Question for the religious

[ThinClient]

Nothing is supernatural. Everything is part of physics, this is simply axiomatic. Even if demons and angles battle over the souls of man, they will do so within the bounds of physics, even if it is a physics we are unaware of.

For example; dark energy/matter does not dissipate like luminous matter because it is non-luminous: it is a place of eternal darkness and heat.

Dark matter and energy aren't really dark. The term dark is used to describe something that we simply don't know anything about.

You can't claim that nothing is supernatural. That would suggest that you have evidence to prove that the supernatural does not or cannot exist.

 

[ThinClient]

In areas outside what science can address, such as the philosophical "questions of existence, life, morality, diversity, beauty", belief in the supernatural can be both logical and satisfying. This doesn't mean that the chosen belief can be shown to be (or is) correct, but the chosen belief can't be proven (in the scientific sense of the word) to be incorrect either.

Actually, science can indeed answer the question of morality, ethics, and diversity. Richard Dawkins' books do a great job of illustrating it.

Belief in something that has no evidence to support the claim that it exists is not logical in any way. You can prove that a belief is irrational and therefore incorrect pretty easily, really.

No reason for you to limit your demons and angels to being part of the universe, any more than your god needs to be. You're setting yourself for unnecessary conflict by suggesting that it's possible to demonstrate/explain their existence in terms of what we can observe/discover. At least to me, the term supernatural means that these gods/demons/angels are beyond natural and therefore beyond scientific explanation.

Just trying to help... 😉

The scientific method doesn't need to be limited to the physical world. It's a simple concept. Those who make the positive claim hold the responsibility to provide evidence to support said claim, natural or supernatural. It is irrational to believe in the supernatural when you have no reason to do so -no evidence to support the claim. Just because you saw something that you can't explain doesn't mean that the supernatural exists. It means you didn't understand what was happening in whatever moment is so vivid in your memory. That's another conversation, though.

 

[ThinClient]

I have to say, while I disagree with the vast majority of what he says, I am impressed by Rob M's willingness to repeatedly enter these debates in a civil manner despite the fact that a number of people are arguing against him on any number of points.

He becomes uncivilized after a short period of time, really. I've seen it repeatedly. He'll get mad and then pretend to ignore you and then make snide comments in the thread about having ignored you, bragging that he can't see your posts... and in the meantime, he'll continue to quote them and reply. Exactly like he's done with me :awe:

 

[AViking]

Aren't mutations destructive nearly 100% of the time?

What do you mean by this?

Sometimes it's easier to understand mutations if you look at it in a contained and smaller population.

For example if 500,000 years ago some mutation causes a lower bridged nose and a fold of skin and thus slanted eyes how do you see it affecting the population of 200 people in that region vs today how do you see a mutation affecting a local population of 2,000,000.

Or do you think it was God's will? He caused them to have a lower bridged nose and a left over flap of skin from the womb?

 

[ThinClient]

Aren't mutations destructive nearly 100% of the time?

No. Quite the opposite. They're perfectly fine most of the time but the advantage or disadvantage they provide may not fit the environment that the creature lives in. This gets the creature eaten up the food chain, removing his mutation from the gene pool so that it does not reproduce. This leaves more environmentally-viable mutations (like very slightly better camouflage) eaten up the food chain less often, providing more opportunity to mate, meaning that the more effective mutation lives on in later generations.

This is natural selection.

You really should watch Richard Dawkins' youtube vids. Here, I'll link you some.

This is a good one. It's called the Blind Watchmaker (which is also a book).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szan4oS21xA

 

[Paul98]

I understand evolution just fine and I understand the casino analogy you put forth.

From your posts we can see that you don't understand evolution, but would be willing to help if you are open to learn. Would you like to understand and learn about it? If so you need to start by forgetting everything you think you know about evolution.

Evolution is a powerful tool in not just biology, but there are computer programs that do much of the same thing to come up with answers to problems that were previously unanswered.

 

[ThinClient]

Rob, if you're sincere about wanting to learn this stuff, check out The God Delusion, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FiHRVb_uE0

 

[brandonb]

Here's another perfect example. Why would anyone debate with a guy who doesn't even understand evolution but insists that he does? Does anyone get the impression that he is willing to learn?

"When I took biology in school..."

When I was in school I learned that Pluto was a planet, there were no home computers, and the Soviet Union was going to nuke me. Therefore I am going to use what I learned back then to discuss astronomy, geography, politics, computer science, etc today.

WTF!

It's time to dump your 1980 Charlie Brown Encyclopedia and get with the times.

