Scientific and Religious Perspectives on Creationism / Evolution [Archive]

Thirdshifter

25-11-2003, 03:56 PM

I do not find the concepts of Creation and Evolution to be mutually exclusive.

Like the mind/body inverted-dichotomy, simutaneity within time dictates that Creation and Evolution logically must coexist both theoretically and in re.

And exactly like the mind/body simutaneous dialectic it is frequently misunderstood in concept and reality/execution for logically, in both examples the one [sic] cannot exist without the other [sic].

Excerpt from my undergrad Senior Honors Thesis in Philosophy:Inspired by Descartes, this Conversation is being written as Conversation, rather than a logical dissemination of postulates and derivations of dialectic semantics. It is the genetic hybrid of form and substance, mind and body, logic and method. The reason for this is simple: I have found no convincing argument for the bifurcation of the world…Now is the time for true philosophy to begin—not tabla rasa (the blank slate) as Aristotle would have it, but wei wu wei (action without action) in the Chinese tradition (Buddhist and Taoist). The substance and form flow naturally from moment to moment, ensuring sincerity (if not Truth) according to the Present. “Sincerity” is what I consider to be “truth” enfleshed. When figured temporally in the world, this rational ideal becomes a familiar notion not only to our brains, but to our bodies as well. Not surprisingly, our present Conversation closely resembles Derrida’s assemblage, Carse’s infinite game, Whitehead’s wonderment, Whitman’s witnessing, Buber’s I-Thou relation, Hartshorne’s shared creative experience, Thoreau’s love, Nietzsche’s will to power, Pirsig’s quality, Lao Tzu’s tao…

When I associate these different “concepts” in such a list, I say that they “closely resemble” one another. This resemblance is similar to Nietzsche’s assertion regarding re-presentation of the non-re-presentable. For the purposes of communication (and cognitive processes are also communicative—between knower and known) we mistranslate the similar into the same. Each individual “leaf” closely resembles the mass population, but never exactly. Our concept of same-ness is the artificial melding generality at the cost of individual differences. This does not effect any Kantian alteration except in the realm of discourse. In communicative contexts, in other words, in Conversation, the transmogrification is as “real” as anything can be. And that transports our present Conversation from the realm of concept, semantics, logic, epistemology and linguistics—to metaphysics. The Philosophy of Conversation as The Real</BLOCKQUOTE>Many philosophers over the centuries have (whether intentionally or not) delved into the area of simultaneity, inverted-dichotomy, similarity, sincerity, relationship, and Conversation as either modes of epistemology, logic, mathetmatics (Whitehead and Bertrand Russell not only wrote the book on Mathematics in their day, but also...)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/156823046X/102-2398451-7522559?v=glance - Bertrand Russell and A.N. Whitehead (The World of Philosophy)

Metaphysics literally as a mode of mathematical understanding, almost viz. old-school "Geometry Style" proofs from Baruch Spinoza...

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/spinoza.htm - Spinoza's Philosophy

This relates to Creation and Evolution because as both "concepts" and "modes of reality" they can be best understood using methodologies developed and strengthened over centuries by philosophers.

Not politicians. Not theologians. Not partisan laymen.

As a philosopher my re-evaluation of the "concepts" of Creation and Evolution are as follows (in shorthand):

1. "The World" is what it is, and was what it was

2. All we know about it is what we've found out about it

3. Precisely where it came from (in terms of scientific method) is unknowable

4. Educated guesses can be made from masses of data collected by astrophysicists from galactic telescopic observations, combined with laws of physics and theoretical constructs (i.e. the "formation" of the planet, gravitation collecting many meteorites into a mass, etc.), but CERTAINTY eludes them...

5. Another point of speculation from scientific evidence gathered and educated guesses made is from archaeologists and very old samples from bones and earth and layers etc., connecting with very high likelihood the "evolution" of certain species one to another and painting a very nice big picture, but again CERTAINTY eludes them...

6. On the other side of the coin, the Book of Genesis is a sacred text dictated directly from God (or coming directly from Heaven, depending on which theological strand you are following), and specifically states not only the Creation of Humankind, but also the Creation of all the creatures of the earth.

7. More compelling than the pure Creationism from the Book of Genesis "argument", however, is one that people almost never use in their own defense of Creationism: in the Sacred text it does not simply state the fact of the Creation of the world and of Humankind and of all the creatures of the earth.

It also expressly tells us how God asks Adam to exercise one of the most POWERFUL acts ever executed by Man over Nature:

HE who is Not to be Named asks Adam to Name them all.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-265.htm - COULD ADAM REALLY NAME ALL THOSE ANIMALS?

8. Philosophically, as a concept, in reality, naming something is in itself an act of "creation", an act of Identification, of Classification, of gaining Power, of becoming Lord and Master in one sense over all the world.

Before Adam named them "bunnies" -- in one very significant conceptual sense -- there were no bunnies.

Because without a Name, without an identity, without an Object-Concept, they were just "hoppy thingys out there". As "bunnies" they gained value, they gained identity, and what is more important, we as humans gained a way to communicate about them conceptually.

Multiply that by "every" creature in the world, and Adam literally "created" all the animals, all the fish, all the birds...

In our minds. In our discourse. In our perception.

BUT THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS AN ARTICLE BASED ON BELIEF...And like the scientists, CERTAINTY also eludes them...

(Pragmatism and belief are two "concepts" at the core of one of America's greatest philosophers, William James, whose philosophy I have adapted to fit this situation as a part of my thesis [see below].)

8. Conclusion: I am in agreement with William James in some sense on this issue (not that he addressed it directly, that I am aware).

In pragmatic terms the product of belief is as much evidence of its "truth" as any other leading indicator.

This does not mean that what The Book of Genesis says is necessarily "literally" True.

What it means is that: people who believe it, behave and act and argue and vote and bring up issues in certain ways, so that the world is impacted by the Book of Genesis in a very real way.

So whether or not it is "true" is moot, according to James' Pragmatism: its results are real.

On the flip side: those who "believe" (and yes, belief in the Religion of Modern Science is indeed a true religion of Faith) in Evolution also produce results in the world in much the same way.

My thesis is that Creation and Evolution are in fact, an inverted-dichotomy both conceptually and in the real world, which cannot exist one without the other, and are not in fact mutually exclusive.

Thank you.

Liney

26-11-2003, 03:46 AM

Konsep evolusi atau kejadian?? Yang mana satu perlu dipilih atau mungkin tidak memilih antara kedua duanya......sebenarnya bergantung kepada seseorang individu itu sendiri, kepercayaan dan pegangan beliau dalam menyiakan atau menidakkan dua dua konsep tersebut atau salah satunya.

Sekiranya kita mengimbau kembali asalnya Teori evolusi ini. Rasanya semua orang tahu....teori ini muncul hasil kreatif Darwin, kerana itulah teori evolusi ini juga dikenali darwinisme....

Pada saya, saya amat bersetuju dengan pendapat yang dikemukakan oleh Harun Yahya atau nama sebenarnya Adnan Oktar. Adnan Oktar dilahirkan pada tahun 1956, merupakan seorang ilmuwan dan intelektual terkemuka berbangsa Turki. Menyanjung tinggi nilai-nilai murni akhlak dan mengabdikan hidupnya dengan berdakwah kepada golongan masyarakat. Hasil karya beliau banyak berkaitan dengan kepercayaan mengesahkan kewujudan Maha Suci Tuhan yang Esa dan Tunggal ditulis dengan tujuan mendekatkan islam kepada golongan awam, dan mendamaikan hati-hati mereka kepada hakikat kebenaran. Bagi orang islam, ianya adalah sebagai nasihat dan peringatan. Penulis menyiarkan hasil tulisan yang berteraskan asas-asas Al-Quran yang ditujukan khusus sebagai renungan kaum muslimin.

Di dalam buku beliau bertajuk "Evolution Deceit" yang telah diterjemahkan dalam pelbagai bahasa, beliau menekanan bahawa sebahagian masyarakat yang pernah mendengar tentang "Teori Evolusi" atau "Darwinisme", mungkin menyangka ia hanyalah sebuah konsep biologi sahaja dan tidak mempunyai apa-apa kepentingan di dalam kehidupan mereka. Suatu kesilapan yang besar, kerana ia tidak hanya berkisar dengan kepentingan biologi sahaja, malah teori evolusi adalah suatu penyelewengan falsafah yang telah mempengaruhi ramai orang.

Falsafah ini adalah "materialisme", yang mengandungi kepalsuan tentang bagaimana kita datang (asal kejadian). Matlamat utama materialisme tiada yang lain melainkan kebendaan dan kebendaan itu adalah intipati segalanya. Bermula dari persoalan pokok inilah ia telah menolak kewujudan seorang Al-Khaled (Pencipta), iaitu Allah. Meletakkan segalanya pada status benda, anggapan ini menjadikan manusia satu makhluk yang hanya mengambil berat tentang kebendaan dan mengetepikan segala jenis nilai-nilai moral. Ini adalah permulaan sebuah tragedi yang akan menimpa kehidupan manusia.

Beliau juga menyatakan Karl Marx sendiri menjelaskan bahawa teori evolusi menghasilkan dasar penuh materialisme dan juga komunisme. Beliau juga menunjukkan rasa simpatinya terhadap Darwin dengan menyebut di dalam bukunya yang dikira sebagai yang terbaik, Das Kapital. Di dalam edisi Jerman, beliau menulis; "Daripada peminat setia Charles Darwin".

Berbalik kepada hakikat kejadian pula, banyak bukti bukti kejadian yang kita boleh lihat. Al Quran juga banyak menjelaskan akan konsep kejadian ini. Dan kita tidak memerlukan makmal makmal sains untuk menbuktikan konsep ini kerana faktanya telah tersedia ada dan terbukti. Contohnya, dari Surah An-Nahl 68-69;

Dan Tuhanmu memberi ilham kepada lebah: "Hendaklah engkau membuat sarangmu di gunung-ganang dan di pokok-pokok kayu, dan juga di bangunan-bangunan yang didirikan oleh manusia. Kemudian makanlah dari segala jenis bunga-bungaan dan buah-buahan (yang engkau sukai), serta turutlah jalan-jalan peraturan Tuhanmu yang diilhamkan dan dimudahkannya kepadamu". (Dengan itu) akan keluarlah dari dalam badannya minuman (madu) yang berlainan warnanya, yang mengandungi penawar bagi manusia (dari berbagai-bagai penyakit). Sesungguhnya pada yang demikian itu, ada tanda (yang membuktikan kemurahan Allah) bagi orang-orang yang mahu berfikir. .

