My mind isn't "made up" about Christians. They are fine people. I have some Christian friends... I once knew a Christian who made it all the way through a PhD program in theoretical physics and still had his faith, yet didn't try to combine it with his religion, because he knew it wouldn't work. You see there are rational Christians, who believe that science does what it does best and religion does what it does best and the two are on such different terms that it is impossibly stupid to try to reconcile some silly sentences in the Bible with, well, theoretical physics. A religion isn't the sentances in a long presumably mistranslated book.
Faith and science are completely compatible as long as you realize they don't have any real connections to each other. Once you start trying to bend science into your faith, you lose the science and gain the irrational.
Darwin was a very honest scientist. He said of himself that he is not a brillant brain, but a slow thinker, who need time in order to make his studies.
Like any good scientist, he also built on the owrk of others. In Darwin's case, the genesis (ha ha) of his ideas came from the work of geologist.
Faith and science are completely compatible as long as you realize they don't have any real connections to each other. Once you start trying to bend science into your faith, you lose the science and gain the irrational.
Life did aparantly "pop up". They are finding fossile evidence of life at 3.8 billion years ago. This is immediately after the hadean era of earth. The fact that life showed up in abundance so early, and possessing complex faculties such as photosynthesis flies in the face of the evolutionary model. Also evidence of further sterilization events on earth makes this problem even larger. In addition there is a lack of evidence for primordial soups, the problem of homochirality, a lack of viable chemical routes to life, and others. It seems that the evolution model has some serious holes. This leads to theories of panspermia, and directed panspermia.
To say that all the evidence points to evolution is very naive.
I think any scientist will agree with you that the beginnings of life on this planet are the least understood chapter in biological history. The reason for our lack of knowledge are obvious, but that doesn't affect the theory of evolution at all. Just because we can't explain how life developed doesn't imply that we haven't developed a good model of the way in which it evolved. There is plenty of evidence that evolution is occuring right now. Is it so hard to imagine that it happened billions of years ago?
The essence of believing in something is irrational eh? So if I understand you correctly being rational is not believing. How far does this extend? Does belief in right or wrong fall under that conclusion? Does it include belief in truth and science? If they don't what's the difference?
I don't think its so easy to separate the how from the why. Follow the how long enough and you'll hit the why. Its convenient to disreguard the why, but eventually you have to deal with it.
If Christianity makes claims about how the universe was created, and I look at them and decide they are wrong, why would I give them the time of day? How do I know that the rest isn't a lie as well? I'm sure you view it that way, and that's the cause for the whole debate. The reason that I've bothered to write anything on this subject is that there is a fair number of people who have looked at the evidence, and said that science and spirituality can influence each other. They would like to make their views known as well.
Quote:
The above contrived example (brought to you by the letter 4 and the number Q) makes as much sense to me as:
"I wonder how the universe started?" <- how
"Because God wanted it." <- why
"Er, okay, but why did he?" <- why
"Because the Bible says so." <- dodge
You intentionally switch to the why.
"I wonder how the universe started?" <- how
Option A:
"God made it." <- how
Option B:
"It was just there." <- how
The universe started with the big bang right? Where did the material come from and how did it get there? That's a legitimate how question isn't it? If you say, "It was just there", and I say "God put it there". How are those any different from each other? Show me a way to observe and test just being there. We know the universe had a beginning. From what did it begin? That's a how.
Quote:
Agreed - now, what direct observable evidence for the existence of God do you have, that *does not require the existence of God to exist*.
Can God make a rock so big that he can't move it? Its an illogical question. You are asking what evidence do we have of the existence of the 5th dimension that does not require a fifth dimension to exist. Or what direct observable evidence do we have for the existence of the universe if it didn't exist.
Also "Dr James Hutton is said to have developed an almost identical explanation for evolution 65 years before The Origin of the Species was published in 1859.
Professor Paul Pearson, from the University of Cardiff, uncovered a whole chapter on selection theory in a rare 1794 publication by Dr Hutton..."
Evolution wasn't new when Darwin popularized the theory. He is the fall guy because of the international nature of his publication, most prior theorist published in obscure journals which remained in the hands of the few intellects who would take the time to read them. There wasn't the equivalent of the NYTimes science section...