Do you have anything to discuss? Of course I'm going to debate based on what I learned in school. Do you think I go to the university yearly to get updated on the latest scientific breakthroughs? Sorry. I have a job now... And it requires me to work. 🙁

 

[Paul98]

What Darwin never knew is another interesting video.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1372073556/

first half is a lot about Darwin and how he came up with what he did. The second half is more about the newer things we have learned and about DNA and how it works.

 

[Retro Rob]

What do you mean by this?

Sometimes it's easier to understand mutations if you look at it in a contained and smaller population.

For example if 500,000 years ago some mutation causes a lower bridged nose and a fold of skin and thus slanted eyes how do you see it affecting the population of 200 people in that region vs today how do you see a mutation affecting a local population of 2,000,000.

Or do you think it was God's will? He caused them to have a lower bridged nose and a left over flap of skin from the womb?

I ask because I read about a lab experiment involving fruit flies, and how those irritated by radiation lost wings, colors of eyes changing, etc, but they stayed fruit flies in the confines of the species.

Even exposure to gamma radiation hasn't (as far as I know, I'd like to be corrected) hasn't resulted in observable changed in species. What I think we see is variation.

 

[AViking]

Do you have anything to discuss? Of course I'm going to debate based on what I learned in school. Do you think I go to the university yearly to get updated on the latest scientific breakthroughs? Sorry. I have a job now... And it requires me to work. 🙁

Yes. I understand that. However unlike when you were undoubtedly in school there is a ton of resources on the internet for you to quickly catch up on topics and learn new ones.

You said you understand evolution just fine. You don't. The question is do you realize that you don't and are you willing to learn? If not, a discussion with you is pointless.

 

[brandonb]

Evolutionary theory has come quite a long way since Darwin, you understand that, right?

Also, do you understand that the utility of evolutionary theory goes well beyond its most visible use as a stick used by atheists to pummel ID propoents?

It's one of the most important, if not the most important tool used by biologists and other life scientists to advance their fields and make our lives better.

When epidemiologists study disease, they use evolutionary theory to understand the cause and spread of disease. And when drug-resistent bacteria emerge, evolutionary theory is used to combat them. Because that's what's happening, the bugs are evolving to resist our antibiotics.

Yup. It works much like breeding dogs and creating breeds. You can breed something out of a certain breed, or breed something into them by introducing an odd specimen or removing them from the pool. So if we kill all the bugs from our antibiotics, some may live because of a certain trait, and they reproduce with others who survived as well, and they reproduce and their off springs have a higher chance to resist... I get it.

 

[AViking]

I ask because I read about a lab experiment involving fruit flies, and how those irritated by radiation lost wings, colors of eyes changing, etc, but they stayed fruit flies in the confines of the species.

Even exposure to gamma radiation hasn't (as far as I know, I'd like to be corrected) hasn't resulted in observable changed in species. What I think we see is variation.

That's not the way evolution works. It's not some kind of overnight thing and it doesn't mutate into a brand new species. Fish didn't just sprout legs and run onto land because of some gamma rays.

 

[Retro Rob]

Rob, if you're sincere about wanting to learn this stuff, check out The God Delusion, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FiHRVb_uE0

I have my own sources. Dawkins, IMO, is a turn off in general because of his dogmatism and prejudice, so I'd rather listen to someone who accepts evolution but also can appreciate where someone like myself comes from.

I prefer Lennox.

 

[ThinClient]

I ask because I read about a lab experiment involving fruit flies, and how those irritated by radiation lost wings, colors of eyes changing, etc, but they stayed fruit flies in the confines of the species.

Even exposure to gamma radiation hasn't (as far as I know, I'd like to be corrected) hasn't resulted in observable changed in species. What I think we see is variation.

Variation, across hundreds or thousands of generations, is natural selection. Some of those variations aren't viable. Others are.

How is this hard for you? Why are you fighting against an idea that even Popes have said is unarguably true?

 

[ThinClient]

I have my own sources. Dawkins, IMO, is a turn off in general because of his dogmatism and prejudice, so I'd rather listen to someone who accepts evolution but also can appreciate where someone like myself comes from.

I prefer Lennox.

Lennox is a dogmatic lapdog of the church. People like Lennox have an agenda. They have a conclusion that they want to support. They go looking for evidence and reject or spin evidence that does not support their claim.

Dawkins looks at the evidence and draws a conclusion.

Just like Lennox, you have a conclusion that you will not let go of and you reject or spin evidence that negates that conclusion.