Dan banyak lagi bukti bukti yang boleh kita perolehi sekiranya kita rajin menyelidik dan cuba mengopak isi kandungan hakikat kejadian dari sekecil kecil zarah kepada sebesar besar alam semesta. Realitinya telah jelas dan terbukti. Semua hidupan adalah hasil sebuah rekaan sempurna dan sebuah ciptaan unggul. Ini menunjukkan bukti yang kukuh kepada kewujudan seorang pencipta, Empunya kekuasaan yang luar biasa, ilmu pengetahuan dan kebijaksanaan.

Pencipta itu ialah Allah, Tuhan langit dan bumi, dan segala yang berada di antara keduanya

Di atas merupakan pendapat saya dan juga hasil pembacaan saya tentang evolusi dan kejadian. Banyak lagi perlu diperkatakan tentang topik ini tapi saya rasa setakat ini sahaja perlu saya uraikan. Maaf sekiranya tersilap kata tersalah bahasa.....

Wallahu 'alam.....

-Liney-

iQing

25-03-2006, 08:34 PM

^bump

hunliang

25-03-2006, 10:05 PM

too much to read, please summarize those post pls.....LOL

anyway, i believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. I sort of think that all life on earth originates from a cell, and the cell is 'made' from a random process of interaction between molecules when the earth was young, and ultimately, from gaziliions of combinations tried out, a molecule that has the ability toi self-replicate ie. the RNA was created and evolution , influenced by enviromental pressure begins.

so it went from a strand of RNA, to a more stable DNA, to a single prokaryote cell, to the more complex unicellular eukaryotes, to multicellular and the story goes....until the complex animals and plants we see today.

There are many debatable points to the idea, but i think it makes sense to me and to me is the best explanation of life on earth.

Shoblast

25-03-2006, 10:22 PM

I can't believe this silly argument would ever reach ReCom.

Anyway, to those who do not believe in Evollution, how are you going to stop it anyway? declaring that there is no such thing as mutations?

People have this misconception that life came from a single cell. Wrong. Life probably came from a whole species of cells, billions of them, and when we are talking about cells that can swap genetic info like we swap emails, this "species" is quite huge indeed.

lyzzy

25-03-2006, 10:40 PM

I'm more *sensitive* about this topic then I am about religion, Malaysia politics or women's rights :)

If everyone ACTUALLY learned what evolution is about, and all the technical details that it involves, they will realize that evolution is the best scientific theory and the only scientific theory out there.

But alas, the Malaysian schools don't teach it and that's why we are having this argument.

Most scientists have given up trying to defend evolution with creationists, because spouting misbeliefs about evolution is much easier than explaining it. To explain, a scientist needs to talk about concepts like genetic drift and phylogenetic trees and how selection actually works and synonymous and nonsynonymous subsitiutions - all of which, a creationist don't care to understand.

Creationism is a personal belief, not a scientific one. Evolution is consistent with the other scientific fields such as physics, chemistry and geology, creationism isn't.

... and that's all I am going to say.
________
vaporizers (http://vaporizers.net/vaporizers)

hunliang

25-03-2006, 10:58 PM

People have this misconception that life came from a single cell. Wrong. Life probably came from a whole species of cells, billions of them, and when we are talking about cells that can swap genetic info like we swap emails, this "species" is quite huge indeed.

How can u say that life comes from a single cell is WRONG when u say life PROBABLY came from a whole species of cells?

It is a theory, not a proven fact. So all possibilities cannot be wrong. I understand about horizontal genetic transfers that ur toking about. It is possible, but how do u prove that it happened at the beginning of life?

Life at the early stage might not hav the ability to transfer gene horizontally until they evolve a mechanism to do so. Therefore it could be millions of generatons of vertical gene transfer, originating from a cell before horizontal gene transfer is evolved? Who knows?

U might be right, but mine could be right as well. The is currently no way to prove it.

vseehua

25-03-2006, 11:06 PM

read third's post...

there is not certainty in every theory...

reign226

25-03-2006, 11:12 PM

Look, you can't even put creationism (intelligent design) in the same page as evolution, because ID doesn't even come CLOSE to providing any sort of answer to the debacle. It's wat we call a null-answer. In that it avoids the question completely.

I support Richard Dawkin's notion that we shouldn't even give in to having a debate with a creationist over the issue because doing so will give ID credence and give the false impression that there is something worth to be debated about. All creationism says is "life has a creator." Period. I mean, does that answer anything? Does it give us any sort of predictive mechanism to validate it's claims? Does it reduce biology into something elegant and simple?

Allow me to illustrate. For example, I give you a string of numbers, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10... etc. The position of evolution is that the numbers can be generated and hence the whole series can be reduced to 2n, with n being any non-zero positive number. But all ID does is say the numbers are actually created by printing out 2, then 4, then 6, etc. It doesn't answer ANYTHING nor does it reduce the complexity of the series into laws that we can understand.

IMHO, evolution is the only theory. ID, creationism, those aren't even close to approaching theory. At best, those are ideas. And ideas, Mr Creedy, are bulletproof. Oh wait, sorry, got carried away. ^^

lyzzy

26-03-2006, 01:16 AM

For you guys out there who believe that creationism should be allowed to be taught in schools as a valid scientific theory -
the FSM 'the flying spaghetti monster' religion: http://www.venganza.org/

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don?t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

If you are bored, you should read http://www.venganza.org/email_neg.htm - this page has emails from people who can't differentiate between satire and fact. very very funny and good way to waste your Sunday afternoon.

And of course, some background information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
________
buy grinder (http://www.vaporshop.com/grinders)

__earth

26-03-2006, 03:30 AM

if any of you contemplating of converting into FSM, halt! consider of joining the invisible pink unicorn too! cooler deity!

Shoblast

26-03-2006, 09:01 AM

How about the Rampaging Elephant of Moolah, the tool of destruction and entrophy?

reign226

26-03-2006, 12:15 PM

Haha, so many religions. I wonder how many people are atheists here?

Shoblast

26-03-2006, 12:21 PM

No, wait wait, i repent. I am now a firm and devout Pastafarian. Evolution is a tool of the Sauce of the Underworld.

jerusha

26-03-2006, 07:55 PM

i'm an agnostic. by the looks of it, religion is going to wipe us all out.

iQing

26-03-2006, 08:04 PM

i'm an agnostic. by the looks of it, religion is going to wipe us all out.

it put us in boxes< of belief system, which always limit us.,

reign226

26-03-2006, 08:36 PM

You guys should definately check out Jonathan Miller's A Brief History of Disbelief and also his Atheism Tapes series. Richard Dawkin's The Root of All Evil is also a pretty good exposition on the root of all evil, religion. I also blog about these things frequently in my personal blog at reignspeek (http://reignspeek.blogspot.com).

Zeroth

27-03-2006, 12:43 PM

oh well somehow i realized that this is just gonna end up to be the question, "which one comes first? chicken or egg?" there's really no solid scientific proof behind both theories but just curious what do most people believe in?

There is an answer for the chicken vs egg question if you think carefully.

A chicken must come from an egg. This is a fact.

An egg, can come from any bird.

Therefore, at one point of history, an unknown bird entity layed a few eggs which is mutated.

Tha egg hatched into chickens.

Then the chickens lay more eggs.

And more chickens comes out! :P

Thus, the egg comes first before the chicken.

DecentMerson

27-03-2006, 12:46 PM

iQing

27-03-2006, 12:51 PM

disagree.

chicken can come to form when harsh nvironment changes force them to go through unconscious biokinesis, which will change their physical characteristic. Hence the change of their DNA.
Secondly, those pre-chicken who didn't "evolve" and cannot adapt to the new environment die off and they fail to past the original genes farward. in this case I would say chicken comes first.

harsh environment is the one that motivate changes. saying that mutation happens to egg is like the chicken is throwing dice and wait if they got jackpot chance of laying an egg with new genes...
even if there is mutation in new born chicks, it would be negative mutation like disability.
positive mutation comes from unconscious biokinesis to deal with harsh environment,

just like people who live in hot area have tannier skin,. you dont expect a white couple go to tropical area and give birth to a dark skin baby, but you see white people change their physical condition to suit thenew environment, which takes generations of changes.

Zeroth

27-03-2006, 01:08 PM

A harsh environment do not change the DNA of the chicken. A harsh environment kills the weak ones.

Chickens must come from egg. So the egg comes first. Random mutations during a normal chicken's lifetime is called cancer.

[/quote]saying that mutation happens to egg is like the chicken is throwing dice and wait if they got jackpot chance of laying an egg with new genes... [quote]

That's why it doesnt happen everyday, its by chance and requires a long time.

lyzzy

27-03-2006, 01:09 PM

Zeroth

28-03-2006, 06:59 PM

Erm, not really, just what i came out with in the shower one day. Lol!

PJKru

28-03-2006, 07:05 PM

when we eat an egg are we eating a featus? no more egg for me then

hunliang

28-03-2006, 07:18 PM

Dun worry PJKru, the eggs u eat will never be hatched no matter wat, they r not fertilized.

vseehua

28-03-2006, 09:46 PM

when we eat an egg are we eating a featus? no more egg for me then

be a vegetarian then...

iQing

28-03-2006, 10:22 PM

biokinesis is not scientific?

try this : when u r sick drink some water and believe it to be medicine and you will feel better. this is a mild example of Biokinesis.
it is called placebo effect.

some greater biokinesis involve the change of DNA. People who go through the change of DNA will take about 12 to 15 hours of sleep a day for the process to occur.

other examples of biokinesis includes the change of physical appearance, such as changing of eye shape and the width of nose etc.

