchellmckain on June 18th, 2018, 2:57 pm 

edy420 » June 18th, 2018, 5:22 am wrote:I was paraphrasing, but it sounds a lot like aliens.
My only question is, who created the aliens.


I watched the clip until the narrative started twisting everything. Aliens do not mean intelligent design. The word for that hypothesis is "panspermia." The question of where the aliens came from has always been a problem with this idea and is the principle reasons why scientists like myself don't think it is worth any attention. It all comes back to abio-genesis.

What about God creating things? Why isn't that worth consideration? Frankly it is because science excludes this by presumption. Science looks for explanations OTHER than "Goddidit," which is frankly just too easy, a one-size-fit-all answer to everything, not to mention entirely unhelpful if you want to understand the natural world and do anything. So science asks whether the origins of life and the species can come about by natural law and it has been and continues to be a very fruitful inquiry - no matter how much the religious power mongers want to forbid such questions and control how everyone thinks. This is all about leaving the filthy hopeless darkness of the middle ages far behind us when that one answer was good enough for everything and all people could do is kneel in the dirt, garbage, and sewage to pray like a swarm of diseased rats.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Evolution and God

Postby davidm on June 18th, 2018, 7:01 pm 

It’s in my pocket.


Your evidence is in your pocket?

Is that a pickle in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?

How do you figure that?
It’s not what our Church teaches.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opin ... ature.html
———
“The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that "the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution”


Right, and as I noted, Catholic teaching is at odds with evolution, even though it accepts most of it.
———


“If you look at the details of bio chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe, but that higher intelligence would itself have had to of come about by some ultimately explicable process”
-Richard Dawkins in an interview



I was paraphrasing, but it sounds a lot like aliens.
My only question is, who created the aliens.


Holy crap.

Did you glom on to the word might?

Might! Might! Might!

Dawkins did not say you would find a signature of a desinger, only that you might!

And that's true! You might well find that! So far, though, no one has!

What Dawkins said was absolutely right -- and no endorsement whatever of intelligent design, as you claimed.

This is the difference between you, and people like me and Dawkins. You believe on faith, without evidence. We believe that which is evidenced. Show us evidence of ID, and we'll be right with you. But you have none.

Please don't misrepresent what Dawkins said, anymore. It's disgusting. I blame Dawkins for agreeing to be interviewed by the odious Ben Stein, and having their interview reproduced at a creationist crank web site.
davidm
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 22
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Evolution and God

Postby mitchellmckain on June 18th, 2018, 10:26 pm 

mitchellmckain » June 18th, 2018, 1:57 pm wrote:This is all about leaving the filthy hopeless darkness of the middle ages far behind us when that one answer was good enough for everything and all people could do is kneel in the dirt, garbage, and sewage to pray like a swarm of diseased rats.


P.S. the venom of this comment was just about how much I detest and despise the middle ages -- I certainly have no desire whatsoever for the world to be like that again. I may like Christianity, but I like science more.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


PreviousNext

Return to Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests