[Winstonm]

This argument is flawed: If you cannot prove evolution occured, God exists.
Here, it is the arguer who is flawed: If you cannot prove evolution to my satisfation, God exists.

[mikeh]

Winstonm, on Jan 16 2009, 12:58 PM, said:

This argument is flawed: If you cannot prove evolution occured, God exits.
Here, it is the arguer who is flawed: If you cannot prove evolution to my satisfation, God exits.

a freudian slip? 'exits or exists'? such a small difference, such a large difference

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Jan 16 2009, 12:36 PM, said:

of course, one could argue that the creator deliberately created these patterns so as to conceal his handiwork... and no doubt some cretins will beleive that.

Of course then one wonders why he would leave it so we could discover it.

And then why he would have it so many wouldn't believe it anyway.

His plan is becoming more elaborate with each analysis!

[PassedOut]

jdonn, on Jan 16 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 16 2009, 12:36 PM, said:

of course, one could argue that the creator deliberately created these patterns so as to conceal his handiwork... and no doubt some cretins will beleive that.

Of course then one wonders why he would leave it so we could discover it.

And then why he would have it so many wouldn't believe it anyway.

His plan is becoming more elaborate with each analysis!

Perhaps god was very devious 6000 years ago, creating mountains of false evidence to trick those poor souls tempted to draw conclusions scientifically. That way the believers can cackle contentedly from heaven as those tricked by the planted evidence burn forever in hell.

But why worship a god like that?

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Jan 16 2009, 12:36 PM, said:

I don't know whether to laugh or cry

The authors of the paper in question did not intend to address the broad topics you raise... and yet your rejection of what they did address is based on that perceived failure!

I didn't reject what they said. It just doesn't have enough 'meat' in it to convince me that evolution works in the way that my textbooks claim it does. What I'm reading is a summary- I understand that it is just an overview of their conclusions on a limited area.

Quote

They addressed, as I read the paper, one specific issue.. the fact that while we are closely related, on a genetic level, to other primates, we have 23 chromosomes while the other 3 species discussed have 24.

They suggested that this question might be arguably have arisen either as a design decision made by a creator or by evolutionary processes, and they proceeded to examine the evidence... at a level and by means unavailable and indeed inconceivable to the founders of all of our mainstream religions.

What does religion have to do with this? There are other possible theories besides Modern Evolutionary Theory and Religion, you know.

Quote

That examination revealed that one particular chromosome looked exactly as it should if in some ancestral primate two chromosomes had fused.. with the presence, in the middle (more or less) of the 'fused' chromosome of patterns that are usually found only at the end of chromosomes.. and patterns on both sides of the supposed point of fusion.

Which would explain how you get one human, but not an entire race of humans.

I think genetics has to be environmental to some extent. Either something (such as an illness) tends to cause identical genetic mutations within a community, or a genetic mutation can somehow be shared without being a direct parent/child relationship.

Quote

As to the larger questions that the authors were NOT addressing, there is ample literature out in the world about HOW mutations propagate and how speciation is understood to occur. You might try reading some of it.

Sure. What would you recommend? As Helene points out, I should really start with the references in the article.

P.S. I'm not a Christian. I don't know if insinuating I am is more insulting to me or to them.

[Al_U_Card]

Ah yes....the "God" chromosome....number 24 is still there but just transformed into its psychic version so that we could have access to conscious awareness. The record of the evolution of our consciousness is held in that "invisible" strongbox. We didn't get better by "reducing", we got better by "improving".

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on Jan 16 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 16 2009, 12:58 PM, said:

This argument is flawed: If you cannot prove evolution occured, God exits.
Here, it is the arguer who is flawed: If you cannot prove evolution to my satisfation, God exits.

a freudian slip? 'exits or exists'? such a small difference, such a large difference

ROFLOL.

My eyesight is getting to be lousy.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Jan 16 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 16 2009, 12:36 PM, said:

of course, one could argue that the creator deliberately created these patterns so as to conceal his handiwork... and no doubt some cretins will beleive that.

Of course then one wonders why he would leave it so we could discover it.

And then why he would have it so many wouldn't believe it anyway.

His plan is becoming more elaborate with each analysis!

You obviously do not understand this apparent conundrum. The confusion is caused by Satan in an attempt to mislead the believers.

[mikeh]

Winstonm, on Jan 16 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 16 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 16 2009, 12:36 PM, said:

of course, one could argue that the creator deliberately created these patterns so as to conceal his handiwork... and no doubt some cretins will beleive that.

Of course then one wonders why he would leave it so we could discover it.

And then why he would have it so many wouldn't believe it anyway.

His plan is becoming more elaborate with each analysis!

You obviously do not understand this apparent conundrum. The confusion is caused by Satan in an attempt to mislead the believers.

I was afraid that was the answer... I have long suspected that this was the most plausible explanation... and it is so easy on the grey matter.