__earth

28-03-2006, 11:01 PM

biokinesis is as scientific as alchemy. Both are pseudo-science. I'd love to add, creationism is another pseudo-science.

And placebo effect is not biokinesis. Instead, IIRC, it's related to conditioning, as in psychology.

In fact, you can read it on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_effect) and see how the effect is not biokinesis. (Read Hawthorne's effect too. The latter effect might explain the bias that exist in the former from statistical POV.)

hunliang

28-03-2006, 11:16 PM

i dunno what exactly is biokenesis, is biokenesis involve in the mutation of the DNA or a change in gene expression?

iQing

28-03-2006, 11:20 PM

LOL...

I will leave it to you guys to figure it out.

enjoy the discussion,

lyzzy

28-03-2006, 11:45 PM

i dunno what exactly is biokenesis, is biokenesis involve in the mutation of the DNA or a change in gene expression?

More like.. use the mind to affect the body's processes... :roll: Seems like something universities in Europe in the 13th century would have talked about... (I am taking a class in medieval Europe :))

And placebo effect and biokinesis are not the same thing.
________
Ducati ST3 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Ducati_ST3)

hunliang

29-03-2006, 10:39 AM

if the explaination is to use the mind to affect the body's processes, then it is not totally bullshit, biokinesis do take place if it is what your explaination is.

one example of that:
have you ever heard of doctors telling patients to have a positive outlook of life and stay happy? because having a positive outlook in life or stay happy will enhance the immune system. ie. changing the gene expression thus affecting the body's processes.

Zeroth

29-03-2006, 12:57 PM

I don't think its enhancing gene expression, its just increase rate of turnover of cells and sutff like that. Just random thoughts though, haha!

vseehua

29-03-2006, 01:30 PM

we had only been using 5% or so of our brain capacity (or is it 10%)...

that's y i know the mind can do wonders if we know how to use the excess capacity...

okaywhy

29-03-2006, 02:12 PM

I'd love to add, creationism is another pseudo-science.

I think creationism is not even qualified to be a pseudo-science.

iQing

29-03-2006, 03:38 PM

we had only been using 5% or so of our brain capacity (or is it 10%)...

that's y i know the mind can do wonders if we know how to use the excess capacity...

I can teach you how to change your features if you want to. :)
even by listening to certain sound pattern, our brain will release hormons like growth hormons that can accelerate healings.... but it is not necessary since we can will it to heal faster or grow stronger/taller.

PJKru

29-03-2006, 04:13 PM

if any of you contemplating of converting into FSM, halt! consider of joining the invisible pink unicorn too! cooler deity! if its invisible. how do you know its pink? are you the messenger?

__earth

29-03-2006, 05:54 PM

if any of you contemplating of converting into FSM, halt! consider of joining the invisible pink unicorn too! cooler deity! if its invisible. how do you know its pink? are you the messenger?

that my friend, is exactly the point.

Shoblast

18-12-2007, 01:07 AM

A quick Necroing of this topic..

http://i1.tinypic.com/8dxqf7a.jpg

Not only do we have creationists.. there is also POKEMON.

That will be all.

Leen

19-12-2007, 12:30 PM

There will never be a solid proof to prove/disprove another theory.

However, people are free to choose whichever one that they believe in. And because of that, people think that whichever one that they choose is the right one. Therefore, we have this argument. If everyone in this world converts to Christianity, then there might not even be the word "evolution" today. In the same manner, if Darwin had lived before the bible was written and that the whole world had been atheists, then the theory of creation would not have even come out. :wink:

For me, I just choose to be ignorant (yes I admit to ignorance) and believe in creation because I believe in Christ.

youngyew

19-12-2007, 02:31 PM

When someone sees a cruel neighbor stoning his dog to death, he would naturally be convinced to believe in the strong evidence - the vision and sounds of the neighbor stoning the dog. But the neighbor can somehow suggests an alternative theory that the pink invisible unicorn is somehow conjuring an illusion of himself stoning the dog, while the real him didn't commit the crime.

In this case, one might also say that there's never a solid proof to either hypothesis - how do you know the neighbor you see is the actual neighbor, but not an illusion created by the almighty invisible pink unicorn?

Just because two different explanations are not 100% proved or 100% disproved, doesn't mean that they hold the same validity and should be held with the same respect or taboo. In the case of evolution vs. creation, the overwhelming evidence displays that evolution is happening, has happened, and it gives a rigorous framework for making predictions and describing patterns. Yes it's true that it can't be 100% proved - no scientific theory could be 100% proved, anything could have been an illusion created by the pink invisible unicorn, even the fact that an apple always falls to the ground. It's also possible that one day evolution can be replaced by something more accurate and correct, like how newtonian time-space continuum is improved by Einsteinian relativity theory. There are many questions which can't be 100% explained by the current knowledge of evolution yet, but that doesn't mean that the alternative answer - "God did it" must then be the right answer.

Having said all that, it could still be possible that creation is after all the truth. But in that case, the designer must have been pranking the human race by fabricating so much fake misleading clues about the diversification of life.

People are free to choose what they want to believe in, just like I wouldn't mind if my neighbor chooses to believe in alchemy and try to turn steel into gold - as long as he doesn't blow all the smouldering smoke to my house. It's a similar thing with creationism and evolution. The problem with creationism nowadays is some people are trying to pass the pseudo-science as a valid scientific hypothesis and place it in the scientific curriculum. In that case, it would already be an encroachment of freedom of belief, and it should be stopped. On the other hand, if people believe in the literal biblical account of creation, I am totally fine with it, as long as they don't try to shove their unsupported claim down my throat.

vseehua

19-12-2007, 06:18 PM

Sure, nothing can completely prove or disprove anything, but proofs can give credibility to one side of the equation.

It's like the justice system determining whether a suspected is guilty of criminal activity or not. After a certain threshold is passed, the jury will decide whether the person is guilty or not. At certain times, misinterpreted clues may lead to the suspected being sentenced to jail when he is innocent, or vice versa. And the justice system may call a retrial if such things happens.

In the debate between evolution and creationism, the current line of observations lead more credibility to the theory of evolution rather than the events depicted in the Holy Bible. Unless we have terribly misinterpreted the events from the Book of Genesis, the current scientific community will take our currently modified Darwin's Theory of Evolution to be the stronger candidate to be the more 'correct' theory :)

azlanhussain

23-11-2008, 05:44 AM

I found this online and though of sharing it with you guys...

"The December 2007 Edition Of The Well-Known French Magazine Science Et Vie Devoted Nine Pages To Harun Yahya?s Atlas Of Creation And Its Impact On The World, Particularly France. The Comments In The Magazine Regarding The Atlas, From A Confirmed Evolutionist Publication, Clearly Revealed The Defeat Of The Theory Of Evolution And The Traumatic Psychological Effect This Has Had On Evolutionists."

More info here (http://harunyahya.com/HarunYahyaImpactDetay.php?haberId=838)

qedx

23-11-2008, 06:41 AM

I'll let an actual biologist do the talking here: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2833,Venomous-Snakes-Slippery-Eels-and-Harun-Yahya,Richard-Dawkins

youngyew

23-11-2008, 09:20 AM

Harun Yahya is a pseudo-scientist who is famous for rambling on "disproving" evolution and "proving" creationism. He has trolled the online talk forum talk.origin for years. Unfortunately, he has no standing in the scientific circle, and all his arguments are either weak, fallacious or simply nonsensical. This is quite a generalisation; but I have read his books before and even an amateur reader like me find it easy to refute his arguments. Feel free to table any of his points and I shall try to dissect it.

Typo: I have read some of his webpages; not his books.

azlanhussain

23-11-2008, 03:51 PM

Have science found any prove that human came from ape.. can you give me any link to any site that proves we did came from ape.

I'll let an actual biologist do the talking here: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2833,Venomous-Snakes-Slippery-Eels-and-Harun-Yahya,Richard-Dawkins

I can't trust his (Richard Dawkins) review. He was only commenting based on few parts of the book. But he can't even comment on so many other issues that this book has managed to put up.

The fact is he is an atheist. He describes faith as "the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Even so many evidences have been brought up upon but still he refuse to believe.

In his blog, it portrays so much about the personality of Harun Yahya and not about his findings. In that case, maybe you should also read about him from other people point of view. http://www.journeywithjesus.net/Essays/20050124JJ.shtml

Lets not close our mind to what we believe. Lets think of it rationally. I might be wrong in some cases. I hope this thread could bring the light at the end of my journey for seeking the truth.

--------------------------------

Evolutionist: ‘You know, my whole family was once ape-like creatures. My ancestors were small chimp-like animals called autralopithecines, which have been found as fossils.’

Wise man: ‘But there are no fossils to prove that australopithecines evolved into humans.’

Evolutionist: ‘Well, they told me they were my ancestors.’

What a joke.. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

The fact is:

Evolutionists have done some extraordinary waving of magic wands to make evidence against their theory disappear.

For example, a well-preserved arm-bone fossil found in 1965 at Kanapoi, north Kenya, was found to be indistinguishable from a modern human’s arm-bone. But because it was regarded as being from a time before humans had evolved, it was suggested that it must be from an ape. This went against all the scientific evidence.

If the Kanapoi fossil had been given human status, as it obviously should have been, it would have contradicted the theory of human evolution—because it would show that humans had been around before their alleged ape-like ancestors had evolved into them!

Human did not evolved from ape.. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

youngyew

23-11-2008, 04:25 PM

Evolutionist: ?You know, my whole family was once ape-like creatures. My ancestors were small chimp-like animals called autralopithecines, which have been found as fossils.?

Wise man: ?But there are no fossils to prove that australopithecines evolved into humans.?

Evolutionist: ?Well, they told me they were my ancestors.?

What a joke.. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
The lame strawmen in the conversation is indeed a joke.

The fact is:

Evolutionists have done some extraordinary waving of magic wands to make evidence against their theory disappear.

For example, a well-preserved arm-bone fossil found in 1965 at Kanapoi, north Kenya, was found to be indistinguishable from a modern human?s arm-bone. But because it was regarded as being from a time before humans had evolved, it was suggested that it must be from an ape. This went against all the scientific evidence.