I think any scientist will agree with you that the beginnings of life on this planet are the least understood chapter in biological history. The reason for our lack of knowledge are obvious, but that doesn't affect the theory of evolution at all. Just because we can't explain how life developed doesn't imply that we haven't developed a good model of the way in which it evolved. There is plenty of evidence that evolution is occuring right now. Is it so hard to imagine that it happened billions of years ago?
Couple of points. Showing how life began is pivotal to the whole evolution argument. Obviously no life, no evolution. The present naturalist origin of life model has tremendous hurdles to overcome. Scientific discoveries are making the hurdles higher not lower. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and skip on to point number two for arguments sake.
Quote:
There is plenty of evidence that evolution is occuring right now. Is it so hard to imagine that it happened billions of years ago?
You show me evidence that there is evolution, and I'll show you evidence that there isn't. The evolutionary model has large holes in it.
The essence of believing in something is irrational eh? So if I understand you correctly being rational is not believing. How far does this extend? Does belief in right or wrong fall under that conclusion? Does it include belief in truth and science? If they don't what's the difference?
Er... I think you're grossly misunderstanding me on this point... but, I don't *believe* it' is necessary for the rest of the discussion, and I *do* have that dissertation to work on, so I'll keep going.
[quoteI don't think its so easy to separate the how from the why. Follow the how long enough and you'll hit the why. Its convenient to disreguard the why, but eventually you have to deal with it. [/quote]
Then deal with it *on its own terms*. There are two questions for a reason - because one cannot answer them the same way. 'How' is something that can be tackled by rational methods. Cool, so use them. 'Why' is something that can not. So don't use them there.
Agreed?
Then explain to me why the mechanisms by which 'why' is attempted to be answered (faith, etc) are leveraged to try and answer the 'how'? It's a misapplication of the tools.
Quote:
If Christianity makes claims about how the universe was created, and I look at them and decide they are wrong, why would I give them the time of day? How do I know that the rest isn't a lie as well? I'm sure you view it that way, and that's the cause for the whole debate.
Nope, not at all, and, in fact, if you go back and read my posts in this thread I've explicitly defended using the Bible as a historical and anthropological resource... which in no way requires believing the spiritual aspects of it, any more than looking at Egyptian Nile myths for evidence of historical flood patterns requires making sacrifices to Bast. Those are factual tidbits that can be verified by other means that are subject to the scientific method.
Quote:
The reason that I've bothered to write anything on this subject is that there is a fair number of people who have looked at the evidence, and said that science and spirituality can influence each other. They would like to make their views known as well.
You intentionally switch to the why.
Yes, I did, precisely to illustrate the problem with mixing the 'how' and 'why'. *It makes no sense* to do so.
Quote:
"I wonder how the universe started?" <- how
Option A:
"God made it." <- how
Option B:
"It was just there." <- how
The universe started with the big bang right? Where did the material come from and how did it get there? That's a legitimate how question isn't it? If you say, "It was just there", and I say "God put it there". How are those any different from each other? Show me a way to observe and test just being there. We know the universe had a beginning. From what did it begin? That's a how.
Yes, and any good scientist will tell you "We don't know." *not* "It was just there." I'm sorry if you've been hanging around poor scientists.
Science isn't afraid to say "We don't know." because that's the only way that science progresses, by identifying and filling holes in the knowledge and theories.
Religion, on the other hand, seems to based on the opposite: saying "We don't know" is *anathema* because it flies directly in the face of belief, faith, and devotion.
Quote:
Can God make a rock so big that he can't move it? Its an illogical question. You are asking what evidence do we have of the existence of the 5th dimension that does not require a fifth dimension to exist. Or what direct observable evidence do we have for the existence of the universe if it didn't exist.
Bzzt.
We can postulate a fifth dimension, we can mathematically model it, but until we can *test* for that existence, science will say 'the theorized fifth dimension' or 'if the fifth dimension exists'. (Shorthand used in context can reduce this to 'the fifth dimension' of course - but context is where we started in this conversation, isn't it? ) Science does *NOT* say "the absolutely positively existing fifth dimension" without that proof.
Religion claims to know that God exists without non-assumptive proof.
The universe started with the big bang right? Where did the material come from and how did it get there? That's a legitimate how question isn't it? If you say, "It was just there", and I say "God put it there". How are those any different from each other?
Because you're automagically portraying your 'God' as a given. What's the difference between you saying God put it there and me saying I put it there? You've never met me or God, so we're equal in that respect. Why not have faith that *I* started the universe?