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on Jan 16 2009, 04:31 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 16 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 16 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jan 16 2009, 12:36 PM, said:

of course, one could argue that the creator deliberately created these patterns so as to conceal his handiwork... and no doubt some cretins will beleive that.

Of course then one wonders why he would leave it so we could discover it.

And then why he would have it so many wouldn't believe it anyway.

His plan is becoming more elaborate with each analysis!

You obviously do not understand this apparent conundrum. The confusion is caused by Satan in an attempt to mislead the believers.

I was afraid that was the answer... I have long suspected that this was the most plausible explanation... and it is so easy on the grey matter.

It is a well-known fact amongst the informed that Satan uses the dual-blade system of Occam's razor for those hard-to-preach areas. What could be simpler?

[jtfanclub]

Sorry, was going to post an image- didn't work.

[Fluffy]

Too much to read, and I don't have time.

First of all thank you Helene, I love you, you know?

You never offended me on any way Mike.

I argue behemently against atheism partialy because I am blatantly outnumbered here. I try to attack your ideas, I hardly ever state mines actually.

I had never dropped the option that God might not be there, I don't like the idea but I cannot possible know it for sure. (As mentioned before, the concept of a purposeless universe is absurd to me, not impossible, but highly unlikelly IMO)

But the same way I try very hard for all of you to understand that you cannot know for sure the contrary either, leave your mind open.

You might find most of these absurd, but why not....

-The known universe is a simulation on a computer, like Matrix.
-The world was designed by super advanced aliens, who dropped the species in certain orders to make us think evolution is true (this has some work to do)
-You are the main character of a trumann show tv series, all the scientific things you read are actually lies invented for you to believe them.

Too much films you might think, actually I had other ideas but don't remember them now.

Anyway, your answer to this has to be the same: why do I care if I am being simulated on a computer or whatever? My life would be the same, I like science because it lets me predict things, and they will still work whenever god exists or not, the world works the way I think it works.

Well, the world also works for me when I think in God, maybe I am just very lucky, but actually praising has worked for me!, I would be stupid if I trusted that just praising would solve my problems (in fact doing it that way always fails to me ), but I think it has helped sometimes.

Ok this is too long, maybe in 10 days or so I post some of my ideas so you can attack them, just that contrary of what you might think I love science, I beleive (more or less) in evolution and many other things.

[hrothgar]

Fluffy, on Jan 17 2009, 01:39 AM, said:

I argue behemently against atheism partialy because I am blatantly outnumbered here. I try to attack your ideas, I hardly ever state mines actually.

I had never dropped the option that God might not be there, I don't like the idea but I cannot possible know it for sure. (As mentioned before, the concept of a purposeless universe is absurd to me, not impossible, but highly unlikelly IMO)

But the same way I try very hard for all of you to understand that you cannot know for sure the contrary either, leave your mind open.

You might find most of these absurd, but why not....

-The known universe is a simulation on a computer, like Matrix.
-The world was designed by super advanced aliens, who dropped the species in certain orders to make us think evolution is true (this has some work to do)
-You are the main character of a trumann show tv series, all the scientific things you read are actually lies invented for you to believe them.

Here's the thing...

I don't have an real emotional attachment to the theory of evolution. If some alternative scenario looked more plausible I'd be perfectly happy to change my mind.

Admittedly, I think that I'd be a bit surprised to find out that advanced aliens were screwing with us for kicks and giggles.

Finding out that I was actually a computer program would certainly present some existential issues.

I'd find it rather comforting if I were to find out that there actually is a "god" and he has some kind of lovely benevolent plan for me...

However, to date, evolution wins the plausiblity test hands down...

I'm not speaking for anyone else, but the reason that I get rather worked up in arguments about evolution is that religious fundamentalists scare me...

They're irrational.
They do stupid things.
They have all sorts of weird hang ups that make no sense.

More simply put, my attachment is not to evolution per see, but rather to the scientific method. It gets really frustrating dealing with people who are too stupid or too close minded to be able to deal with it...

[Winstonm]

Quote

religious fundamentalists scare me...

Amen, Brother.

[mikeh]

hrothgar, on Jan 16 2009, 06:10 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Jan 17 2009, 01:39 AM, said:

I argue behemently against atheism partialy because I am blatantly outnumbered here. I try to attack your ideas, I hardly ever state mines actually.

I had never dropped the option that God might not be there, I don't like the idea but I cannot possible know it for sure. (As mentioned before, the concept of a purposeless universe is absurd to me, not impossible, but highly unlikelly IMO)

But the same way I try very hard for all of you to understand that you cannot know for sure the contrary either, leave your mind open.

You might find most of these absurd, but why not....

-The known universe is a simulation on a computer, like Matrix.
-The world was designed by super advanced aliens, who dropped the species in certain orders to make us think evolution is true (this has some work to do)
-You are the main character of a trumann show tv series, all the scientific things you read are actually lies invented for you to believe them.

