Life began 25 years ago

"God does not deliberately deceive humankind."Why should he when humankind does a superlative job all by itself?

quote:

---

In every way, your definition makes me evolved from my mother. While it is seems at first glance a bit too highly specific, it makes perfect sense.

---

No, not evolved from your mother, just genetically different.Individuals do not evolve, populations evolve.

quote:

---

It does seem though that there is division in the camp over abiogenesis, as shown above. Obviously that one can't be settled today..

---

I just want to be completely clear here; Theories that deal with the origin of the first life on Earth have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. the ToE deals with life once it got here.

quote:

---

But, and this is no condemnation, you'll probably never get past the blacklist in science if you mention God at all. Just look how often in this thread people related what I said to "Genesis" and creationism like the Bible tells it. It is assumed though I never supported Biblical Genesis even once.

---

Science ignores God because using God as an explanation is, for all practical purposes, giving up on any explanation at all.God can be used to explain everything, so explains nothing.

quote:

---

All I was saying is as follows:
1. Don't leave God out of the picture

---

If you want to do science, you will have to leave God out of the picture as an explanation for naturalistic phenomena. "Godidit" doesn't explain anything.

quote:

---

2. Don't put all your eggs in the evolutionary basket

---

So, you are saying that we should consider suspect a scientific theory that has never been shown to have any major flaws in over 100 years of research and billions of tests of the theory from every field of life and Geologic sciences?Please explain exactly why we should deny billions of survived tests of the theory?

quote:

---

You may not agree, but my agrumentation was never intended to be in any way saying that God DID create the Universe, only that he may have, and that I have a tendency to believe that he played some part, though I do not know which and to what extent.

---

OK, but this is irrelevant to the fact of Evolution and the evidence that supports the theory.

quote:

---

You'll notice I have no dogma, I am open to all possibilities. What angers me is people who dogmatically proclaim scientific truth where there is still uncertainty, even if it is a very convincing bet.

---

Me too. These people do not understand that nothing in science is ever 100% proven. However, just as when Einstein's work refined and supplanted Newton's, apples didn't suspend themselves in mid air pending the outcome, the billions of tests that the ToE has survived over the last century are not made invalid because we do not have perfect knowledge.

quote:

---

The proof of the uncertainty is here: Would we even be having this discussion if there was no debate to be had? There is division among the population, and this means science has not proved itself adequately on the point.

---

Incorrect.Most people who disbelieve evolution are uneducated in the matter and/or deny it on religious grounds.In countries where fundamentalist Christians do not have the power over educational institutions and textbook approval boards like they do here, the Theory of Evolution is much better understood, and accepted by the general populace.Scientific issues are not decided in the court of public opinion.

quote:

---

It may be adequate for you, but now I have the chance to say that your feelings are irrelevant in the matter.

---

Feeling have nothing to do with it. I have the same feelings about the scientific validity of the Theory of Evolution as I have regarding the Germ Theory of Disease or the Atomic Theory of Matter.

quote:

---

That evolution will have been proved beyond a doubt will be evidenced not before you see the hard-core Christians committing hara-kiri in the streets as their God "has left them".

---

Nothing is "proved beyond a doubt" in science. Otherwise, we would never be able to refine or incorporate new, previously unknown data.However, that evolution happens is about as worthy of doubt as the fact that germs cause disease or that matter is made of atoms.

quote:

---

Most men would be eager to have more than one girlfriend, am i wrong?

---

No, but what do the women he's chasing think or feel about it?

quote:

---

What makes this bad for God to do so as well? You think he is going to use and mistreat his lovers? Maybe you have the idea of God as a boring old man who has trouble getting around heaven with his walking stick. Maybe you think he doesn't care.