Also, to make things more interesting...I should let you know that I'm not human, have been around for eternity, and experiment with my great power by creating and extinquishing life at will. I may not be a man either.
I tried reading Kant's discussion of the cosmological argument. I'm just not getting much out of it. Could you summarize the main points for me? I just got home from work and all the exposure to XP has roasted my noodle.
Because you're automagically portraying your 'God' as a given. What's the difference between you saying God put it there and me saying I put it there? You've never met me or God, so we're equal in that respect. Why not have faith that *I* started the universe?
Also, to make things more interesting...I should let you know that I'm not human, have been around for eternity, and experiment with my great power by creating and extinquishing life at will. I may not be a man either.
Aren't you automagically saying it was just there? Was it always there? How long is always before time begins?
Okay you made your claim. You put it there. Tell me more about yourself. Then I'll judge whether I think your claim is legit or not.
Couple of points. Showing how life began is pivotal to the whole evolution argument. Obviously no life, no evolution.
Err... no.
1) Look around you. Life. Therefore, life exists.
2) Evolution explains how life forms change. The biogenesis event dives into a different set of mechanisms, such as underlying chemical models and such.
Evolution doesn't say how life originated, technically, it explains how it changes over time. We have good evidence that those changes occurred. We have a model for how, based on solid reproducible data that we use to extrapolate to a larger basis.
Quote:
The present naturalist origin of life model has tremendous hurdles to overcome. Scientific discoveries are making the hurdles higher not lower. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and skip on to point number two for arguments sake.
You show me evidence that there is evolution, and I'll show you evidence that there isn't. The evolutionary model has large holes in it.
Yes, but until you can put something forth that was *fewer* holes, evolution and various biogenesis models rule the day. That's the way it works. You don't say "Ah, but here's a problem, so let's ditch the whole thing!" (Which, ironically, is what you were accusing me of doing in your previous post, *right*?), you say "Here's a problem - how can it be solved?" If it can't, you come up with an alternative hypothesis that fits the observed facts. If it fits *better*, *based solely on the observed evidence*, then it trumps the old one.
So... evolution has holes. Provide an alternative hypothesis that a) fits observable data, and b) can be *TESTED* empirically. That's how you answer 'how'.
And, I've enjoyed this, but I have to bow out, work calls. Y'all have fun.
Comments
Faith and science are completely compatible as long as you realize they don't have any real connections to each other. Once you start trying to bend science into your faith, you lose the science and gain the irrational.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Darwin was a very honest scientist. He said of himself that he is not a brillant brain, but a slow thinker, who need time in order to make his studies.
Like any good scientist, he also built on the owrk of others. In Darwin's case, the genesis (ha ha) of his ideas came from the work of geologist.
A good book on it...
Originally posted by Kickaha
"Mommy, where do babies come from?" <- how
"Because we wanted a child to love." <- why
"Er, okay, why did you and Daddy have me?" <- why
"Go talk to your father." <- dodge
The above contrived example (brought to you by the letter 4 and the number Q) makes as much sense to me as:
"I wonder how the universe started?" <- how
"Because God wanted it." <- why
"Er, okay, but why did he?" <- why
"Because the Bible says so." <- dodge
Genius.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Faith and science are completely compatible as long as you realize they don't have any real connections to each other. Once you start trying to bend science into your faith, you lose the science and gain the irrational.
Genius.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
Life did aparantly "pop up". They are finding fossile evidence of life at 3.8 billion years ago. This is immediately after the hadean era of earth. The fact that life showed up in abundance so early, and possessing complex faculties such as photosynthesis flies in the face of the evolutionary model. Also evidence of further sterilization events on earth makes this problem even larger. In addition there is a lack of evidence for primordial soups, the problem of homochirality, a lack of viable chemical routes to life, and others. It seems that the evolution model has some serious holes. This leads to theories of panspermia, and directed panspermia.
To say that all the evidence points to evolution is very naive.
I think any scientist will agree with you that the beginnings of life on this planet are the least understood chapter in biological history. The reason for our lack of knowledge are obvious, but that doesn't affect the theory of evolution at all. Just because we can't explain how life developed doesn't imply that we haven't developed a good model of the way in which it evolved. There is plenty of evidence that evolution is occuring right now. Is it so hard to imagine that it happened billions of years ago?
I don't think its so easy to separate the how from the why. Follow the how long enough and you'll hit the why. Its convenient to disreguard the why, but eventually you have to deal with it.
