too intelligent to actually be intelligent?

Yet, here you are again! Indeed - it's impossible to successfully defend wrong ideas. I don't put my faith in Darwin. He was just a scientist. So do I - the reason is, I don't want to do those things, because the cons outweigh the pros. That's not really moral relativism, but moral systems aren't the topic of this thread. You'll have to take the word of a moral relativist that your description of MR is completely false. Sure enough, if you're right, I will. And if the Muslims are right we're both screwed. If you're not motivated by a desire for truth, then no, there's no upside to atheism.On the other hand, if you've made a commitment to evict nonsense and wishful thinking from your mind - two things that have never been any use to anyone - then atheism is the most natural conclusion, and the "up side" is that you aren't fooling yourself every minute of every day. Feel free to waste your time, as long as you're not wasting ours.

quote:

---

You might feel that same sense of peace but you would assume that the feeling comes because of some neurological function.

---

Are you still seriously in doubt about the neurological basis of emotions?As I said in a previous post, I'd be happy to participate in a thread on the subject if you would like to start one.

I apologize as I seem to have left you with the opinion that you would feel less of a sense of peace than I would. The point I was trying to make is that we both feel the same sense of peace but that we would ascribe a different root cause for that emotion.I assume that you would ascribe a totally natural reason for what you feel, whereas I believe that, although it registers neurologically, the reason is still something spiritual.I hesitate to call myself a Theistic Evolutionist strictly for the reason that I don't have sufficient knowledge of biology to argue either for or against it. Frankly I just accept it as the little I have read, and the balance of the opinion of writers I respect, generally support the theory.I'm going to quote Francis Collins who as head of the Human Genome Project does know a great deal about biology amongst other things. I understand this is one man's opinion, but it is a man who has the scientific credentials that very few people have.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Sure. Credentials, he has plenty. Evidence? I don't see that he has any. If his conclusion is only true because he assumes the premises that lead to it, then he's engaged in circular reasoning. He claims considerable knowledge that he couldn't possibly have (prior conditions to the universe, the freedom of variation of various physical constants, and of course the leap to the conclusion that all of the above supports the Biblical God rather than any other).Most importantly, though, he doesn't claim supernatural intervention. Maybe you didn't notice that?

I noticed it. Actually I'm fine either way.If we can both be objective can you tell me what is wrong with this.Evolutionary change is basically a series of genetic mutations that can eventually bring about microevolution and over a large enough period of time macroevoluion. Natural selection is one of the driving forces behind these genetic mutations. If random chance is also a factor causing these mutations then, assuming the supernatural does exist,(if you can suspend your disbelief for a minute), isn't it plausible that instead of random chance there could be supernatural intervention?I comprehend natural selection but random chance doesn't seem to me to make much sense to me.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Wouldn't we be able to detect the intervention by means of its effects?What you're suggesting is that God can "load the die", so that certain outcomes are preferential to others. But by the same token that you can detect a loaded die by it's deviation from the truly random output of a fair die, wouldn't we be able to detect God's intervention in supposedly random events by how non-random they wind up being?Or, perhaps you take a different tack. Perhaps it's your idea that God can influence the outcome of supposedly random events, but he doesn't do it often enough to be detected by the wide suite of statistical tools statisticians have to detect departure from randomness. But that's akin to a Vegas gambler who claims to have the "amazing" power to make a die roll "6" whenever he wants, but he doesn't do it (on average) more than 1/6th of the time, and he never does it a bunch of times in a row to avoid being accused of cheating.We wouldn't take that guy seriously. Between the explanation of amazing, undetectable powers that the gambler refuses to use and just the regular randomness of dice, it's pretty easy to determine which is the most reasonable.Unless you're desperate for some kind of gap, any gap, into which to tuck your rapidly shrinking God. It's not at all clear to me where these sorts of astounding misunderstandings come from. Natural selection has nothing to do with mutation; it doesn't cause them, it's not the source of them. Natural selection causes very nonrandom changes to allele frequencies in populations by causing differential reproduction in individuals (or of genes, if you prefer.)Random mutations are caused by the fact that DNA replicates in a physical, chemical system which is not perfect. This system introduces random errors - changes, really - into the replication product, so that the DNA copy is not exactly the same as the template. Why? It's no more difficult to understand than the fact that, if you tried to copy this whole message down on to paper quickly, you'd find that you'd made a number of errors - spelling, grammar, etc - that didn't appear in the source. When you copy things over and over again - particularly if you're not making multiple copies of the original, but rather, copying each previous copy - it's not surprising to see that small changes will occur and accumulate.Is it just that you aren't familiar with the chemical process by which DNA is replicated? It's actually surprisingly simple, but nonetheless, there are a number of steps where mutations can be introduced.

