|
|
|
|
I apologise for starting a new thread but what I wanted to contribute to the discussion spans more than one of the existant threads. Ted and Deeeej (and others) have been having (yet) another discussion about science and religion. As someone who "is not now and never has been" a Christian but does subscribe most emphatically to a religion I find myself seeing good points on both sides of the argument. I apologise for the inordiante length of this post, but it is something I wanted to "get off my chest".
I can see no point in religious fundamentalism: if God created us and gave us our intellect surely God wanted us to use it! One of the greatest philosophers of my religion (Judaism) was Moses Maimonides [Egypt, 1135-1204]. Besides being a religious 'giant' of his age (and ever since) he was also a 'scientist' and physician. He was an out and out Aristotelian. Aristotle had held that 'matter' had always existed, so there was no creation. The Bible (read: Old Testament), which Maimonides held to be of divine origin, says that the universe was created. He was faced with an 'immovable object' (Aristotle) and an 'irresistable force' (Bible) and intellectually he was caught between a rock and a hard place. In his resolution of his problem he says something which is typically Jewish and is an object lesson to all fundamentalists. He says that he can reject Aristotle's teaching of 'the eternity of matter' because it is only a theory and he prefers to accept a different theory (that of the Bible); BUT, if Aristotle had been able to prove his theory he (Maimonides) would not have hesitated to 'interpret' the Bible accordingly: "The gates of interpretation are not closed". God gave us a brain and meant us to use it. Any religious person who accepts every statement of the Bible as unerring truth is not using his divinely given intellect.
I found a site on the web where there is a very long essay about God and Creation from a Jewish point of view. The author first deals with the question of belief:
Basically we may divide thinking people into four groups:
those who believe in God (or think they do) and have no problems with their belief;
those who do not believe in God (or think they don't) and have no problems with their disbelief;
those who believe in God but with reservations;
and those who do not believe in God but would like to, if only they could find a formula that is intellectually and emotionally acceptable.
Our study here will not deal with the first two groups: the members of the former group, who have a traditional belief in God, do not see themselves as being in need of our help, and the members of the latter group, who do not believe in God at all, ask none. In both these cases the question at issue is reasons for belief: for the believer they are already irrelevant and for the non-believer acceptable ones cannot be offered, for what he requires is 'proof'.
Our concern here is oriented towards the problems that face the members of the other two groups. They are not looking for 'reasons' for belief; they are seeking 'grounds' for belief. (For this distinction between reasons for belief and grounds for belief see "Sacred Fragments", Niel Gillman, 1989.)
To substantiate the 'grounds' for belief he brings several statements from respected scientists:
It is, however, interesting that the more science learns about the universe and its origins the more science seems to be pointing in the direction of a deity in order to explain the origin of the universe. It is not just the old Aristotelian 'proof' of the 'unmoved mover' that requires an uncreated originator of everything else that exists. Fred Hoyle [1915-2001], one of the greatest astro-physicists of recent times, was an ardent proponent of the 'steady state' theory, which could have obviated the need to posit an original creation. However, subsequent discoveries led in the opposite direction, and the 'working hypothesis' of astro-physics today is the so-called 'big bang' which posits an origin for the material universe and therefore re-opens the discussion concerning an 'originator'.
It was the discovery of radiation background by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965 that was the first step in the growing realization that it certainly could be that the existence of the universe and life in it is not just happenstance. Many highly respected names in the world of modern science have expressed opinions that point directly and clearly in the direction of a 'purposeful originator' of the universe and of life that exists in it. The likelihood that life 'just developed' in the universe is so improbable that Michael Turner, a renowned astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab in USA has said of the conditions that prevail in the universe that permit the existence of life:
the precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.
Perhaps we can better understand what has prompted Turner's remark if we consider the following statement by Dr. David Deutsch, from the Institute of Mathematics at Oxford University, England:
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all. If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely.
Sir Fred Hoyle, once one of the most ardent advocates of the steady-state theory, later revised his views in the opposite direction, and is even more explicit:
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.
Dr. Paul Davies, professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University, Australia, concurs:
The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life - almost contrived - you might say a 'put-up job'.
There are many other such statements available, but I think that I have given enough room to substantiate the claim that those who believe in God (whether their belief is theistic or deistic) certainly have "grounds" for their belief, grounds that derive from highly respectable scientific opinion. (These grounds were not available only a mere 40 years ago.)
If you have read this far you have my thanks - and you deserve a medal! Over and out.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I thought I'd cornered the market in dissertations on this forum!
In fact, I have no difficulty in accepting almost everything you say; I guess I fall at the fence which distinguishes 'grounds' from 'reasons'.