---

Maybe God is incomprehensible to humans, and you are engaging in a great deal of anthropomorphising?

quote:

---

Evidence is there for me that God cares about me. I have no business relating to you the signs that God gave me to show me each time I questioned and was in need that he was there. Don't get mad that I can't give you my evidence in scientific terms and repeatable proofs, God is not our order-taker. And I retain this for myself not because I do not want to give it freely, but because it is a personal matter just as you do not share all of your personal experiences with your girlfriend with your buddies. She would be angry, most likely. I have found that when I told even to people close to me, these things that God showed me, that they no longer occurred for a time. Not to mention they thought it too fantastic. ("Oh, that can't be." Is it? "Is anything too wonderful for God?") It was like it was not meant for others to hear until they would learn to open their own hearts and pay attention to what is being shown. If that sounds cheezy to you then find your own way of doing it. God is not limited to how he can communicate with you, try and find a way if you have not already.
Look to books of spiritual wisdom from across the world, not for concrete answers, but for hints at how others have done it, then look inside yourself and find a way which fits you. My only vested interest in this is seeing the world a more loving and happy place. Dogmatism in religion or science has never provided such a thing.

---

That's all very nice, but what does this have to do with the change in allele frequencies in populations over time?------------------
--+--+--+--+--+--+--

quote:

---

1: God is capable of all on all levels

---

The explanations that use god are meaningless, because by explaining everything, they explain nothing.

quote:

---

2: Science is capable of all on the material platform only

---

If you mean, "science deals with naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena", they this is correct.

quote:

---

3: God rules the material platform as well as any other that may exist.

---

There is no material, naturalistic evidence which suggests any god or magic. That doesn't mean God does not exist, but that belief in God is through faith and not evidence.

quote:

---

4: Science, and all of its products, is therefore ruled by God.

---

See above.

quote:

---

5: Scietific facts are relative and subject to change.

---

No, scientific facts do not change.A scientific fact is a fact, a piece of evidence.Scientific theories change as we gather more and more facts, ang get better at interpreting the facts.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-16-2003]

quote:

---

No, not evolved from your mother, just genetically different.

​

Individuals do not evolve, populations evolve.

---

But the mother (and father) and child is a population, and the genetic difference is a step of evolution.The individual isn't an evolution - The difference between the individuals is evolution.Moose

brdean responds to me:

quote:

---

At which point in this line back from humans, to the monkey-relative were the number of pairs of chromosomes different than 23?

---

Dunno. Chromosomes tend not to fossilize.

quote:

---

And how did the first 23-pair, like us, overcome his chromosome incompatibility with his mate?

---

Probably the same way other animals do it. You can cross a common horse (64 chromosomes) with a Przewalski's horse (66 chromosomes) and come up with viable offspring (usually having 65). You are assuming that having a different number of chromosomes is an insurmountable problem.

quote:

---

I guess our trouble lies in what we call microevolution.

---

Not at all. The problem is that you seem to want to put qualifiers on evolution. There is only "evolution." The same processes that lead to changes that do not result in a speciation event are the processes that do.If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10?

quote:

---

But, and this is no condemnation, you'll probably never get past the blacklist in science if you mention God at all.

---

Incorrect. Kenneth Miller and Michael Behe are both highly devout Christians who have extremely different views on the nature of how life diversified.And both have been published.A person's religious views have no bearing on whether or not he'll get published. What gets an article rejected is its ability to justify its claims. Invoking capricious, arbitrary entities working on the basis of whim is something that cannot be replicated and thus cannot be a justification for a scientific claim.You will note that I didn't mention god. Just as science ignores the action of god, it also ignores the action of you, and we know you exist. If we're doing an experiment on anti-gravity and we find out that the reason the object isn't falling to the ground is because you're holding it up, we have to discard that data. It had nothing to do with anti-gravity: You were doing it.

quote:

---

All I was saying is as follows:
1. Don't leave God out of the picture

---

We have to.To do otherwise is to engage in theology, not science.God must be removed from the picture just as every other capricious, arbitrary influence (such as you) must be removed. Science is the study of things that happen all on their own. If we start allowing a conscious being to change things on a whim, what's the point? The only reason the effect happened is because the inconstant entity decided to have it happened. The next time, it may change its mind and it won't happen.And what, then, have we learned?

quote:

---

2. Don't put all your eggs in the evolutionary basket

---

But if that's where all the evidence points us, why wouldn't we?You seem to have this fear of being wrong. But science has no such fear. It embraces being wrong. It knows that everything we think we know about everything just might be wrong. And that's a wonderful, glorious thing because when we find out we're wrong, we have the opportunity to learn something new and become less wrong. Every new discovery, every new observation tells us something we didn't know before and we get a better and more accurate picture of what is going on. We will never know if we ever get it right because we can never see everything. In fact, even if we are right, we'll never know it. But that doesn't deter us.In science, if you overturn the dominant paradigm, you win the Nobel Prize.

quote:

---

You'll notice I have no dogma, I am open to all possibilities.