If Christianity makes claims about how the universe was created, and I look at them and decide they are wrong, why would I give them the time of day? How do I know that the rest isn't a lie as well? I'm sure you view it that way, and that's the cause for the whole debate. The reason that I've bothered to write anything on this subject is that there is a fair number of people who have looked at the evidence, and said that science and spirituality can influence each other. They would like to make their views known as well.
The above contrived example (brought to you by the letter 4 and the number Q) makes as much sense to me as:
"I wonder how the universe started?" <- how
"Because God wanted it." <- why
"Er, okay, but why did he?" <- why
"Because the Bible says so." <- dodge
You intentionally switch to the why.
"I wonder how the universe started?" <- how
Option A:
"God made it." <- how
Option B:
"It was just there." <- how
The universe started with the big bang right? Where did the material come from and how did it get there? That's a legitimate how question isn't it? If you say, "It was just there", and I say "God put it there". How are those any different from each other? Show me a way to observe and test just being there. We know the universe had a beginning. From what did it begin? That's a how.
Agreed - now, what direct observable evidence for the existence of God do you have, that *does not require the existence of God to exist*.
Can God make a rock so big that he can't move it? Its an illogical question. You are asking what evidence do we have of the existence of the 5th dimension that does not require a fifth dimension to exist. Or what direct observable evidence do we have for the existence of the universe if it didn't exist.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Yes, the good Scotsman William Smith.
A good book on it...
Also "Dr James Hutton is said to have developed an almost identical explanation for evolution 65 years before The Origin of the Species was published in 1859.
Professor Paul Pearson, from the University of Cardiff, uncovered a whole chapter on selection theory in a rare 1794 publication by Dr Hutton..."
see: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm...ceanddiscovery
I think any scientist will agree with you that the beginnings of life on this planet are the least understood chapter in biological history. The reason for our lack of knowledge are obvious, but that doesn't affect the theory of evolution at all. Just because we can't explain how life developed doesn't imply that we haven't developed a good model of the way in which it evolved. There is plenty of evidence that evolution is occuring right now. Is it so hard to imagine that it happened billions of years ago?
Couple of points. Showing how life began is pivotal to the whole evolution argument. Obviously no life, no evolution. The present naturalist origin of life model has tremendous hurdles to overcome. Scientific discoveries are making the hurdles higher not lower. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and skip on to point number two for arguments sake.
There is plenty of evidence that evolution is occuring right now. Is it so hard to imagine that it happened billions of years ago?
You show me evidence that there is evolution, and I'll show you evidence that there isn't. The evolutionary model has large holes in it.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Evolution wasn't new when Darwin popularized the theory. He is the fall guy ...
I wouldn't mind being the fall guy for what eventually becomes a new scientific theory
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
The essence of believing in something is irrational eh? So if I understand you correctly being rational is not believing. How far does this extend? Does belief in right or wrong fall under that conclusion? Does it include belief in truth and science? If they don't what's the difference?
Er... I think you're grossly misunderstanding me on this point... but, I don't *believe*
[quoteI don't think its so easy to separate the how from the why. Follow the how long enough and you'll hit the why. Its convenient to disreguard the why, but eventually you have to deal with it. [/quote]
Then deal with it *on its own terms*. There are two questions for a reason - because one cannot answer them the same way. 'How' is something that can be tackled by rational methods. Cool, so use them. 'Why' is something that can not. So don't use them there.
Agreed?
Then explain to me why the mechanisms by which 'why' is attempted to be answered (faith, etc) are leveraged to try and answer the 'how'? It's a misapplication of the tools.
If Christianity makes claims about how the universe was created, and I look at them and decide they are wrong, why would I give them the time of day? How do I know that the rest isn't a lie as well? I'm sure you view it that way, and that's the cause for the whole debate.
Nope, not at all, and, in fact, if you go back and read my posts in this thread I've explicitly defended using the Bible as a historical and anthropological resource... which in no way requires believing the spiritual aspects of it, any more than looking at Egyptian Nile myths for evidence of historical flood patterns requires making sacrifices to Bast. Those are factual tidbits that can be verified by other means that are subject to the scientific method.
The reason that I've bothered to write anything on this subject is that there is a fair number of people who have looked at the evidence, and said that science and spirituality can influence each other. They would like to make their views known as well.
You intentionally switch to the why.