If the Kanapoi fossil had been given human status, as it obviously should have been, it would have contradicted the theory of human evolution?because it would show that humans had been around before their alleged ape-like ancestors had evolved into them!

Human did not evolved from ape.. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
I am not familiar with this Kanapoi fossil issue. Would love to find out more when I have time.

azlanhussain

23-11-2008, 04:43 PM

Few more that we should think of:

Question: ‘Why do evolutionists call the very robust Australian fossils Homo sapiens when they themselves state that they are almost identical to the Java Homo erectus material?’

Answer: ‘Those robust Australian fossils (the Kow Swamp material, the Cossack skull, the Willandra Lakes WHL 50 skull, etc.), by their dating methods, are just thousands of years old. Homo erectus wasn’t supposed to be living so recently. Hence, the evolutionist must call them Homo sapiens to preserve his theory.’

Question: ‘Why are the skull KNM-ER 1470, the leg bones KNM-ER 148 I, and the skull KNM-ER 1590, found by Richard Leakey in East Africa, assigned to Homo habilis when the skull sizes, skull shapes, and the very modern leg bones would allow assignment to some form of Homo sapiens?’

Answer: ‘Those fossils are dated at almost two million years. The evolutionist cannot allow modern humans to be living in that evolutionary time frame—no matter what the fossils look like.’

Question: ‘Why is the elbow bone from Kanapoi, KP 271, found in East Africa in 1964, called Australopithecus africanus when the computer analysis conducted by evolutionists declares it to be virtually identical to modern humans?’

Answer: ‘Because the fossil is dated at 4.4 million years! It would suggest that true humans are older than their evolu-tionary ancestors. No evolutionist worth his salt can follow the facts when they lead in that direction.’

Surf around and you will find more facts that contradicting to what Evolutionists had claimed..

youngyew

23-11-2008, 04:51 PM

UPDATE: Found a discussion about that Kanapoi humerus:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html#kp271

Anyway, if you surf around www.talkorigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org), you will be able to find a point-by-point refutation to everything stated in www.anwersingenesis.org (http://www.anwersingenesis.org) (which I believe is where you copied the Q&A (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i2/fossils.asp) from).

Of course one can choose to categorically believe in the opinion of a whole website and disregard the others; but I would strongly recommend everyone to actually read up on the issue widely and objectively and make up your mind. You can't just take whatever answersingenesis.org or harunyahya.com say and thought "evolution is wrong" - the same way as I can't just quote www.talkorigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org) and close my ears to any criticism henceforth. To quote just one website (a decidedly biased one not to mention) and enshrine it as the truth does not a truth make.

Shoblast

23-11-2008, 05:05 PM

isn't this atlas thing written by a guy who published a picture book with a fishing lure to disprove evolution?

let me amend that.

The Atlast of Creation is written by an idiot, who, trying to prove that insects did not change form, compared a fossil to a fishing lure (with the hook visible), saying that there is no difference.

chongkeat

23-11-2008, 05:12 PM

Lets not close our mind to what we believe. Lets think of it rationally.
I agree, which is why I'm now reading up on this.

Gonna be posting later...

For example, a well-preserved arm-bone fossil found in 1965 at Kanapoi, north Kenya, was found to be indistinguishable from a modern human’s arm-bone. But because it was regarded as being from a time before humans had evolved, it was suggested that it must be from an ape. This went against all the scientific evidence.

Here's an answer, I hope: (Just a little Ctrl+C of the site given by youngyew)
Lague and Jungers (1996) conducted an extensive study of the lower humeri of apes, humans, and hominid fossils. They used multivariate analysis, a technique which is highly praised by creationists when it delivers results favorable to them. Lague and Jungers' results show convincingly that KP 271 lies well outside the range of human specimens. Instead, it clusters with a group of other hominid fossils so strongly that the probability that it belongs to the human sample, rather than fossil hominid group, is less than one thousandth (0.001). They conclude:

"The specimen is therefore reasonably attributable to A. anamensis (Leakey et al. 1995), although the results of this study indicate that the Kanapoi specimen is not much more "human-like" than any of the other australopithecine fossils, despite prior conclusions to the contrary" (Lague and Jungers 1996)

azlanhussain

23-11-2008, 07:13 PM

luke

23-11-2008, 07:58 PM

If I believe that evolution is a God's way of creating creatures, which side am I in?

You see, evolutionists believe in all creatures sharing the same ancestor, with each of them evolved, naturally without no intelligent intervention, through multiple stages at some points in history. OTOH, creationists believe in all creatures being intelligently created by a supernatural entity. I wonder if there is another group of people that believes in both evolution and creation.

Even in daily lives, there are human technologies that took multiple steps of changes and improvements to get to where they are now. Human created them, but they evolved from time to time by mean of human revising them. Why can't we apply the same concept with creation and evolution? Why must it be one way or the other?

qedx

23-11-2008, 09:37 PM

Why can't we apply the same concept with creation and evolution? Why must it be one way or the other?
Because this invisible modifier/innovator is redundant. Evolution does not need this invisible guide person. Physics and chemistry got it started and biology ran away with it.

Because many people who supposedly believe in both evolution and creationism somehow draw a magical line at the evolution of human beings. This is a cop-out in my opinion. Why set aside a "special" place for humanity, away from the other animals? What is your stand on this?

luke

23-11-2008, 10:35 PM

Because this invisible modifier/innovator is redundant. Evolution does not need this invisible guide person. Physics and chemistry got it started and biology ran away with it.
That's precisely evolutionist thinking. These people are so vehement about natural selection that they totally reject the slightest idea of scientifically-unprovable power to take part in the process. Again, I would ask, why such a strong rejection?

Sometimes it makes me wonder if all this evolution aka darwinism theory is a stealthy conspiracy to reject all divinity-based religions. They specifically assert "no, no God in this. it's all natural". And the gullible religious people took the bait and started the creationism faction which totally rejects the idea of creatures evolving from one form to another. All the while, the region in between the two extremes is so deserted as if the idea is not hot enough for debates. Call it "a coward way out" or "an illusion" or whatever, but the path I'm taking is at least one step further away from this endless fruitless disputes. Sure, creationists and evolutionists alike, debate all the way as much as you want, for I am supporting both of your beliefs, well, at least some portion of each.
Because many people who supposedly believe in both evolution and creationism somehow draw a magical line at the evolution of human beings. This is a cop-out in my opinion. Why set aside a "special" place for humanity, away from the other animals? What is your stand on this?
I wrote "all creatures" didn't I? When did I set aside humanity as special? Don't lump me together with extremist creationists as I believe in both evolution and creation as combined factors in existence of creatures.

Shoblast

23-11-2008, 11:41 PM

qedx

24-11-2008, 01:03 AM

I wrote "all creatures" didn't I? When did I set aside humanity as special? Don't lump me together with extremist creationists as I believe in both evolution and creation as combined factors in existence of creatures.
I'm not saying that you specifically hold such an opinion. If it came through as such I apologize. It's just that that is the usual evolution+creationist musher I encounter online. But I guess that is irrelevant to this discussion atm. Apologies, again.

youngyew

24-11-2008, 07:00 AM

That's precisely evolutionist thinking. These people are so vehement about natural selection that they totally reject the slightest idea of scientifically-unprovable power to take part in the process. Again, I would ask, why such a strong rejection?
Beware of the umbrella term "evolutionist" - not everyone who accepts evolution thinks the same way. This is treading perilously close to calling all Muslims "terrorists" after observing just the fundamentalists. There are many people who accept evolution who subscribe to theistic, or "god-guided" evolution.

Sometimes it makes me wonder if all this evolution aka darwinism theory is a stealthy conspiracy to reject all divinity-based religions. They specifically assert "no, no God in this. it's all natural". And the gullible religious people took the bait and started the creationism faction which totally rejects the idea of creatures evolving from one form to another. All the while, the region in between the two extremes is so deserted as if the idea is not hot enough for debates. Call it "a coward way out" or "an illusion" or whatever, but the path I'm taking is at least one step further away from this endless fruitless disputes. Sure, creationists and evolutionists alike, debate all the way as much as you want, for I am supporting both of your beliefs, well, at least some portion of each.
I can see that you are frustrated by the most vocal of the proponents in this debate. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory (and a fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory)), inherently it has nothing to do with belief. Adding an "-ism" suffix is what IDist/creationists have done to degenerate the whole scientific theory to the status of personal belief, and to fall to this trap would be unwise. With a scientific theory, you either accept it or reject it - in which case you improve upon it. The whole process of acceptance or rejection is entirely based on the ability of theory to fully expound on a natural phenomenon; whether one is comfortable with it or not and whether there is an afterlife is totally irrelevant in the scientific endeavour. Therefore, to label one as an evolutionist is as ridiculous as the notion of a "maxwellist", "newtonist", or "einsteinist".

Having said that, over years I have observed overzealous evolution proponents who have indeed transformed themselves into sorts of "Darwinists". They take great pride in the ability of evolution to explain biodiversity (not the origin of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life), for those who have the inclination to lump together evolution and abiogenesis) so much so that they use it as a weapon directed towards theists who have always harped on the "origin of life" as an evidence of the creator's existence. The way "Darwinists" engage in the religious debates makes them appear as though evolution is a new brand of belief or faith (lack of faith, to be precise) in direct confrontation of all theistic beliefs. But if we break down the whole issue into its parts, it's obvious that it shouldn't be like this. Evolution was not a belief to begin with, and it will never be.

The way I see it, evolution indeed makes a strong case of "God does not have to exist", and all honest people engaging in this discourse should concur as much. However, to further extrapolate this theory to make the case of "therefore a supernatural being / creator does not exist" would be excessively affronting and is not logically water-tight.

While I maintain that there is no "mandatory" place for a creator in the evolutionary process; I would have no problem with people who reconcile their belief with this process by having God play a role in it. Having said that (before you yell at me, Shoblast), it is obvious that current evidence totally contradicts the literal account of creation of life in Old Testaments and al-Quran; and taking everything together, we come to an inevitable conclusion: either the literal creation in these scriptures were wrong; or God pulled a cosmic prank on us by actually doing what He said he did in the scriptures but planting artificial clues to lead us astray. As for subscribing to theistic evolution, I reckon that's entirely up to personal choice, but I am sure some factions in various beliefs would be quick to point out that this is no longer the genuine belief in the religion.