---

Except for the one that says your god had nothing to do with it.Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

quote:

---

The proof of the uncertainty is here: Would we even be having this discussion if there was no debate to be had?

---

You are confusing your uncertainty with scientific uncertainty.A person who does not understand a subject and is confused is very different from someone who does understand a subject and is confused.If you find two mathematicians arguing over whether or not the six millionth digit of pi is a 2, they are not arguing over whether or not it is an integer.The reason we are having this debate is not because there is uncertainty over whether or not evolution happened. It is because you are uncertain and unfamiliar with the vast amount of information that justifies evolution.You have every right to your opinion, but that right to an opinion does not make it a valid one. You wouldn't ask your tax attorney to do a heart transplant, would you? It isn't because your tax attorney is stupid. It's because he's not a cardiac surgeon. What could he possibly have to say on the subject that would be of any use?If you don't know the fundamental aspects of evolutionary theory, if you are unfamiliar with the data and studies and experiments that are used to justify it, how can you possibly think you are capable of making an informed opinion about it?

quote:

---

There is division among the population, and this means science has not proved itself adequately on the point.

---

Irrelevant.The opinions of those who don't know what they're talking about make no difference.

quote:

---

Funny, you stated that being honorable to more than 1 woman is not possible for God

---

Incorrect. It's the other way around. Remember what you said: In other words, the problem is not that god cannot be honorable to more than one woman. The problem is that being a "woman chaser" is not being honorable. If god wants to be honorable to more than one woman, then he has to stop chasing them and treat them honorably.

quote:

---

Maybe the rule of where God lives is happiness without shame?

---

This has nothing to do with shame. This has to do with honor. That means taking into account the feelings of others. Just because something makes you happy doesn't mean it is an honorable thing to do. Making someone unhappy by treating them poorly is not an honorable thing to do."Woman chasing" is not honorable. It's being a jerk.

quote:

---

Most men would be eager to have more than one girlfriend, am i wrong?

---

Selfish. The question is not what you would want. The question is what others want. Did you stop to consider that the women might not appreciate your behaviour? If you all understand and accept the situation and the rules of the relationship, then go for it. "Woman chasing," however, tends not to do that.

quote:

---

You think he is going to use and mistreat his lovers?

---

That's what "woman chasing" is. Unless you have a different definition, "woman chasing" is typically defined by using women for one's personal satisfaction without regard to the woman's feelings, which is mistreatment.

quote:

---

God is not our order-taker.

---

And that's why science ignores god.Science requires repeatable, testable, verifiable, falsifiable results. If things only happen because a capricious entity is making it happen, then what's the point?Please answer my question:Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?As an example, if I take a handful of coins and toss them on the ground, do they land in their final positions all on their own or does god come down and personally, deliberately, and consciously make them land that way?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

And how did the first 23-pair, like us, overcome his chromosome incompatibility with his mate?

---

That's not a bar to reproduction necessarily ... I think Down's
syndrome is caused by an extra chromosome copy, and I think that
Down's individuals are not sterile wrt to non-Downs.

quote:

---

In every way, your definition makes me evolved from my mother

---

Not evolved, different.Evolution is a populational phenomenon, not an individual
one.Evolution is the result of stack-ups of differences over
a number of generations ... the more generations the
bigger the accumulation of differences.

quote:

---

Nothing is "proved beyond a doubt" in science. Otherwise, we would never be able to refine or incorporate new, previously unknown data.

---

I am happy to hear someone say this. So are there then two populations of scientists, one which says there are phenomena which are "certain" and they mean it, and those who say there are phenomena which are "certain" but they really mean to say, for the ease of laguage, "pretty certain, but with a very small chance of being false?"

quote:

---

So, you are saying that we should consider suspect a scientific theory that has never been shown to have any major flaws in over 100 years of research and billions of tests of the theory from every field of life and Geologic sciences?