My difficulty is the same as that which plagues 'scientific' arguments about the causes of homosexuality - basically, there is a tendency for the authorities to be biased. I accept that a number of astrophysicists have put forward arguments in favour of divine origin, but by and large these were men with a positive religious viewpoint. Colleagues with little or no religious motivation simply aren't sufficiently interested to enter the affray. To the best of my knowledge there has been no formal polling of the discipline to establish a consensus view.
I am also a little cynical about probability theories; the general import is fine, but our knowledge of the variables is incomplete. I accept that Deutsch's remarks about the impact of a variation of few percentiles in some of the physical constants are absolutely valid - but, equally, a variation of a few percentiles in a variable underlying a statistical analysis can change the result completely. Furthermore, I don't attach very much weight to the 'too much of a co-incidence' view. Were the conditions deliberately favourable for the emergence of living organisms, or did living organisms emerge because the conditions happened to be favourable? A very big question but, nevertheless, you pays your money and you takes your choice.
That said, it will be obvious from my previous postings that I don't deny the possibility of a divine being; I just don't know. I do believe that morality and justice can exist independently of religion, and I care deeply about both concepts and try to follow them consistently. Perhaps I can summarise my feelings as follows - I have tried to be a good and fair person and to help my fellow men. If there IS a divine being, I am sure that he will not condemn me for using the intellect he gave me to question his existence, because I have conformed to the ethos of his teaching. Which, of course, is more than can be said for many who profess unquestioning belief!
Thanks, JFR, for a post which was intellectually provocative but not at all emotionally provocative!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie:
>Were the conditions deliberately favourable for the emergence of living organisms, or did living organisms emerge because the conditions happened to be favourable? A very big question but, nevertheless, you pays your money and you takes your choice.
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in —- an interesting hole I find myself in -— fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.
Douglas Adams (1952-2001)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... but, being Douglas Adams, I'm not completely sure. What do YOU think?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it was supposed to.
I have always thought it was a jolly good quotation, and that I should find some excuse to use it some time. Even if the connection was slightly tenuous.
It's a powerful argument that we are here, not because the universe fits us, but because we fit it. If we didn't, then we wouldn't be any position to wonder about it, would we?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
I thought I'd cornered the market in dissertations on this forum!
Now you know better! 
I guess I fall at the fence which distinguishes 'grounds' from 'reasons'.
I think the basic idea is that if you are an intellectual and already have a belief in a Creator-God then these statements of respected scientists will give grounding to your belief, will prop it up and help fortify it. Of course, if you do not already have such a belief they cannot serve as 'reasons' for adopting such a belief: as you, Cossie, have ably demonstrated, such arguments are not likely to have the necessary persuasive power.
I am very grateful to you, Cossie (and to Deeeej obliquely), for responding to that part of my long 'diatribe' that related to the views of scientists (though I disagree that they - or most of them - have a religious bias or propensity). However, I am a bit disappointed that so far no one from the fundamentalist side of the spectrum has related to the idea that the Bible need not necessarily be understood literally.
Thanks, JFR, for a post which was intellectually provocative but not at all emotionally provocative!
Thanks, Cossie. But apparently, so far at any rate, it wasn't intellectually provocative enough to rouse one side of the discussion. Maybe for thos eof us on that side it is the emotional provocation that is needed.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... well, perhaps not ENTIRELY mad! I don't doubt that the majority of astrophysicists have no religious bias; the proportion is probably greater in Europe than the United States, but that would simply reflect the general level of religious activity in each location. In essence, my instinctive feeling is that an astrophysicist (or indeed any scientist working at the limits of our knowledge of ourselves) who has a personal religious conviction is motivated, where this is possible, to interpret research in a way which is consistent with his beliefs. On the other hand, an agnostic (and to some extent an atheist) astrophysicist has much less motivation to express an opinion or indeed to enter the debate.
In other words, as an agnostic I am certainly willing to be convinced; indeed in some ways I would like to be convinced, but - for me - I need evidence that the 'scientific' view is indeed the consensus view of the scientific community.
I agree that it is disappointing that this post has not resulted in a response from the conservative wing. You may be right about the need for emotional provocation. Would it be provocative of me to suggest that the silence is not entirely surprising?