Without any divine intervention in the evolutionary process, I'm talking about a God who was able to design a process that designs itself, but more importantly has given us a physical home for a spiritual being with a moral code and the free will to choose. Would this be correct?The changes to the beaks of Darwin's finches were caused by the process of natural selection which involved non-random changes in allele frequencies.The changes that brought about one species evolving into another would be caused by random genetic mutations.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Well, what are atheists supposed to do? Accept a philosophy that disagrees with their world view? "Hey guys, I am an atheist, but I'm cool with the idea that God exists."Is it really worth mentioning that atheists reject disagreeing philosophies? Am I missing some profound insight here?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Probably That could have been put better but I was just making the point that YEC adherents reject any science that doesn't fit with the way they read the Bible. I also suggest that in the same way Atheists reject philosophy that doesn't agree with their world view, which would include anything that suggests that there is anything beyond the physical.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Hmmm. Do you mind if I refrain from asking you to enlighten me? If those atheist are science minded, they would be inclined to accept anything that goes against their world view, as long as convincing evidence is presented. Unlike YECs, atheists are capable of changing their minds. It's called 'progress'.By the way, as far as I'm concerned, you can do away with the capitalization of the word 'atheist'. It's not a movement of some kind, with 'followers' and the like. It's just a mode of thinking.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I don't think atheists rejects all things that are not physical. I certainly don't reject the idea that my mind exists. Computer softwares are also non-physical and i fully recognize their existence.I think what you are really asking is why do I, as an atheist, accept the existence of some non-physical things, like minds and computer softwares, while rejecting the existence of other non-physical things, like gods, angels, and immaterial pink unicorns? That, the answer is simple. I have no reason to believe in the latter group. Occam's razor. If gravity is enough to explain a projectile's behavior, then there's no need to assume flying angels pushing the projectile.

quote:

---

Would this be correct?

​

The changes to the beaks of Darwin's finches were caused by the process of natural selection which involved non-random changes in allele frequencies.

​

The changes that brought about one species evolving into another would be caused by random genetic mutations.

---

No.To be correct (though simplistic and incomplete) they should read:The changes to the beaks of Darwin's finches were caused by random genetic mutations which are then selected for by the environment through the mechanism of natural selection.The changes that brought about one species evolving into another would be caused by the process of natural selection which involved non-random changes in allele frequencies over time.

There remains though a basic disagreement about what constitutes evidence, let alone how to interpret it.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

OK That's helpful. Thanks. I just noticed a thread on natural selection. I'll work my way through that as well as book I have on the subject.

I'm curious how that works. What's the putative selection mechanism for being a spiritual being? Are all humans spiritual beings, or is it possible to have a mutation that renders a human non-spiritual? Could we find the spirit gene and disable it? Not really.It's important to understand that evolution is the process where mutation and selection work together to give rise to diversity, new traits and body forms, and ultimately new species. Darwin's finches acquired their beak traits by mutation and selection. First, individuals mutated more advantageous beak traits; then, those individuals were selected because those traits were advantageous to their survival. Ultimately, the entire population of finches were the descendants of the individuals that originally mutated those traits.Where do new species come from? New species arise when subpopulations are separated from the main population; over time genetic changes from selection, mutation, and even genetic drift accumulate to the point where the individuals in the subpopulation are no longer genetically compatible with the parent population, and a new species is recognized. While the process has much to do with mutation, it isn't strictly caused by mutation; it's caused by reproductive isolation between two populations.