---

No, my feelings which are now disproven by your being "not an atheist" go exactly against what I thought most evolutionists are--replacing God with evolution theory. This was, in fact, my misconception. But now I am beginning to get the impression that it is just the lazy man who replaces God with evolution--the non-scientist. I think it was Lenin who, upon learning of Darwin's theory, said "I knew that God didn't exist, now there is evidence," or something on that order. 90% of the people I have discussed evolution with were in fact atheists. It is interesting that several of you defending evolution haven't proclaimed atheism. And that turns my opinion a 180..

quote:

---

quote:

---

Most men would be eager to have more than one girlfriend, am i wrong?

---

​

No, but what do the women he's chasing think or feel about it?

---

The story of Krishna and his 1000 lovers in Vrindavana should explain this. Quite simply, because Krishna has all good qualities being God, each of the 1000 lovers was in love with him. He would play and chase with them, all of them undeniably crazy about him. And this was on Earth, think of the many more loves he had on his own planet, Goloka? And the men (actually all are young boys)? All his friends, and all friends together. Playing and fighting like young tiger cubs would. And actually it is said that sex is quite rare given the other ever-increasing pleasures available in this "Heaven". Did you know that Krishna was also known as the "Butter Thief" as a young boy? He would go stealing butter from the milkmaidens, all of them transcendentally enjoying this game of then punishing him. It was a joy for everyone, even though it involved something that here on Earth we consider a serious behavioral disorder--theivery. Does that answer the question?

quote:

---

Maybe God is incomprehensible to humans

---

Perhaps your scientific method for finding God needs some mending and a few adjustments? A scientist must admit he is wrong when he cannot find a solution, so perhaps change your method?

quote:

---

That's all very nice, but what does this have to do with the change in allele frequencies in populations over time?

---

You are right, nothing. But this change in allele frequencies in populations over time is all that can be discussed in what I write? If you want pure science talk, you's in the wrong place..

quote:

---

You seem to have this fear of being wrong. But science has no such fear. It embraces being wrong. It knows that everything we think we know about everything just might be wrong. And that's a wonderful, glorious thing because when we find out we're wrong, we have the opportunity to learn something new and become less wrong. Every new discovery, every new observation tells us something we didn't know before and we get a better and more accurate picture of what is going on. We will never know if we ever get it right because we can never see everything. In fact, even if we are right, we'll never know it. But that doesn't deter us.

​

In science, if you overturn the dominant paradigm, you win the Nobel Prize.

---

If that is in fact the way it works, I am happy to hear it. It is truly the way which each individual should conduct his own life, and the direction which society in general would do well to aim.

quote:

---

Invoking capricious, arbitrary entities working on the basis of whim is something that cannot be replicated and thus cannot be a justification for a scientific claim.

​

You will note that I didn't mention god. Just as science ignores the action of god, it also ignores the action of you, and we know you exist. If we're doing an experiment on anti-gravity and we find out that the reason the object isn't falling to the ground is because you're holding it up, we have to discard that data. It had nothing to do with anti-gravity: You were doing it.

---

Something on this order would have knocked my argument off track right from the beginning. Save that thought.

quote:

---

Except for the one that says your god had nothing to do with it.

---

No, I am open to all possibilities. I accept God as you accept scientific fact. I have had repeatable proofs, not when I asked for them for testing purposes, but when I had a genuine need for God whom I've come to depend on as much as or more than my own wife. She always says how independent I am in everything I do, but she does not believe in God like I do, and she does not know the help he has given in all I do, she thinks it "too fantastic" to believe.

quote:

---

If you don't know the fundamental aspects of evolutionary theory, if you are unfamiliar with the data and studies and experiments that are used to justify it, how can you possibly think you are capable of making an informed opinion about it?

---

Since you can obviously see how less understanding I am in the matter, even though it didn't seem to me that I was, I'll have to admit it. Everybody thinking me a unknowledgable on the subject, not much else I can say until I play catch-up with more modern science..

quote:

---

Making someone unhappy by treating them poorly is not an honorable thing to do.

​

"Woman chasing" is not honorable. It's being a jerk.