I find the creationist position to be cliche-ridden in the extreme, as if their arguments dismissing scientific research are drawn from a manual of impossible things we must believe before breakfast - with due acknowledgement of the experience of the Queen of Hearts in this area! In no sense is this a personal attack, but in another thread, in relation to the theory of evolution, the female remains discovered in East Africa by Donald C. Johanson in 1974 and universally dubbed 'Lucy' were alleged to consist of only a jawbone, and were dismissed with a trivial reference to the jawbone of an ass. In fact, the 'Lucy' skeleton was remarkably complete - and even if it HAD been a jawbone, it could reveal a great deal to a skilled forensic anthropologist. The science of paleontology still has many questions to answer, but research in East Africa by Louis Leakey, Richard Leakey and others has advanced our understanding considerably. Frankly, I feel that it is childish to dismiss such research, without even studying the facts, simply because it conflicts with a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible.
But then, I try to be logical - and I am pretty sure that God, if he exists, is the very spring and fount of logic.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi guys,
I hope I don't hear a collective groan when I make this comment. In response to JFR (I dont know all the names here yet) where he says: "However, I am a bit disappointed that so far no one from the fundamentalist side of the spectrum has related to the idea that the Bible need not necessarily be understood literally."
Well, first of all, this old geezer didnt notice this post right away so he couldn't make a reply.
Well I know that most of you consider me to be some kind of religous fanatic fundamentalist but that is simply not true. I question all kinds of things and try to take all the comments about God in stride. I only really try to understand why a belief in God is so much a threat to some of you that you will go to any length to reinforce your disbelief and never give may credence to something which could reinforce a belief in God. I can see that JFR can at least find a lot of scientific people who refuse to completely rule out God in the scheme of things and I certainly give him my thanks for being evensided on the issue. I am not here to try to force anyone to my way of thinking. I only seek to have everyone look openly at ALL the sides of the issue. I used to be one who would state that the bible was absolute but I know that after years of thinking about it, that it really doesnt matter if it is a word or two off somewhere because of someone's bad effort at translation. Now dont get me wrong as I am firmly of the opinion that the gist of the old testament is truely said, but just maybe not the exact words of the original. Of course language changes thru the years and that is part of the reason I can agree in this sense about the bible. However, I want to point out that many verbal stories have been passed down for generations and are word for word the way the original was told. There were those in the tribe who would have the job or honor of memorizing some of these texts and it is not unreasonable to say that they could have been passed on with little or no error. But that is not a concern of mine really. I dont base my faith in the existance of God on the accuracy of some text over the centuries as I think that the overall ideas are the important thing.
I wish I had the memory to quote leading scientists who have said things to confirm what I plead as my case for God, but I am probably the weakest of any of my skills in that area. Oh my and english was my weakest subject too so it is a miracle I make any sense here.
Anyway, I wanted to applaud JFR for his post as it parallels what I am trying to say in part. I know that some on the side of belief in God are so steadfast they refuse to even consider any kind of thing that refutes God's existance. I am not like that at all and I always read carefully what others say to see their point of view. I dont always agree that some of the things they state as fact are indeed as factual as they contend, but I will never resort to ridicule or any of those things. I only seek to see if I can get some people to at least not reject anything out of hand which might allow them to believe in God. I know that most of the anymosity that seems directed towards God or belief in God is only there because of the actions of some who purport to believe in God themselves. I think it is unreasonable to judge God by what some do in His name and that is my main point. Please dont try so hard to not let everything influence you against belief in God.I am not probably stating this in a clear way and I suppose I will get all kinds of negative comments about what I say, but I only wish to see a totally open attitude where the minds are not totally closed. If it can be shown for instance like JFR says that the odds are astronomical that life could have just happened, why is that so threatening to people? It seems that to me it is just as valid to make that premise as to state some things about the universe's origins such as the big bang or whatever the going idea is at the moment. I know that many men who are prominent in their fields will take some stand on evolution not being all tied up in a neat little bundle. I just dont know all the names to use. If I am pressured to find some of them, I guess I can find some time to do so, but for every one I can quote someone will quote someone in rebuttal so what is the point? I know I do have some support for what I have said here and it is enough for me to know that there is doubt amoung some who espouse evolution like a religion.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Ken,
Just a couple of corrections/clarifications:
>I only really try to understand why a belief in God is so much a threat to some of you that you will go to any length to reinforce your disbelief and never give may credence to something which could reinforce a belief in God
A belief in God is only a threat to me as a scientist if it flatly denies good scientific evidence in favour of an alternative for which there is no evidence at all. I don't mind if you believe in God -- in fact, I have known many people I greatly respect who belong to one religion or another. But if you start to use religion to displace good, valid science, then I will argue with you for all I am worth.