Here's the thing...

I don't have an real emotional attachment to the theory of evolution. If some alternative scenario looked more plausible I'd be perfectly happy happy to change my mind.

Admittedly, I think that I'd be a bit surprised to find out that advanced aliens were screwing with us for kicks and giggles.

Finding out that I was actually a computer program would certainly present some existential issues.

I'd find it rather comforting if I were to find out that there actually is a "god" and he has some kind of lovely benevolent plan for me...

However, to date, evolution wins the plausiblity test hands down...

I'm not speaking for anyone else, but the reason that I get rather worked up in arguments about evolution is that religious fundamentalists scare me...

They're irrational.
They do stupid things.
They have all sorts of weird hang ups that make no sense.

More simply put, my attachment is not to evolution per see, but rather to the scientific method. It gets really frustrating dealing with people who are too stupid or too close minded to be able to deal with it...

Well said.

[Codo]

http://en.wikipedia....Occam%27s_razor

I know, it is nice to use such cool tools and to know such nice theories.
But what exactly has this to do with God and religion?
Nothing.

Who says that God must use the easiest way?
Actually, why should he?

Who says that we should use the easiest way?

You may belive in Occams razor or you don't.
I belive that it is a useful tool to built hypothesises, not more.

For a start:
You watch two stars flying away from the earth, both with close to lightning speed, one to the left, one to the right. What is the easiest hypothesis about their speed compared to each other? 2xC?
And is this hypothesis right? No.

Occams razor is no explanation for anything, it is just a tool to find a first hypothesis.

[Codo]

Quote

They're irrational.
They do stupid things.
They have all sorts of weird hang ups that make no sense.

More simply put, my attachment is not to evolution per see, but rather to the scientific method. It gets really frustrating dealing with people who are too stupid or too close minded to be able to deal with it...

Yes, that is why I really hate atheists who are this way. I know some, I guess you too.
And dump theists are horrible too. I know some. I guess you too.

I have no idea what is worse.

Unluckily even some fundemental idiots are quite intelligent. Else they would be no problem.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Unluckily even some fundemental idiots are quite intelligent. Else they would be no problem.

I believe I can speak from some degree of expertise on this subject: I was reared in a rather strict, fundamentalist Evangelical Christian environment and have not only seen over and over firsthand this type person but was myself this type of person until I could no longer find a rational denial.

The problems from my viewpoint are not ones of intelligence or lack thereof - the problems are most entirely psychological in nature and thus harder to deal with than simple stupidity.

The intelligent religious fundamentalist has to redirect logical thought through a bias filter that strains rational thoughts and allows passage of only a plausible-to-self denial of rationality. You can observe this phenomenon by the way they process information, using a defensive posture when reading a contradictory concept, looking only for ways to poke holes in the theory rather than trying to learn the greater lessons of the theory and acknowledging its imperfections.

To claim there is an equivalent scientific bias is another example of a self-rationalized myth, as the basis of the sciences is questioning rather than answering - there can be no bias without preconceived beliefs.

[Al_U_Card]

hrothgar, on Jan 16 2009, 06:10 PM, said:

I'm not speaking for anyone else, but the reason that I get rather worked up in arguments about evolution is that religious fundamentalists scare me...

They're irrational.
They do stupid things.
They have all sorts of weird hang ups that make no sense.

More simply put, my attachment is not to evolution per see, but rather to the scientific method. It gets really frustrating dealing with people who are too stupid or too close minded to be able to deal with it...

The key being to take what suits your purpose and leave the rest. If nothing they have to offer is of use then so be it. There is usually something of merit if you look hard enough.

[hrothgar]

Codo, on Jan 17 2009, 03:44 AM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....Occam%27s_razor

I know, it is nice to use such cool tools and to know such nice theories.
But what exactly has this to do with God and religion?
Nothing.

Who says that God must use the easiest way?
Actually, why should he?

Who says that we should use the easiest way?

You may belive in Occams razor or you don't.
I belive that it is a useful tool to built hypothesises, not more.

For a start:
You watch two stars flying away from the earth, both with close to lightning speed, one to the left, one to the right. What is the easiest hypothesis about their speed compared to each other? 2xC?
And is this hypothesis right? No.

Occams razor is no explanation for anything, it is just a tool to find a first hypothesis.

Well, to start with...

What we (meaning humanity) is attempting to do is to create a working hypothesis about how we all got here. This is in no way equivalent to making assumptions about how God works.

You yourself are admitting that Occam's Razor is a useful tool to build hypotheses. It seems strange that you are so opposed to applying it in this specific case.

As to your example about stars...

Bodies with a large amout of mass rarely move at relativistic speeds.
You're confusing stars and photons...
Very different things...

As is lightning (Blitz) and light