And hence the internal war perpetuates.

vikraman

24-11-2008, 10:49 AM

There are some who contend that "oh, maybe it wasn't all natural. God played a part in it see. Or else we wouldn't end as humans would we? Hell we could have all ended up as small tree shrews!". Well the fact of the matter is that we easily could have. It's a game of chance. Celullar mutation is non-guidable. Nobody can predict the course it takes. It is random. The joy about things that are random is that ANYTHING can happen. We are one of that anything. Just because we were considerably luckier (and it is a game of chance remember) than say ostriches because we have brains large enough and complex enough to contemplate question for a nature higher than "I must find dinner." all the time doesn't mean that some "higher power" graciously granted us these "magical powers of thought". It could've been the fish who evolved into some advanced shark who got all the brains and we could've taken another path from tree shrew and become some unknown freak of evolution. That's what evolution does. It throws up freaks. Freaks that "Intelligent Design" can't account for because it's hardly intelligent to "design" a bird that can't fly (simply because it lived on land too much) or a salamander with no eyes (simply because it lived in the dark too long) or single cell organisms which can survive purely on methane and are poisoned by oxygen (simply because they lived in undersea volcanoes). Creation/ID is hocus-pocus bogus rubbish which rightfully belongs in the trashbin of history. Debate on it is a waste of time for biologists and us alike.

azlanhussain

24-11-2008, 12:51 PM

The best answers so far that I found:

http://www.bible-quotes-science-info.com/art/human-evolution-timeline.htm
http://www.parvez-video.com/insight/islam/evolution_quran/index.asp
http://www.truevolution.net/

* Please read it with an open mind..

The evolution process is already been mentioned in God books that was given to us thousands of years before we could even know the meaning of science. Isn't that enough for us to believe the existence of God, who creates us all. I don't think we should push 'him' aside just because we don't know (yet) how he did things.

vikraman

24-11-2008, 03:29 PM

chongkeat

24-11-2008, 04:14 PM

I can't really comment on this right now as I don't know much about these things, but I'll keep on reading.....

Ok, I've read the first webpage: http://www.bible-quotes-science-info.com/art/human-evolution-timeline.htm
I don't think we should push 'him' aside just because we don't know (yet) how he did things.
Science is logical. Everyone will accept the existence of god, completely and without any doubt, once we find incontrovertible evidence(s) that he (or they, as we must be open to the beliefs of other religions too) exists. One passage in the entire bible is not enough, I'm afraid.

azlanhussain

24-11-2008, 04:33 PM

All the verses quoted in the above sites (And I only read the verses, people's interpretation is exactly that, someone elses interpretation. I prefer to read the verses and make up my own decision as to what they allude to) could have easily been written by someone residing in that era of time based on knowledge available at that point in time. One of sites says that God's writing is metaphorical and never talks about chromosomes and DNA and the such because in the era at which it was written, people took god's word as absolute and nobody disputed it. Everybody believed, as such the transcribers didn't clear the metaphors and write clearly for no one would have understood if God decided to use terms such as cytokinesis or cellular mutation or deoxyribonucleic acid. Well now that we know all this things exist and how they work, this "god" still hasn't dropped by with the latest interpretation of His works for the 21st century. In fact god hasn't clarified his message since the 6th century (although some Mormons would like to refute this claim) which leaves us still with the question, if god did guide evolution or start evolution or played any part in evolution or the creation of the earth or anything of that sort, he hasn't told us about it.

Well that's your own personal interpretation. You have your rights to voice it. If I would agree with you, that makes majority of people in this world are wrong.. pity them huh.. ;)

However do remember that God gives us brain to think and not to expect to be spoon fed for the rest of our life.. or else we will be no different than animal.. :)

God's book is here as a guide for human kind. Unfortunately most of us only recognize the name of the book and not the content, yet pretending to know more than 'him'.. If we can pay thousands of dollars & sacrisfy years of our life for our degrees, why are we reluctant to put the same effort to study his book..

vikraman

24-11-2008, 04:39 PM

We shall agree to disagree then. :)

btw. Mod, why don't you change the title to something more reflective of the content and perhaps merge it with other ongoing atheism vs theism topics.

chongkeat

24-11-2008, 04:50 PM

Yeah, the current title is just so..... ridiculous.

UPDATE:
Ah, the title is changed. Good.

azlanhussain

24-11-2008, 04:59 PM

Well I guess I needed to create its own uniqueness in order to get more quality posters (like you guys) to hop in.. :D

cheers,

Shoblast

24-11-2008, 05:02 PM

Thats dishonest.

azlanhussain

24-11-2008, 05:07 PM

If you were to buy a book which one will you choose..

"Lets learn Bible"

or

"Why prostitute are learning bible"

though the content are the same.. :)

anyway labeling others is what human are good at.. so be it what ever you want to say..

vikraman

24-11-2008, 05:11 PM

well i commented on other atheism vs theism topics as well.. although their titles were well, atheism vs theism! Anyway it's dishonest to put up a title just to attract viewers. Going by that definition, every one of my blog posts should be titled "Rosmah buys new shoes."

chongkeat

24-11-2008, 05:24 PM

Anyway it's dishonest to put up a title just to attract viewers.
Well, the original discussion was about the Atlas of Creation and stuff, but moved on from there pretty quickly. *hint, hint*

azlanhussain

24-11-2008, 05:51 PM

Well maybe it started to be seen as swinging to a different direction starting from my post #21.. But don't get me wrong.. the discussion is still intach. Just that I found new links to prove that there are some similarities in both thinking (creationist & evolutionist). The only difference are the refusal to accept the creator (by some evolutionist) and the lack of in depth knowledge about the religion itself (by some of creationist).

But on the other hand if evolution process itself has been mentioned in the religion books, so why should there be any issue of not accepting God as the creator.. Doesn't make any sense to me..

chongkeat

24-11-2008, 05:58 PM

But on the other hand if evolution process itself has been mentioned in religion books, so why should there be any issue of not accepting God as the creator.. Doesn't make any sense to me..
You see, that's the problem. It is not mentioned clearly, just an interpretation by others. And it is only one passage in the entire bible. Not very conclusive. So a lot of people are just going to say that it is just a coincidence.

youngyew

24-11-2008, 06:01 PM

chongkeat

24-11-2008, 06:10 PM

I just changed the title to reflect the thread content. Sorry to change your attractive title; I just thought it's better if we have a title that is easily understandable and that actually summarises the topic.

Just chipping in, but this topic isn't completely about Islam. Azlanhussain included links to sites quoting the Bible and stuff. And this thread is, from what I can see, trying to be scientific about creationism/evolution.

Just a suggestion.

azlanhussain

24-11-2008, 07:18 PM

You see, that's the problem. It is not mentioned clearly, just an interpretation by others. And it is only one passage in the entire bible. Not very conclusive. So a lot of people are just going to say that it is just a coincidence.

Yes I will agree with you from the Bible point of view. That's why I'm still trying to find more information which could best represent Bible in this issue.

Anyway if you check from the other links (Quran).. See how details it is mentioned.. though it was not mentioned in a direct or scientific manner, since human knowledge back then was not that advance, but now everything mentioned in Quran is much clearer, understandable and make more sense..

I just changed the title to reflect the thread content. Sorry to change your attractive title; I just thought it's better if we have a title that is easily understandable and that actually summarises the topic.

No problem.. :) thanks...

youngyew

24-11-2008, 07:19 PM

Just chipping in, but this topic isn't completely about Islam. Azlanhussain included links to sites quoting the Bible and stuff. And this thread is, from what I can see, trying to be scientific about creationism/evolution.

Just a suggestion.
Changed the word Islam to Religious.

qedx

26-11-2008, 12:55 AM

Have science found any prove that human came from ape.. can you give me any link to any site that proves we did came from ape
Humans did not merely come from apes, we are apes.

Comparing the physical structure of long dead animals with modern ones are fine and dandy, but its genetics that really sealed the deal for evolution. Feel free to follow its references - Human evolutionary genetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_evolutionary_genetics&oldid=245270843) (Yes, I know it's wikipedia, which is why I said to follow the references). Be warned though: Numbers and figures abound!

Shoblast

26-11-2008, 10:01 AM

Taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may03.html

"You are a metabolic organism.
As such, you are basically a collection of replicative proteins that function according to metabolic chemical reactions and processes. A virus is similar, in that it too is a replicative protein complete with mutable DNA and RNA, just as you have. But viruses lack metabolism, and so may not be considered to be alive in the same manner that you definitely are.

You are a eukaryote.
All remaining organic life is distinguished by structural differences at the cellular level between different groups of prokaryotes (which are essentially bacteria) and the eukaryotes (us). Unlike bacterial or viral cells, our cells have a nucleus. Hence, all non-viral / bacterial lifeforms are as we are; eukaryotes.

You are an animal.
Now I've heard a few creationists argue that there are plants and there are animals and then there are human beings. And that none of them are actually related to one another other than through a common creator. They adamantly argue that we are not animals, as if there is some insult in that association. But you are one of only about a half-dozen kingdoms of eukaryotic life forms. Unlike those of most other biological kingdoms, you are incapable of manufacturing your own food and must compensate for that by ingesting other organisms. In other words, your most basic structure requires that you cause death to other living things. Otherwise, you wouldn't have a means of digestion. This, along with some very specific anatomical differences in the chemical composition of our metazoic cells, are the factors that define and distinguish an animal like yourself from all other kingdoms of life. Given the alternative choice between plants, molds, or fungus, animalia should seem reasonable even to the most adamant fundamentalist.

You are a chordate.
You have a spinal chord and every other minute physical distinction of that classification. You also have a skull, which classifies you as a craniate. Note: Not all chordates have skulls, or even bones of any kind. Once one of the chordates has enough calcium deposited around the brain to count as a skull, all of its descendants will share that. This is why absolutely all animals with skulls have spinal chords. And that is yet another commonality that implies common ancestry as opposed to common design.