>I can see that JFR can at least find a lot of scientific people who refuse to completely rule out God in the scheme of things
You may not see it, but I am in fact one of those people. I am also an atheist. There is no contradiction there: I admit, freely, that there is no evidence against the existence of God, but in science, absence of evidence cannot be used as proof. Nor does absence of evidence against God provide any support to the theory that God exists, either. Hence, from a scientific point of view, "God exists" is not a useful theory as it cannot be tested. This is why God is outside science, and there is no way of marrying religion and science together.
Please read my post several times if necessary, so you can see where I am coming from. I know that nothing winds up a religious person more than a person who refuses to admit even the possibility that God exists, and nothing winds up a sceptic more than a religious person who refuses to accept the possibility that God does not exist. I don't meet the first description, and I hope that you don't meet the second.
Okay, now you have my position. I have an open mind. Now give me some good, solid evidence for the existence of God and I might just change it.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi David, you write: I know that nothing winds up a religious person more than a person who refuses to admit even the possibility that God exists, and nothing winds up a sceptic more than a religious person who refuses to accept the possibility that God does not exist. I don't meet the first description, and I hope that you don't meet the second.
Now I can agree with you here. I do have second thoughts about the existance of God as I imagine do a lot of people. I see all around me and since I have so very much trouble accepting the scientific explanation for the existance of the universe and find it very difficult to believe life began the way evolution wants me to accept began, it requires far less faith for me to believe in God. With some people it is much easier to accept something which is almost impossible rather than be held accountable for what they do in this life. I can accept you have a problem with religion such as it is but religion is about God; it is not God. I do really have doubts and mostly I have to accept the existance of God to justify any concept of why I am here at all and why I can even have those thoughts of why I am here. I just cant help thinking there must be a purpose for it all and maybe that is only ego. I am sure you can have a lot of answers about this and I am really aware of how that can be explained, but it is not enough for me. I often think that if this is all there is to our existance and there is nothing beyond this life, then what is the purpose of it all? Why even try to talk someone out of suicide then? We are only here for such a brief time and alone our existance means almost nothing. So if we are not special in any way that would require us to be created and are not here for a purpose, then why is there any more significance for what we say and do than there would be for any other animal or plant? Life would be life and nothing more. One thing might be more complex than another, but in pure scientific terms that is not important. Science just cannot answer it all in my opinion. I guess that maybe my belief in God is important to me because it was what saved my life at one point. If I had no God to answer for, I would have committed suicide a long time ago when I was 26 and didnt think I could go on to face things after I was kicked out of the Navy. I just didnt think I could be forgiven for what I was and had done and that if I committed suicide I was especially doomed. Maybe we have to be some kind of twisted wretch to believe in something like God, but I am still here after 40 years from that terrible time in my life.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken,
>Now I can agree with you here. I do have second thoughts about the existance of God as I imagine do a lot of people. I see all around me and since I have so very much trouble accepting the scientific explanation for the existance of the universe and find it very difficult to believe life began the way evolution wants me to accept began, it requires far less faith for me to believe in God.
Hang on a moment -- you're not listening to what I said. I said there is no conflict between science and religion, unless you want there to be. So presumably you want there to be. Why?
I'm not sure you understand the difference between the faith that justifies the existence of God (which I have no problem with, as I have repeatedly said), and the evidence which is required if you want to invalidate a scientific theory (evolution) and propose a viable scientific alternative.
>Science just cannot answer it all in my opinion.
No, I don't think science answers it all, either. That is why lots of scientists also believe in God. I, personally, don't, but I don't blame those who do.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is not necessary to prove the existance of God in order to disprove evolution nor refuse to accept its theory as being proven!
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>It is not necessary to prove the existance of God in order to disprove evolution nor refuse to accept its theory as being proven!
No, it is not. But you have not disproved evolution. Nor have you given me any proper reason (apart from -- paraphrased -- "it's complicated", which is absurd: many scientific theories are almost incomprehensible to the intelligent layman, yet you are not saying that they are all invalid) not to accept its theory as proven. I don't count the Bible as reliable evidence.
If you are saying that creationism is a direct substitute for evolution then you are, in essence, saying that it is a scientific alternative. I have a problem with that, because there is plenty of scientific for evolution and against creationism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
The word "Science" does not cme from any root that is to do with belief. It comes from "Scio" - "I Know".
It follows that a scientist has a role, which is to create hypotheses which then are proved or disproved. A person who works simply on blind faith, whihc is not a pejorative term at all, has no such role. Their role is "to believe" whether there is evidence or not.
It interests me when those who work on blind faith are unable to see, understand or accept cast iron evidence of things that conflict with their belief system. One such item is the age of this planet.
Those against evolution seem often to fall at the first hurdle - the reason for an evolutionary change. This may be because it is almost alwsy expressed badly and dumbed down for public consumption.