Yes, I did, precisely to illustrate the problem with mixing the 'how' and 'why'. *It makes no sense* to do so.
"I wonder how the universe started?" <- how
Option A:
"God made it." <- how
Option B:
"It was just there." <- how
The universe started with the big bang right? Where did the material come from and how did it get there? That's a legitimate how question isn't it? If you say, "It was just there", and I say "God put it there". How are those any different from each other? Show me a way to observe and test just being there. We know the universe had a beginning. From what did it begin? That's a how.
Yes, and any good scientist will tell you "We don't know." *not* "It was just there." I'm sorry if you've been hanging around poor scientists.
Science isn't afraid to say "We don't know." because that's the only way that science progresses, by identifying and filling holes in the knowledge and theories.
Religion, on the other hand, seems to based on the opposite: saying "We don't know" is *anathema* because it flies directly in the face of belief, faith, and devotion.
Can God make a rock so big that he can't move it? Its an illogical question. You are asking what evidence do we have of the existence of the 5th dimension that does not require a fifth dimension to exist. Or what direct observable evidence do we have for the existence of the universe if it didn't exist.
Bzzt.
We can postulate a fifth dimension, we can mathematically model it, but until we can *test* for that existence, science will say 'the theorized fifth dimension' or 'if the fifth dimension exists'. (Shorthand used in context can reduce this to 'the fifth dimension' of course - but context is where we started in this conversation, isn't it?
Religion claims to know that God exists without non-assumptive proof.
Major difference.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
The universe started with the big bang right? Where did the material come from and how did it get there? That's a legitimate how question isn't it? If you say, "It was just there", and I say "God put it there". How are those any different from each other?
Because you're automagically portraying your 'God' as a given. What's the difference between you saying God put it there and me saying I put it there? You've never met me or God, so we're equal in that respect. Why not have faith that *I* started the universe?
Also, to make things more interesting...I should let you know that I'm not human, have been around for eternity, and experiment with my great power by creating and extinquishing life at will. I may not be a man either.
I tried reading Kant's discussion of the cosmological argument. I'm just not getting much out of it. Could you summarize the main points for me? I just got home from work and all the exposure to XP has roasted my noodle.
Because you're automagically portraying your 'God' as a given. What's the difference between you saying God put it there and me saying I put it there? You've never met me or God, so we're equal in that respect. Why not have faith that *I* started the universe?
Also, to make things more interesting...I should let you know that I'm not human, have been around for eternity, and experiment with my great power by creating and extinquishing life at will. I may not be a man either.
Aren't you automagically saying it was just there? Was it always there? How long is always before time begins?
Okay you made your claim. You put it there. Tell me more about yourself. Then I'll judge whether I think your claim is legit or not.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
Couple of points. Showing how life began is pivotal to the whole evolution argument. Obviously no life, no evolution.
Err... no.
1) Look around you. Life. Therefore, life exists.
2) Evolution explains how life forms change. The biogenesis event dives into a different set of mechanisms, such as underlying chemical models and such.
Evolution doesn't say how life originated, technically, it explains how it changes over time. We have good evidence that those changes occurred. We have a model for how, based on solid reproducible data that we use to extrapolate to a larger basis.
The present naturalist origin of life model has tremendous hurdles to overcome. Scientific discoveries are making the hurdles higher not lower. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and skip on to point number two for arguments sake.
You show me evidence that there is evolution, and I'll show you evidence that there isn't. The evolutionary model has large holes in it.
Yes, but until you can put something forth that was *fewer* holes, evolution and various biogenesis models rule the day. That's the way it works. You don't say "Ah, but here's a problem, so let's ditch the whole thing!" (Which, ironically, is what you were accusing me of doing in your previous post, *right*?), you say "Here's a problem - how can it be solved?" If it can't, you come up with an alternative hypothesis that fits the observed facts. If it fits *better*, *based solely on the observed evidence*, then it trumps the old one.
So... evolution has holes. Provide an alternative hypothesis that a) fits observable data, and b) can be *TESTED* empirically. That's how you answer 'how'.
And, I've enjoyed this, but I have to bow out, work calls. Y'all have fun.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
Okay you made your claim. You put it there. Tell me more about yourself. Then I'll judge whether I think your claim is legit or not.
OK...I'm vengeful, jealous, needy and I get tired after 6 full days of work...
And I didn't say 'it was there', I said *I* put it there. And it was good.
heh
(I think that means he's like a fossil)