You are a vertebrate.
Like all mammals, birds, dinosaurs, reptiles, amphibians, and most fish, you have a spine. Not everything with a spinal cord has a spine to put it in, but everything with a spine has a spinal cord in it, implying common descent.

Every animal that has a jaw and teeth (Gnathostomata) also has a backbone. And of course, you have both as well, again implying common descent.

You are a tetrapod.
You have only four limbs. So you are like all other terrestrial vertebrates including frogs. Even snakes and whales are tetrapods in that both still retain vestigial or fetal evidence of all four limbs. This is yet another consistent commonality implying a genetic relationship. There certainly is no creationist explanation for it.

You are synapsid.
Unlike turtles (which are anapsid) and "true" reptiles, dinosaurs and birds (which are all diapsid), your skull has only one temporal fenestra, a commonality between all of the vast collection of "mammal-like reptiles", which are now all extinct without any Biblical recognition or scriptural explanation either for their departure or their presence in the first place.

You are a mammal.
You are homeothermic (warm-blooded), follicle-bearing and have lactal nipples. And of course, not all synapsids are or were mammals, but all mammals are synapsid, implying common descent.

You are eutherian.
Or more specifically, you are a placental mammal, like most other lactal animals from shrews to whales. All eutherians are mammals, but not all mammals are eutherian. There are six major divisions in mammalia, only three of which still exist; those that hatch out of eggs like reptiles (monotremes), marsupials, that are born in the fetal stage and complete their development inside the mother's pouch, and those that developed in a shell-like placenta and were born in the infant stage, as you were. Your own fetal development seems to reveal a similar track of development from a single cell to a tadpole-looking creature, then growing limbs and digits out of your finlike appendages, and finally outgrowing your own tail. Some would consider this an indication of ancestry. Especially since fetal snakes, for example, actually have legs, feet, and cute little toes, which are reabsorbed into the body before hatching, implying common descent.

You are a primate.
You have five fully-developed fingers and five fully-developed toes. Your toes are still prehensile and your hands can grasp with dexterity. You have only two lactal nipples and they are on your chest as opposed to your abdomen. These are pointless in males, which also have a pendulous penis and a well-developed ceacum or appendix, unlike all other mammals. Although your fangs are reduced in size, you do still have them along with some varied dentition indicative of primates exclusively. Your fur is thin and relatively sparse over most of your body. And your claws have been reduced to flat chitinous fingernails. Your fingers themselves have distinctive print patterns. You are also susceptible to AIDS and are mortally allergic to the toxin of the male funnel web spider of Australia (which is deadly to all primates, but only dangerous to primates, which is why you'd better beware of these spiders). And unlike all but one unrelated animal in all the world, your body cannot produce vitamin-C naturally and must have it supplemented in your diet, just as all other primates do. Nearly every one of these individual traits are unique only to primates exclusively. There is almost no other organism on Earth that matches any one of these descriptions separately, but absolutely all of the lemurs, tarsiers, monkeys, apes, you, and I match all of them at once perfectly, implying common descent.

You are an ape.
Your tail is merely a stub of bones that don't even protrude outside the skin. Your dentition includes not only vestigial canines, but incisors, cuspids, bicuspids, and distinctive molars that come to five points interrupted by a "Y" shaped crevasse. This in addition to all of your other traits, like the dramatically increased range of motion in your shoulder, as well as a profound increase in cranial capacity and disposition toward a bipedal gait, indicates that you are not merely a vertebrate cranial chordate and a tetrapoidal placental mammalian primate, but you are more specifically an ape, and so was your mother before you.

Genetic similarity confirms morphological similarity rather conclusively, just as Charles Darwin himself predicted more than 140 years ago. While he knew nothing of DNA of course, he postulated that inheritable units of information must be contributed by either parent. He rather accurately predicted the discovery of DNA by illustrating the need for it. Our 98.4% to 99.4% identical genetic similarity explains why you have such social, behavioral, sexual, developmental, intellectual, and physical resemblance to a bonobo chimpanzee. Similarities that are not shared with any other organism on the planet. Hence you are both different species of the same literal family. In every respect, you are nearly identical. You, sir, are an ape. "

vikraman

26-11-2008, 11:47 AM

A rather bright ape, I might add with a well developed frontal cortex which allows you to concern yourself with questions such as Am I an ape?

azlanhussain

27-11-2008, 05:08 AM

Humans did not merely come from apes, we are apes.

Comparing the physical structure of long dead animals with modern ones are fine and dandy, but its genetics that really sealed the deal for evolution. Feel free to follow its references - Human evolutionary genetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_evolutionary_genetics&oldid=245270843) (Yes, I know it's wikipedia, which is why I said to follow the references). Be warned though: Numbers and figures abound!

Cool... will check further..

qedx

29-11-2008, 04:47 AM

The attached cartoon is brilliant btw

vikraman

29-11-2008, 11:06 AM

lol if that ever ha.pens i'll cut my right arm off lol.

vseehua

29-11-2008, 05:48 PM

The attached cartoon is brilliant btw
Brilliant piece. Those in the America who have been pushing for "equal opportunity" to teach creationism in science classes should first do so themselves :P

qedx

09-12-2008, 10:30 AM

A Youtube video about evolution and its confirmation by means of endogenous retroviral (ERV) DNA found in our genes - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbbh1P6DW5I

youngyew

12-12-2008, 09:53 AM

Salman Hameed spoke with New Scientist about the rise of creationism in the Muslim world, what scientists can do to promote evolution there, and why he thinks Richard Dawkins and other atheists will push Muslims away from evolution.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16258-how-to-stop-creationism-gaining-a-hold-in-islam.html?full=true

qedx

13-12-2008, 03:44 PM

Seed magazine interviews Adnan Oktar a.k.a. Harun Yahya - http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/12/the_art_of_creationism_1.php

qedx

17-12-2008, 05:58 PM

Scientific American - The Latest Face of Creationism in the Classroom - http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-latest-face-of-creationism&print=trueProfessors routinely give advice to students but usually while their charges are still in school. Arthur Landy, a distinguished professor of molecular and cell biology and biochemistry at Brown University, recently decided, however, that he had to remind a former premed student of his that ?without evolution, modern biology, including medicine and biotechnology, wouldn?t make sense.?

The sentiment was not original with Landy, of course. Thirty-six years ago geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, a major contributor to the foundations of modern evolutionary theory, famously told the readers of The American Biology Teacher that ?nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution.? Back then, Dobzhansky was encouraging biology teachers to present evolution to their pupils in spite of religiously motivated opposition. Now, however, Landy was addressing Bobby Jindal?the governor of the state of Louisiana?on whose desk the latest antievolution bill, the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act, was sitting, awaiting his signature.

Remembering Jindal as a good student in his genetics class, Landy hoped that the governor would recall the scientific importance of evolution to biology and medicine. Joining Landy in his opposition to the bill were the American Institute of Biological Sciences, which warned that ?Louisiana will undoubtedly be thrust into the national spotlight as a state that pursues politics over science and education,? and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which told Jindal that the law would ?unleash an assault against scientific integrity.? Earlier, the National Association of Biology Teachers had urged the legislature to defeat the bill, pleading ?that the state of Louisiana not allow its science curriculum to be weakened by encouraging the utilization of supplemental materials produced for the sole purpose of confusing students about the nature of science.?

<more> (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-latest-face-of-creationism&print=true)

vseehua

18-12-2008, 08:33 PM

Hmm... when will people get the meaning of the term "theory" correct -.-

chongkeat

18-12-2008, 09:26 PM

Hmm... when will people get the meaning of the term "theory" correct -.-
Erm, what do you mean? I thought it was used (somewhat) correctly in the passage above.

vseehua

18-12-2008, 11:39 PM

Erm, what do you mean? I thought it was used (somewhat) correctly in the passage above.
The creationists (and to an extension the media) had always skewed the definition of a theory(theorem).

S: (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&s=theory&i=0&h=000#c) (n) theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

The next time someone says "just a theory," I will personally come and choke him out of his life...

Neutral_pH

19-12-2008, 12:07 AM

haha.....just a theory :D Choke me! Please choke me!

jojyi

20-12-2008, 10:47 PM

Why argue on this??haha..."The eminence of a great scientist, is measured by the length of timethat they OBSTRUCT PROGRESS in their field"!

Science cant give us truth...But science can only bring us nearer to truth...
Creation or revolution...I don really care...As long as I know where I am going to after death...that will be a relief!

A simple analogy and also a reminder:
The hand is showing the position of the moon. The hand symbolizes the language we use. Moon is the truth. Don't be too ignorant to take the hand as the truth and not knowing that that's the wrong one...

Shoblast

20-12-2008, 11:04 PM

6 feet under, if you are lucky.

youngyew

21-12-2008, 12:43 AM

Cremation is more environment friendly.

I hate to go hostile but I feel that I have the obligation to reply.
Why argue on this??
There are things that can't be 100% proven; there are also statements that are outright wrong. To claim that the need to converse about an issue is nullified on the ground of non-conclusiveness, is almost tantamount to [purposely left blank].

Why argue on this??haha..."The eminence of a great scientist, is measured by the length of timethat they OBSTRUCT PROGRESS in their field"!
Please qualify your claim that the greater a scientist is, the longer he or she obstructs progresses. This statement might have been misguided by the stories of some misadventures of scientists in the past. Newton, for example, indeed hindered the wave theory of light with his bigotry and authority; but he was in no way a hindrance in the overall development of physics and even in optics. Though his personality was marred by arrogance and bitterness (read his story with Robert Hooke), Newton still made substantial contribution in these fields. And in any case, light turned out to have both particle and wave properties.

Science cant give us truth...But science can only bring us nearer to truth...
This is a statement asking for a proof.

Creation or revolution...I don really care...As long as I know where I am going to after death...that will be a relief!
(I suppose you meant evolution instead of revolution) The fact that you don't care doesn't mean a topic is not worth exploring, researching and learning. I don't care much about embroidery, but that doesn't mean that all tailors and knitters should give up their mastery and take up medicine instead.