A plant or a creature does not "make an evolutionary change in order to survive". Instead those who are best adapted for the prevailing conditions are those who are successful in staying alive. They breed, and their genes do not die out. In this manner their physical makeup, or their food dependence, or their toleration for conditions alters. But it is forced upon the species or subspecies by the environment. It is not a change made by the species "in order to survive"
One could argue, I suppose, that a deity creates the environment and thus causes those changes. But to do so requires an understanding that this planet is many thoud=sands of years older than the biblical model, and this is "against the word of god"
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry about the typo in the last sentence; I trust that it is obvious that I meant "scientific evidence".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jedediah
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: Made in NZ
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 170
|
|
|
timmy, i agreed with everything until the last paragraph. This is not a bible study & i don't want to get preachy, but there is nothing in the bible to say that the world is not very, very old - as many millions of years as you like. Cheers
E Te Atua tukuna mai ki au te Mauri tauki te tango i nga mea
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jedediah,
You said,
>timmy, i agreed with everything until the last paragraph. This is not a bible study & i don't want to get preachy, but there is nothing in the bible to say that the world is not very, very old - as many millions of years as you like. Cheers
It depends on the viewpoint. If you take the Bible as unfailingly accurate, and make several assumptions (such as that the length of a "day" in the creation story is 24 hours, and not simply an unspecified length of time, which is apparently supported by the alternative meanings of the original Hebrew word), plus ignore all evidence outside the Bible, then you can come to the conclusion that the Earth is only a few thousands of years old.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_Creationism
Admittedly, there are other forms of creationism, Timmy, that do not require the Earth to be so young:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_Creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-Age_Creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
I don't know which Ken subscribes to, but as I don't see much difference between them from a scientific point of view, it doesn't really matter to me.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not support what is usually called "Scientific Creationism"
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I am enough of a scientist to not take some of the interpretations made of the Bible as cast iron evidence. It is not a take it or leave it sort of thing is it? I dont think that evolutionary theory is totally wrong about all it proports to be true either, such as how plants and animals have modified over the years (most probably due to background radiation) to adapt better to their surroundings. I see absolutely no confilct whatsoever with what I percieve as creation because of that. I have seen no evidence by science of evolution to show me an example of one species changing into another. yes, some die out and others survive sometimes greatly changed from the original, but these so-called inbetween ones dont seem to be verified in the fossil records where both the original and the subsequent one appear. I know for a fact that "Lucy" which has been touted by various people as such evidence was done with only small fragments of the jaw as evidence. To me that shows some really profound faith in the concept. I would point out to some of you that many of the prominent people who espouse evolution do see some problems with it and admit there are short-comings. I applaud them for being honest at least that the evidence is not "iron clad" for evolution. Now dont keep throwing the bible at me as some kind of irrational view of things............I have already admitted that I dont take it all literally.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To get an idea of what I have in my mind as creation, you should just throw away the bible and think of what the concept must mean. I am not sure you can prove that creation did not occur. I am not positive completely that evolution is not correct and will see the validity of mutations and change within a species and see no conflict with creation in that respect. I do not need any specific religion for my idea of creation, only the existance of God.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Well I am enough of a scientist to not take some of the interpretations made of the Bible as cast iron evidence.
That's a start, at least.
>I dont think that evolutionary theory is totally wrong about all it proports to be true either, such as how plants and animals have modified over the years (most probably due to background radiation) to adapt better to their surroundings.
Not just radiation. There are several reasons why cells mutate. Cell mutation is scientific fact: I am glad that you do not deny it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_mutation
>I see absolutely no confilct whatsoever with what I percieve as creation because of that.
That's your call. I personally think you are not looking hard enough.
>I have seen no evidence by science of evolution to show me an example of one species changing into another.
Okay, there I have to fault you. No evidence? There is plenty of evidence.
Read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution
Then come back to me with any faults you might have with it.
>I know for a fact that "Lucy" which has been touted by various people as such evidence was done with only small fragments of the jaw as evidence.
You have your facts wrong, then. The fact that you believe this means that you are not willing to look things up for yourself: you believe what you are told. And you have been told wrong.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis
More than forty percent of Lucy was found -- "a jaw, arm bone, a thighbone, ribs, and vertebrae". A few small fragments of jawbone? That is invalid, spurious propaganda, and I must confess that I am highly frustrated that you believed it.
>To me that shows some really profound faith in the concept. I would point out to some of you that many of the prominent people who espouse evolution do see some problems with it and admit there are short-comings.