---

That is, unless the woman being chased is laughing and smiling, and being simply unable to wait until she is caught. That is called playful love. If you don't ever chase your girlfriend around the house, you should start, it's lots of fun. And there's a nice reward for the catch. Lots of laughing and even more smiles! Wow, one could almost call it immoral it is so much fun.. Read my last reply to Schrafinator on the subject.

quote:

---

If god wants to be honorable to more than one woman, then he has to stop chasing them and treat them honorably.

---

He does more than be honorable, he loves them greater than comprehension, and they reciprocate. Again, your idea of God is limited, open yourself to this new idea that he is not sometimes nice and sometimes a bastard, that everything he does is for good and out of love which will come to benefit anyone bestowed this honor of knowing such a great person.

quote:

---

Please answer my question:

​

Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

---

Gladly. My understanding is that God allows us to have as free a will as can be allowed in these given constraints. He may, and I like to think, though I have no proof, that he set the Universe in motion (and this does not mean each individual planet). Think of it as God setting the spark and the fire taking over the burning all by itself. In the law of karma, one who is hurt will _have
the opportunity_, though not the obligation, to hurt his perpetrator whether it be in this life or some other, as a frog, or as a human. Given the opportunity to do something inherently bad, you will not always take it. But if you have the urge, it is probably because there is some injustice waiting to be equaled and you can prove your good heart by not taking advantage of that or you can take your "revenge" though you not know the actual event in your past life which makes you want to do harm. So just as gravity pulls you to the Earth, God created the law of karma which allows you to express your free will in a way that keeps the modes of good and evil in harmony. And when you die, either you have achieved a state of goodness high enough to be allowed back a place in "Heaven," or you can continue to roam the material world through countless lives acting out your desires. That does not sound so injust of God, he is giving you a place to be free and independent of him, completely if you so desire. However, if you have a change of heart, then he is there to hear you.
Put simply, the only time God has actively, physically meddled with our independence is when he created the spark which set the Universe in motion, and when he created our Universal laws which science so actively tries to understand and quantify. Then these laws reign, without God's further interpretation, such as the law which governs how you shall be reborn--in a good family or bad, as a higher level species, or a lower level one, all depending on another law, that of karma.
Notice I said he doesn't meddle with our independence. But when you desire God, he seems glad to help in almost any reasonable way.-Brian

There are few of the heathen non-believers here who will argue with this point of view. We may make a personal choice to believe otherwise but that is our choice as the above is yours.Those who do wish to argue do so for their own reasons. I can understand those who, told that God is responsible for everything and, does 'actively, physically' meddle, have to conclude that if it did exist it would be an unhuman, monstrous thing. But any such attitude is just a personal reaction to the inpersonal, sometimes painful behaviour of the world around us.Your views are those of many practicing scientists and are not in anyway in conflict with almost all of current science. (I say almost all since the physicists and cosmologists working on the nature of the universe and things like string theory may move the starting point back to somewhere else.)

quote:

---

There are few of the heathen non-believers here who will argue with this point of view.

---

Did you mean to say there are few or a few? In either case:

quote:

---

Your views are those of many practicing scientists and are not in anyway in conflict with almost all of current science

---

seems to be in conflict with both "few" and "a few". I guess I am lost. And am I being called a non-believer here?[This message has been edited by brdean, 12-17-2003]

Sorry, you are right. I didn't word that well at all.I should have said (and how many times have I had to say that?):There are only a (or very) few of the non-believers here who iwll argue with this point of view.I think my wording came across as a sarcastic "few". Sorry about that.

quote:

---

Your views are those of many practicing scientists
...
There are only a ... few ... here who will argue with this [brdean's?] point of view.

---

So still something eludes me in these two very contradictory statements-- are there no practicing scientists here? Or are there just not many practising scientists, period? And am I a non-believer though I believe in God? What gives? I give a hundred reasons why I believe in God, and this guy says I am a non-believer. Incredulous.
In addition, it is really silly to use one line of thought to both say "you seem alright, dude" and "you are a filthy heathen non-believer unlike me."
Hey rigid, faith-blinded, and following Nosy Ned, you're a pretty interesting and level headed whiny, snot-nosed Christian who I wouldn't mind getting to know better over a nice cup of tea... oh, Friday afternoon?Look, buddy, I trust in God. PERIOD. Find a way to work an argument in around this seeming paradox.