Your close-minded bigotry driven by your desperate clinging to religion has brought you to reject Dawkins for petty (and blatantly untrue) statements so that you do not have to acknowledge the facts that Dawkins brings to the table. This is a VERY common tactic by religious.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's not the way evolution works. It's not some kind of overnight thing and it doesn't mutate into a brand new species. Fish didn't just sprout legs and run onto land because of some gamma rays.

OK, fair enough.

 

[Retro Rob]

Variation, across hundreds or thousands of generations, is natural selection. Some of those variations aren't viable. Others are.

So, you've modified it so that it's a catch-all.

Shoot enough arrows in every direction and you're bound to hit a target. 🙄

 

[ThinClient]

So, you've modified it so that it's a catch-all.

Shoot enough arrows in every direction and you're bound to hit a target. 🙄

No, but that's what your brain is trying to force you to conclude, because that's the only conclusion that you can draw that supports your agenda.

Thanks for proving my point.

I basically said the same thing that AViking said.

That's not the way evolution works. It's not some kind of overnight thing and it doesn't mutate into a brand new species. Fish didn't just sprout legs and run onto land because of some gamma rays.

You're willing to accept his statement, but not mine because you are being irrational. Your blind hatred for me is preventing you from looking at my statements rationally. You're like a little kid whose knee-jerk reaction has him hating anything that his classmate is or does simply because that classmate has bested him in conversation repeatedly.

If you'd put down your ignorance and your hatred, you might actually learn something. Your religion preaches humility, does it not? Well humble yourself for a moment and you might just meet someone who knows more than you do or knows something that you don't know.

Not doing so is called being a close-minded bigot which is basically what religion boils down to: the religious is right and the science and reason are wrong, no matter what facts science and reason can bring to the table.

 

[AViking]

So, you've modified it so that it's a catch-all.

Shoot enough arrows in every direction and you're bound to hit a target. 🙄

Don't look at it like that. You'll struggle to understand it then.

Think about it over a long period of time. Your family tree probably goes back a hundred years or so. After that you probably aren't sure. Maybe it goes longer. I can trace my American side back 2 generations. Third one is sketchy since they wrote off their past the second they got to the USA. I can trace my Swedish one back to the 1500's. These time frames are very short.

Think about it in terms of hundreds of thousands of years. Then millions. Our species has been around for over 5,000 generations. Our genus, homo, has been around for over 80,000 generations.

Do you see where I'm going with this? The scope of it is pretty big and evolution doesn't happen instantly.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's not the way evolution works. It's not some kind of overnight thing and it doesn't mutate into a brand new species. Fish didn't just sprout legs and run onto land because of some gamma rays.

Just to amend my post, I brought up those lab experiments because so much is made of transitional fossils.

Like I said, I would welcome correction, but logic tells me that if fish "grew legs", then we should be able to easily repeat something similar under artificial conditions (ie flies should change "somehow" externally as fish did).

Repeatable experiments. Truth can easily be replicated, IMO.

Thanks for the information, though.

 

[AViking]

Here's another thing for those of you who have been out of school for a while. Look up what biologists do nowadays. They use evolutionary theory in their day to day work to get verifiable results. What we have done with genetics in the last couple decades is astonishing. Not good enough for you? Look up evolutionary robotics. Bring out the inner geek in you.

 

[AViking]

Just to amend my post, I brought up those lab experiments because so much is made of transitional fossils.

Like I said, I would welcome correction, but logic tells me that if fish "grew legs", then we should be able to easily repeat something similar under artificial conditions (ie flies should change "somehow" externally as fish did).

Repeatable experiments. Truth can easily be replicated, IMO.

Thanks for the information, though.

See my post above about time frames.

 

[Retro Rob]

See my post above about time frames.

So what are they trying to prove with lab experiments? That we have variation of species? That's something I've always accepted.

What I would like to see is NOT evolution in its entirety in a lab, but observable evidence that one species can change to something different, not genetically, but something "new", for lack of a better term.

 

[Blackjack200]

Here's another thing for those of you who have been out of school for a while. Look up what biologists do nowadays. They use evolutionary theory in their day to day work to get verifiable results. What we have done with genetics in the last couple decades is astonishing. Not good enough for you? Look up evolutionary robotics. Bring out the inner geek in you.

Exactly. Creationists don't realize just how far they've been left behind at this point.

They're like flat earthers or geo-centrists still pleading their case while NASA engineers are busy orbiting the obviously-round-at-this-point earth and sending space craft to explore the cosmos.