There are shortcomings with many theories. Seeing shortcomings in something does not mean it is wrong! It means we don't have enough evidence yet, or some of the technicalities may are slightly incorrect. There is far more evidence supporting evolution than there is against it. Religious people sometimes have a grave problem understanding this -- because a belief in God is absolute and unchanging, they try and apply that to science: "all or nothing". On the other hand, science is always testing, considering, improving.
>Now dont keep throwing the bible at me as some kind of irrational view of things............I have already admitted that I dont take it all literally.
You don't take the Bible literally. Thank goodness for that. But you do take the word of others, who are WRONG, literally, which is in a way worse. If you keep doing that, I see no reason not to continue to argue until you understand.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Evolution does not require mutation. It requires slow adaptation.
While mutation may exist and may create a sustainable alteration to a species, it is by no means the way things change.
Things alter when presented with stimulus to alter. That stimulaus may be something as simple as more or less water, more or less heat. Those members of the species with the genetic makeup to surve well do that. Those without it survive less well. In due course the alteration os locked in because the poor survivors have died
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
And where did the approximate 6-7,000 years maximum age concept come from?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think because there is a lineage of people all the way from Adam to Jesus, and the maximum life span of a person was around 900 years. (Yes, 900 years. Bizarre. But that's what the Bible says.)
I bow down to any Bible pedants who may be able to shed further light on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jedediah
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: Made in NZ
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 170
|
|
|
The maximum 6/7,000 years concept came from some ole twit who couldn't see the words of the bible in front of him. Bishop Usher, i think - something like that. I've gotta go to work, i'll post again tonight. Cheers
E Te Atua tukuna mai ki au te Mauri tauki te tango i nga mea
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Evolution does not require mutation. It requires slow adaptation.
Sorry, Timmy, I'm afraid you're wrong.
Mutation is the basis for natural selection and evolution. It is what creates the new variants of genes -- all meiosis can do without it is to create new combinations of the genes that already exist.
There's no need to
Have a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_mutation
>While mutation may exist and may create a sustainable alteration to a species, it is by no means the way things change.
It is.
>Things alter when presented with stimulus to alter.
No, they alter when genetic mutation introduces a slightly different version of a gene. From then on, the genes are mixed round through reproduction. Some offspring will be lucky, and get the best genes from their parents. Others will get the worst, and die out.
>That stimulaus may be something as simple as more or less water, more or less heat.
No. There is no direct response to a stimulus. But it seems that way, as those that cannot respond (because they have the wrong genetics) die out.
>Those members of the species with the genetic makeup to surve well do that.
Yes.
>Those without it survive less well. In due course the alteration os locked in because the poor survivors have died
Yes.
I do think you do need to read up on evolution and natural selection a bit, though. I'm not trying to be patronising.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Maybe I do.
But a mutation is commonly felt to be (eg) the regular alteration of the common cold virus, or "new" strains fo a flu virus. Those are "within the grasp of the common man"
Take a mouse that used to live in a hot climate. When the island it was on divided into two, leaving a viable breeding community on each half, nothing mutated. Each community had mice who were good at hot and mice who were good at cold. In the middle there were "universal mice"
Over a long, long time the islands separated. One headed towards a patch of increasingly cold weather, and the other towards a warmer patch.
On "cold isle" the cold mice prospered and bred with other cold mice and uiniversal mice. While they also bred with hot mice the babies did not always prosper. Gradually the genes of the cold mice started to hold sway. They died less often of cold and were available to breed.
On "hot isle" the same happened, but in reverse. The cold mice's genes died out and the hot mice took over.
We now have two communities of mice, whose genetic makeup have altered. But my non technical view does not regard this as mutation (while a true geneticist may disagree with me). Instead it is a logical progression, and one which is within my grasp.
I "fear mutation" because it leads to oddities and anomalies (or this was the way I was educated) such as cancers, you see. I "see" mutation as the throwing of a switch whereas I see evolution as something that is more likely to respond to sustained and continuous pressure that to (eg) sudden radiation from sunspot activity.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Evolution does not require mutation. It requires slow adaptation.
Actually, you are technically correct there -- evolution could theoretically occur through a mechanism other than natural selection, which does not require mutation, and which no-one has thought of yet. Natural selection, however, does rely on genetic mutation.
Evolution is theoretically distinct from natural selection and I erred slightly in my reply by assuming you meant they were one and the same. Please could you confirm whether you did or did not assume natural selection to be the mechanism for evolution to occur. If you didn't, then what mechanism were you talking about?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
You know I am not wholly sure 
See my "Hot and Cold Mice" above this post.
There has, surely to be a lot of luck with mutation that the plant or creature is not damaged by the mutation and that is it also capable of breeding with others in the nearby available breeding pool.