A simple analogy and also a reminder:
The hand is showing the position of the moon. The hand symbolizes the language we use. Moon is the truth. Don't be too ignorant to take the hand as the truth and not knowing that that's the wrong one...
I agree with Bertrand Russell: "Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality" While your analogy provides insights into the perils of bigotry, it does present with an inherent flaw: the moon's factuality should be examined just as much as the factuality of the instrument and language. The paradigm shift from the hand to the moon is a process that should not terminate just there and then - to claim that the moon is the ultimate truth manifests just as much bigotry as to claim the hand as the truth.

qedx

04-01-2009, 07:14 AM

http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf

Basically a summary of 15 articles published by Nature magazine on evolution over the last decade

g1noah

02-01-2010, 01:21 PM

[Post deleted by owner.]

Leen

02-01-2010, 01:42 PM

Question : What kind of evolution are we discussing?

This question is important because if we are discussing about microevolution, even the strictest fundamentalist will believe that it happens because people do change over time. Cells get replaced every seconds. But that doesn't mean that chicken originates from dinosaur or bears come from whale, etc.

If however we are talking about evolution such of one species becoming another species completely, then people will start to have argument whether such thing exist.

I've read a little bit about evolution being the possibility of creating human being and the analogy provided is this:

The possibility of creating a living being out of a non-living being is like the probability of making a fully functional Boeing 747 by a tornado passing through billions of metal scrap in the air.

It is just too unlikely to happen and for that reason, I reject the theory of evolution.

g1noah

02-01-2010, 02:37 PM

[Post deleted by owner.]

youngyew

03-01-2010, 01:22 AM

I've read a little bit about evolution being the possibility of creating human being and the analogy provided is this:

The possibility of creating a living being out of a non-living being is like the probability of making a fully functional Boeing 747 by a tornado passing through billions of metal scrap in the air.

It is just too unlikely to happen and for that reason, I reject the theory of evolution.
This argument is at least 20-year old, and its variations have been out there for even longer. Some people call it Hoyle's fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy
http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/tornado.html

It's first important to note that "creating a living being out of a non-living being" is a matter of abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is about how life evolves after the existence of first lifeforms; and how the first lifeform existed is another topic altogether. While scientists have very solid evidence for evolution today; they still don't know much about how the first lifeforms came about.

The 747-argument is almost equivalent to spontaneous generation theory, the probability involved here is the probability of a modern bacterium being assembled out of random organic materials. The thing is, evolution or abiogenesis claim nothing like this - I have yet to hear a scientist trying to tell me a bacterium is found to have been generated from a random soup of organic chemical compounds in his attic. In fact Louis Pasteur disproved this theory a long time ago.

In any case, if the 747 argument is to be used on the improbability of abiogenesis, it's probably (pardon the pun) even a heavier blow on the concept of an "intelligent creator". But of course we all know the counter-argument to this challenge - the creator is JUST there, you won't understand it and you don't have to understand it.

tsar

04-01-2010, 02:26 PM

I'd like to quote Dogbert

"If evolution is proven, why is it still called a theory?"

I think at this point, it is vital to understand that a lot of things related to evolution are quite arbitrary. An example would be the definition of species. Accepting the common definition however, let us all accept that the human race has not been around long enough to observe one thing actually change and evolve into a different species.

I know a lot of evolutionists like to use antibiotic resistance as an example, but please do note that the bacteria concerned is still of the same species and hence we cannot conclude that evolution has taken place. Everything "toughens up" (adapts) in the face of "adversary" (environmental resistance), humans included. Just compare a Tibetan and a Malaysian in the highlands.

My stand? I accept the evidence presented, I accept that evolution can explain many things, but I do think that some people draw too many conclusions from too little observations.

lookingaround

04-01-2010, 03:42 PM

Erm, how far can we trace the origin of the existing world?

If bacteria is the cause of life, from what the bacteria evolved from? If the bacteria evolved from non-living material, where do those non-living material evolved from? If everything appeared due to the evolution of "something", does it prove that "big bang theory" is never to be correct?

If the bacteria did not evolve from non-living material, then how the bacteria be able to appear in the earth? Did something created the bacteria, and bacteria "evolved into new lifes" / "created new lifes"? So does it prove that something has to be created before the appearance of life?

youngyew

04-01-2010, 07:30 PM

I'd like to quote Dogbert

"If evolution is proven, why is it still called a theory?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

g1noah

04-01-2010, 09:29 PM

[Post deleted by owner.]

tsar

04-01-2010, 10:39 PM

Can I know from where did you quote that sentence? There are billions of people living on this very Earth, and if there are a few of them who do not believe that the Sun is not the centre of the universe, does that make that not a fact? As I said earlier, when a theory survives numerous attempt to disprove it, it is a fact.

As quoted from Wikipedia, "In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
and according to the Oxford Dictionary, "the process by which different kinds of living organism are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth." So as you can see, evolution is not the evolving of one species onto the other one. It is simply the change in the genetic materials of the organisms.

There is never a clear distinction between species, and they do not evolve from their ancestral the way Raichu would evolve from Pikachu, with a clear distinction in their features.

http://www.sanparks.org/parks/kruger/elephants/images/elephant-evolution.jpg

As you can see from the picture above, it does not imply that Asian and African elephants are both evolved from Primelephas, but it is an ancestral species which looks like Primelephas. The point I would like to make is that, evolution is a continuous process, with no clear distinctions between species. When an organism adapts to some "adversary", if the genetic information is not altered in anyway, then it will be like what you said. If the adaption origins from a mutated gene (or may be several genes), then it is a step towards speciation.

As for the last bit of your arguments, I would like to invite you together to do some reading on evolution, before making such conclusive statements without any citations backing up your statement. I admit that I might not know much also about evolution, but I'll continue to study more about it, and continue to spread the correct truths about science.

Right Dogbert's quote was introduced for a bit of humour. Dogbert is a comic cartoon character, and the quote transpired during an argument with Dilbert about evolution. Youtube it or something if you're interested. It was never meant to be a serious "quote".

Okay, let's make it clear, a theory does not become fact under any circumstances. In science, we have "overwhelming evidence", but rarely "conclusive proof". We accept a theory as fact based on the evidence we are presented, and maybe even derive new theories from it. We draw conclusions based on what we think to be the "truth". However, our perceptions and abilities are continuously evolving (pun intended), and what we see as fact today may not be so tomorrow.

Let's put this in perspective. We once had "overwhelming evidence" that the Earth is flat. I mean, the observation was:
1. The sun and moon floated above our heads
2. The ground I stand on seems to be flat, after all I can build things on it
and so we accepted the "truth" that the Earth is flat. Then of course, along came brave individuals and (insert long story here)... the Earth isn't flat anymore.

Back to evolution, the theory itself is no longer what Darwin introduced in the first place. Darwin's theory was supposed to be "gradual", but fossil records indicate otherwise. Darwin himself said that the non-discovery of "intermediates" in fossil records (his presumption then was that fossil records had not been well studied) would bring his theory into doubt. The hype now has shifted to punctuated equilibrium, whereby evolution occurs rapidly then zeroes out for a prolonged period, before the cycle continues again. The evolution of the Theory of Evolution, so to speak. :)

I think you missed my point about antibiotic resistance. I am trying to point out that we have never observed speciation with our own eyes, as in we have yet to
1. Take a group of species A.
2. Put them on an island.
3. Document their gradual change over the years and successive generations.
4. Bring a male and a female from the new species and try to mate them with a male and a female from unchanged species A.

We can never be well read enough, but I believe in right attitudes to science. Science is not religion, it does not (or shall I say, should not) require leaps of faith. It prides itself in "seeing with one's own eyes", hence the heavy emphasis on evidence. The thing is, we come into everything with our own basic assumptions, and it compromises our objectivity, especially when we are called to interpret experimental results.

g1noah

05-01-2010, 08:43 PM

[Post deleted by owner.]

tsar

05-01-2010, 11:40 PM

Wikipedia has articles on punctuated equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium) and Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_origin_of_species). Check out the "Difficulties for the Theory" section for the latter. Of course, wikipedia is apparently not the most recommended place to garner information but I think it's a good place to start.

I understand a hypothesis to be an educated guess, to be tested experimentally. A hypothesis can go either way, and rightfully so. I understand assumption to be something held to be true even though it is not proven. It causes a scientist to constantly seek out experiments that might prove his assumptions true and not otherwise. In effect, the experiment no longer serves to test a hypothesis but to prove an assumption, which defeats the whole purpose of an experiment.

g1noah

10-01-2010, 04:17 PM

[Post deleted by owner.]

youngyew

10-01-2010, 08:59 PM

And to Youngyew, you said that you are okay as long as people don't try to stuff the idea of creationism down your throat. At first, I was thinking in the same way as you are, but I found out that this is the classical way of Malaysian thinking. "So long as I can ... and ..., I don't care about what others are doing." Fill in the blanks yourself, and take note that, the emphasis is on "I". The whole point is, if people believe in a fallacy, and they happen to hold a high-rank position in the government, there would be tremendous effects on the advancement of science. In my opinion, this is one of the reason why biological sciences have been progressing so slowly.
I think you misunderstood me when I said I am fine as long as people don't stuff creationism down my throat. Please do not take it as a sign of complacency or leniency - I am in fact the opposite of both.

If you have seen my posts around the forum you would have seen plenty of my trying to dispel myths and misconceptions, very much like what you are trying to do in the last few posts. What I am more "fine with" now, or to be more accurate, what I am feeling less fervent about over the years, is to try to change people's delusion into what I perceive as the more evident truths. At the end of the day, people are bound to, and in fact are entitled to embrace different philosophical viewpoints, even if those viewpoints are at huge odds with the conventional logics embraced by typical secular people like you and I. If someone is to believe that this world is all a simulation created by a supercomputer, very much like The Matrix, who are we to say that this belief just CAN'T be true?

In fact, people are free to accept or worship any version of supernatural deity. But at the same time, I am free to tell people why their version of belief is at odd with the conventional logic, and to defend the world's sanity when insanity ensues. Many of us might be tempted into imagining this world to be a better place if religion ceases to exist, but if you put more thought into it, this is not very different than Emperor Qin, Genghis Khan and extremist Muslims' distorted ideals - attempts at homogenisation through elimination of others are inherently incompatible with peace. So in the end we can only try our best to find common grounds (as cliche as this may sound) instead of trying to reach an unrealistic target. The not-reaching-the-same-ground is what I am fine with.

tsar

10-01-2010, 11:11 PM

g1noah: I am going to say thank you for what I perceive to be a compliment.