Might I just add that initially you, NosyNed, come off initially as a really decent guy. I have to wonder why the sly derogatory remark has to even make its way into the theme...
This is an honest question, do you feel a need to provoke personal persecution so that you may relate better to Jesus and the martyrs who came before you? Your statement would have made equally as much sense to anyone reading it without calling me a heathen non-believer. What gives?

Wow! I worry about trying again since I do not seem to be doing any kind of job in making myself clear. Let me start over.I will paraphrase what I believe your position is then comment on it.You believe that the Christian God constructed this universe and the laws of physics which govern it. He kicked it off about 13.7 Gyrs ago and does not actively, directly intervene now.My comments:
It seems to me that this position shows belief in a God that has much greater power and imagination (if you can apply that to a God) than the literalistic Biblical one. To construct a universe that will unfold to produce us from the basic laws of physics rather than forcing the issue is really hard!Your view is not in conflict with any known science. I, for one, have no arguement with you.I do not personally choose your belief for myself. That has nothing to do with the validity of your belief from a scientific stand point nor does it say anything about the validity of my belief. Both points of view are outside the perview of science.I think that many of the "scientific" side (as opposed to Biblical literalists) here will also choose not to argue with you at all.I think that a larger proportion of the literalists (almost by definition) will choose to argue with you than those who think like I do.There are, however, a "few" of the scientific side who might choose to argue with you. They will do that for individual personal reasons. I will volunteer some (but my opinion on their motivations doesn't count a wit):

• The probably just like to argue. It is fun. They don't have any particular concern about the outcome.
• They believe that there is something science can say about your beliefs. That, I think, depends on exactly how you define God and His behaviour. They are entitled to an opinion on that.
• They hold a grudge against some form of religion or another. They may have been subject to some of the bad sides of religion and are striking back in some way.
• They hold a grudge against the universe itself. They have had some bad luck. They preceive religion as saying there is a God who is, in some way, responisible for that bad luck.

I hope this makes things clear. I don't know what else I can say. Perhaps it is time for someone else to step in who can clear things up.

OK, when you put it that way, I certainly agree.

quote:

---

So are there then two populations of scientists, one which says there are phenomena which are "certain" and they mean it, and those who say there are phenomena which are "certain" but they really mean to say, for the ease of laguage, "pretty certain, but with a very small chance of being false?"

---

Philosophically, I would say that the vast majority of professional scientists fall into the second group.In fact, I have never known a real scientist to express views similar to the first group. I have, however, heard many creationists express utter, unmoving certainty in their correctness.

quote:

---

No, my feelings which are now disproven by your being "not an atheist" go exactly against what I thought most evolutionists are--replacing God with evolution theory. This was, in fact, my misconception.

---

Thanks for saying so.

quote:

---

But now I am beginning to get the impression that it is just the lazy man who replaces God with evolution--the non-scientist.

---

Actually, I would tend to say that it's the lazy person who ignores or rejects science in favor of belief in the supernatural. It's much easier to believe what feels good and reassuring than to, well, not believe that.

quote:

---

90% of the people I have discussed evolution with were in fact atheists. It is interesting that several of you defending evolution haven't proclaimed atheism. And that turns my opinion a 180.

---

40% of scientists are theists, in case you were wondering.

quote:

---

Perhaps your scientific method for finding God needs some mending and a few adjustments? A scientist must admit he is wrong when he cannot find a solution, so perhaps change your method?

---

I don't uses the scientific method to find God.However, I do think that you do anthropomorphise god in a way that makes god have what many human males would consider a fantasy sex and party-hearty life.Gee, as a woman, the idea of God as an oversexed drunken fratboy is particulary distasteful. [/quote]But this change in allele frequencies in populations over time is all that can be discussed in what I write? If you want pure science talk, you's in the wrong place.[/quote]So, do you then agree that the Theory of Evolution is valid?After all, we are supposed to be discussing the evidence for Intelligent Design in this thread.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."