Oddly, mutation, in that it requires a lot of luck to be sustainable and succeed, actually points me to a controlling power. Hot and cold mice point me towards long term predictable and sustinable chnages. However, the mice require a very long time to adapt. How fortunate that they breed so regularly.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, come now.
If you are talking about a scientific theory (natural selection) then you should understand it properly. Otherwise you are in no position to lecture other people about it.
Where do you think the "hot mouse" and "cold mouse" genes came from in the first place? They did not pop up out of thin air! They appeared because they gradually mutated that way from "normal" mouse genes. And that was through genetic mutation. At first, the variations due to mutation in genes were so slight that they made no appreciable difference. Then, once they actually started exhibiting themselves in the mice (their phenotype), they affected their fitness, and natural selection could occur.
Genetic mutation is absolutely key to the variation within a species. Ask any biologist.
>We now have two communities of mice, whose genetic makeup have altered. But my non technical view does not regard this as mutation (while a true geneticist may disagree with me).
A true geneticist would do nothing of the sort. What you have described is not genetic mutation. That is natural selection. But the genetic mutation was required to create the variation in genes in the first place!
Your own aversion to the word "mutation" is completely irrelevant when looking at the issue from a scientific point of view.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timmy,
You do have the wrong end of the stick over mutation, and I'm humble enough to know that I may not be expert enough to convince you to your satisfaction.
Try finding a book on natural selection -- not a dumbed-down one, as they often leave out important details (such as the way that new variations come to exist in the first place, which you don't seem to have been aware of). When you fully understand the mechanism, you will have a "Eureka!" moment that is far more wonderful than than any you might get through religion. If anything, it makes you appreciate God (or Nature, or Chance, your choice) all the more for putting into place such a wonderfully simple yet ingenious system.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I bow to your more specialised knowledge.
I am using logic, only. The reason for this is that, if I use logic then I do not nail my colours to the mast of a particular scientific theory. I apologise if I appear to be lecturing, I thought I was discussing
It is a very good question about where the hot and cold tolerant mouse gense come from. I had never thought about it as anything other than a "natural variation in a standard distribution of genes". It obviously requires deeper thought.
So, taking your statement that they arrived by some prior mutation, then the heating and cooling simply provide the stimulus where the intolerant perish and the tolerant flourish.
I still have something nagging at me over this.
It comes down to the question "Why would something mutate and have the good fortune to be both sustainable after that mutation and able to be bred into and passed to future generations?
And there is an interesting spoiler question: "What if a deity sprinkled the earth with a wholly random selection of pre-built genes, including the gene for belief in all sorts of different belief systems, and then settled back to watch the arguments?"
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I am always happy to be wrong. I am content to ask "the wrong question" provided it leads to enlightenment. And I accept additional knowledge happily. probably this arm of the thread should wither, but there may be some interest inthe other mouse part
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> I bow to your more specialised knowledge.
>
> I am using logic, only. The reason for this is that, if I use logic then I do not nail my colours to the mast of a particular scientific theory. I apologise if I appear to be lecturing, I thought I was discussing
It's lecturing if you present something as fact that isn't right. I don't mind -- you weren't lecturing me, and I doubt Ken would have picked it up, but I am a pedant, so I couldn't let it go.
> It is a very good question about where the hot and cold tolerant mouse gense come from. I had never thought about it as anything other than a "natural variation in a standard distribution of genes". It obviously requires deeper thought.
Great! I have provoked thought. I would recommend that you read some more about evolution and natural selection if you are interested in having the answers.
> So, taking your statement that they arrived by some prior mutation, then the heating and cooling simply provide the stimulus where the intolerant perish and the tolerant flourish.
Absolutely!
> I still have something nagging at me over this.
>
> It comes down to the question "Why would something mutate and have the good fortune to be both sustainable after that mutation and able to be bred into and passed to future generations?
Because there are so many mutations. Some are "good" mutations, some are "bad" mutations, and some have no effect whatsoever. Some are so awful they are immediately filtered out, because they reduce an individual's chances to breed (or even kill him or her). Some are bad, but they are recessive, so they never show themselves. Some are neutral, and no-one notices them (this is what happens to most mutations). Then, every so often, there is a good one, and it gives the holder of its gene a slight advantage, which is subsequently selected for by natural selection. If it's good enough, the entire species will eventually get it.
How do you think evolution happens in individuals which divide by mitosis -- completely asexually? Mutation is the only way that offspring can be given an advantage.
> And there is an interesting spoiler question: "What if a deity sprinkled the earth with a wholly random selection of pre-built genes, including the gene for belief in all sorts of different belief systems, and then settled back to watch the arguments?"
You mean, and didn't allow any of those genes to mutate? It would mean that no species could change dramatically -- they would be condemned to mixing round genes already present in the population. So no big changes, just little ones. If, for example, an organism had no genotypes with genes for eyes, then it could never, ever, evolve an eye. Yet we know that it happens. Bacteria and viruses, too, could never chance, because each offspring is identical to its parent. But we also know it happens.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> And there is an interesting spoiler question: "What if a deity sprinkled the earth with a wholly random selection of pre-built genes, including the gene for belief in all sorts of different belief systems, and then settled back to watch the arguments?"
Reading it again, I guess that was a joke.
If God does exist, he must have a pretty evil sense of humour, for that's basically what has happened (we all have differing responses to the same data because, mentally, we are all different. Though environmental effects are also to blame, to a certain extent). Except he used evolution to do the dirty work in coming up with all the variations for him.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Ah. So, while not "intelligent design" (which cannot exist otherwise George Bush would not exist) evolution could well have been constructed by a deity to see what might happen. That diety may well not have constructed anything except evolution.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timmy,
>while not "intelligent design" (which cannot exist otherwise George Bush would not exist)
Without all the baggage added by fundamentalists, "intelligent design" could theoretically refer to the possibility that a designer designed the universe, started it off, and left it to develop. That would not be against science, and I wouldn't have a problem with it. But, as it is, "intelligent design" is just creationism by another name, and pretty much non-scientific clap-trap.
>evolution could well have been constructed by a deity to see what might happen.
I would rather say that evolution is a natural process that arose due to the design of the universe. It's more precise, and it doesn't go against any scientific principles. And while I am personally of the opinion that the universe arose purely by chance, there is no scientific reason (other than the extreme complexity it adds) that the universe itself could not have been designed by a God.
>That diety may well not have constructed anything except evolution.
The deity doesn't even need to have constructed evolution. He might be just as surprised as we are that life now exists.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So by your last statement it means that you personally investigate everything you hear until you are ready to believe it? That would mean you would not be able to believe anything written or spoken by anyone else unless you were personally able to witness it. I do trust the integrety of some sources just as you do; you seem to trust google for instance. How can you be so sure that everything I have heard is somehow flawed in some way, but whatever you might hear or read has absolute credence? It seems to me that you have a bit of an attitude of arrogance about what you believe. I will certainly go to the places you have pointed out and take a look.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW David, I also have some very troubling feelings when it comes to some of the things accepted by science as almost a given fact as far as physics is concerned. I wont just pick on things liek anthropology etc.
When I first took physics in HS that was in about 1955 and 1956 and I was in a couple of good physics classes at the Univ of Kansas in 1959-1963. One of those classes was called atomic physics and we used some of the latest books in our class and there have been some profound changes in how we see the atom since that time. I think when I was in HS there were perhaps 5 or 6 parts of the atom. By the time I got to college this had increased to about 10 or maybe 15 but most were of the speculative nature. Now you should ask why this has occured as the math has been around for quite a while which is used to explain the things we observe. That number of particles has grown to a large number and I am not even sure how many by now. There are a lot of reasons why the math might fall short of explaining the observations since many things of this nature involve solving equations where both objects are not really in the same frame of reference when it comes to the math involved. All that we describe in math depends on a single frame of reference being the basis for things like Newtons Laws for instance. I really feel it is rediculous that we keep inventing particles to explain things and it shows we may not have things correctly in a basic way. Now there have been experiments to prove the existance of some of those particles and in one of them a guy sat in a mine shaft in Wisconsin for 5 years collecting data. There were hundreds of thousands of cloud chamber hits which were anylized by computer and out of all of those it was determined that a few fit the criteria of this new particle. It was only something like 5 or 10 of them out of hundreds of thousands! I am not sure of the actual numbers as it has been some time since I read about the experiment on line or in some magazine. This was not some article I read with someone who had an agenda to refute the work, but an article which was showing how great this work was and what it took to do all these things in science. The article was expounding the way this monumentus thing had been proven and so had propelled out knowledge of the atom to new heights etc.
When I read it and just stepped back and considered how flimsey all the evidence was, I was appalled that they actually "bought into it" and all I could think of was the story about the "Emperor's New Clothes". I thought to myself, "If I had presented that to a group of physicists I would have been laughed out of the room by them." I strongly believe and my estemmed friend who has taught physics at the Univ of Minn agrees with me that it could be an attempt (in finding all these new particles) to change the universe to fit the equation. He says it is questionable research and I just want you to know that I dont take it all without question no matter where I hear things.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