But before you call what people believe a "fallacy", may I ask you to offer conclusive proof that what they believe is indeed, a fallacy?

youngyew I do want to ask you something in relation to your post though. In thinking that people's "delusions" are at odds with "conventional" logic, are you not implying that your logic is superior and hence falling into the same trap which, presumably, you were accusing the same people of doing? On one hand you say you're not to decide if the person who believes is wrong. On the other hand, you say it defies conventional logic. On one hand you say these truths are only as evident as you perceive. On the other you have tried to convince others to take your stand. You talk of freedom of worship while labelling the faithful insane.

youngyew

10-01-2010, 11:56 PM

youngyew I do want to ask you something in relation to your post though. In thinking that people's "delusions" are at odds with "conventional" logic, are you not implying that your logic is superior and hence falling into the same trap which, presumably, you were accusing the same people of doing? On one hand you say you're not to decide if the person who believes is wrong. On the other hand, you say it defies conventional logic. On one hand you say these truths are only as evident as you perceive. On the other you have tried to convince others to take your stand. You talk of freedom of worship while labelling the faithful insane.
We have been through this so many times I thought you would have been familiar with what I am going to write below. :P

Conventional logic is how science operate. Conventional logic (this is in no way a formal term, I am only using the word conventional logic for the lack of a better word) is "If A implies B and B implies C then A implies C". Conventional logic is "if spiders have eight legs, it doesn't mean that all eight-legged creatures are spiders".

When I say certain beliefs are at odds with conventional logic, I am not saying that it's FALSE per se, I am saying it's not (yet, if you like) fully consistent with conventional logic. Some people say "see this world is so complex and beautiful and perfectly crafted, and hence God exists" - and I say this is not how logic operates.

When I say certain beliefs are delusions, the obvious example would be the belief that the Earth is 6000 year old based on literal calculation of the biblical genealogy, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence from geology and astronomy which all operates via what I call "conventional logic".

YES, I am saying that "if spiders have eight legs, it doesn't mean that all eight-legged creatures are spiders" IS superior to "see this world is so complex and beautiful and perfectly crafted, and hence God exists". I am saying "the Earth is 4.5 billion years old" is superior to "the Earth is 6000 years old". But NO, I am not saying that strictly adhering to conventional logic while totally rejecting anything beyond the scientifically demonstrable, is superior to considering the possibility of the unknown as part of the truth. Though I must say that when the belief of the scientifically unknown is simply wrong based on observable evidence, I would reject them until some better evidence is available.

Tsar, you seem to be taking offence, I think that's because you misconstrued my post. I have NOT called the faithfuls insane; I am calling the murder of the abortion clinic doctor and the fanatic's burning of churches insane. I am sure you would stand together with me in this.

I am also not calling all belief systems, or a particular belief system a "delusion" - it's simply beyond our reach to fully prove or disprove a belief system in its entirety. I am singling out the evidently wrong pieces, the young earth creationism, human living with dinosaurs etc as delusions. If these are not delusions, I don't know what are.

p/s: If you check the definition of "delusion" and "faith", they are actually not very different besides the negative vs positive attributes given to their respective contexts.

g1noah

11-01-2010, 08:03 PM

[Post deleted by owner.]

tsar

16-01-2010, 04:12 AM

youngyew

16-01-2010, 01:52 PM

I am not taking offence, but I do wonder if you realise your posts sometimes seem contradictory. You seem to recognise that all in all, people are merely working on differences of opinion, yet you openly advocate your point of view as superior to the rest.

By the way, the argument "see this world is so complex and beautiful and perfectly crafted, and hence God exists" is more intelligent than you think. I won't say more, since I don't really understand it myself.
You still seem not to understand me.

I accept differences in metaphysical or philosophical subscriptions. I accept people who believe that there are things that are outside human reach forever, and can only be approached via interpretation of religious scriptures. I accept people who believe in all sorts of things regardless of evidence. I don't believe in the same thing; but I accept them.

Generally speaking there's no "superior" or "inferior" metaphysical school of thought. Yes it is true that I adhere mainly to proven scientific evidence and refuse to align myself with vague interpretations and prophesies. However, I am not saying that conventional logic is thence "superior" to prophesies in the realm of metaphysics - I am only saying that logic works for me and for most of us, and that things that are logically proven to be wrong IS wrong.

On the other hand, what I am claiming as inferior is not the whole metaphysical view; but the items people claim to derive from their metaphysical view but is entirely incompatible with rock-solid evidence. For example, a subscriber to literal biblical interpretation is free to come out to proclaim the Earth is 6000 year old. However, when he starts to categorically deny the scientific evidence pointing to a 4.5-billion-year history simply based on "the Bible is inerrable", he is inferior to my argument based on scientific evidence. The only way he remains "on par" with me, is if he concurs that the scientific evidence contradicts him, and that for the 6000-year argument to stand God or some other scientifically unknown elements have played a huge prank by planting misleading and elaborately self-consistent evidence. That is the only way he is able to continue holding on to his metaphysical view without being outright deluded.

By the way, the argument "see this world is so complex and beautiful and perfectly crafted, and hence God exists" is more intelligent than you think. I won't say more, since I don't really understand it myself.
I look forward to hearing theological reasoning from you on this(though I guess these would not be new to all of us, both you and I would have read this countless times in various places).

But you still have to concur that from the strict logical point of view, this line is as loose as it could be, and is definitely not on par with "a spider has eight legs but a eight-legged creature is not necessarily a spider". And yes, I am saying that this God line is inferior to the spider line (but I am not saying that the belief in God is then inferior to the disbelief in the spiderness-of-the-yet-unknown-identity-of-the-eight-legged-creature, which is what you seem to be accusing me of)

g1noah I hear the word "evolution" in just about every lecture/practical I have.
Have you had much discussion with your lecturers / professors about this topic? It would be great if you could share some insights about it

tsar

16-01-2010, 06:08 PM

Last digression: I'm not doing evolutionary science. Evolution is merely used as a backdrop for my course, to explain why things came to be. It's interesting, but I think getting well grounded in core concepts is more important.

g1noah

23-01-2010, 11:01 PM

[Post deleted by owner.]

youngyew

23-01-2010, 11:59 PM

g1noah, this science expo subforum is meant for any discussion about science, including biology, chemistry etc. We won't be opening chemistry or biology subforums at the moment because we don't have enough threads to populate them.

Last digression: I'm not doing evolutionary science. Evolution is merely used as a backdrop for my course, to explain why things came to be. It's interesting, but I think getting well grounded in core concepts is more important.
What do you mean by core concepts?

g1noah

24-01-2010, 12:16 AM

[Post deleted by owner.]

youngyew

24-01-2010, 12:26 AM

Okay let me discuss this issue with other admins. Stay tuned.

tsar

24-01-2010, 08:03 AM

g1noah if you must know, most of what I know about evolution comes from Longman Pre-U Text STPM Biology Volumes 1 and 2 (mostly 2 though). STPM like A Levels gives a nice overview of evolution, and I was lucky enough to have teachers that grounded me in sound thinking methods.

Since biochemistry is also part of my course at the moment, the book which I happen to use, Principles of Biochemistry by Voet Voet and Pratt, likes to use evolution as a backdrop to explain how things came to be. I was studying proteins, metabolism and cell signalling last term, so there was a short section on protein evolution (things like function conservation over sequence conservation) and likewise for metabolism and cell signalling.

For my Physiology part of the course, evolution is used to explain why regulation is so complex. That is to say, organisms don't need to "design systems". Natural selection "selects" the processes and functions to keep, and of course if a new function for the same molecule can be found then it would be favourable for the organism to keep a "dual function" molecule (less energy for synthesis). Examples, you can have G protein coupled receptors for both inhibitory and stimulating pathways and glycine (a very simple amino acid) functions as a neurotransmitter.

Then at one point in time, I attended a talk attempting to debunk evolution as mere fallacy, offering some quite good points which most unfortunately I can't remember accurately enough to reproduce here. But one thing I do remember though. The speaker questioned the motives of those trying to disprove God. (again a digression, but here I go) If for a said group of people, God doesn't exist, then why go all out to disprove God when, it no longer matters if others believe or not? Believing in God only matters if God does exist. If the opposite were true, then, nothing matters, for we will all be nothing.

So as you can see, my intention was never to argue YES EVOLUTION or YES CREATIONISM. Rather than trying to disprove the opinions of others based on my own, I prefer to point out that evolution can indeed explain many things, and that the theory itself is quite different than compared to Darwin's day.

g1noah

29-01-2010, 10:06 PM

[Post deleted by owner.]

hhhcce

30-01-2010, 01:37 PM

It is actually the process of speciation, that we are not sure of. We haven't really witness a speciation process occurs in front of our very eyes, like what you have said earlier. May be it is because of the punctuated evolution you mentioned earlier? May be it is because of the time frame that we are looking at is too short?

It has been observed in the lab by the way, g1noah.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2410209?seq=4 (A very good review paper on artificial speciation)

X-FaR

30-01-2010, 02:19 PM

Natural selection is certainly a mechanism observed among living things in nature. But it does not possess the ability as imagined by evolutionists of bestowing new features on life forms and thus creating new species.1

We can clarify this with an example: Let us imagine that in a geographical region somewhere there are two similar kinds of dog, one with longer fur and the other with relatively shorter. If the temperature in this region falls significantly for some ecological reason, then the longer haired dogs will be more resistant than the shorter haired ones. As a result, the longer haired dogs will gradually come to have an advantage, meaning that they will live longer, and reproduce and find food easier. After a while, the number of shorter haired dogs will decrease considerably, and they will either migrate to warmer climates or else become extinct. In other words, the longer haired dogs will be favored by natural selection.

From http://www.harunyahya.com

Please have to download this video for further info...

http://tr1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/1245/THE_COLLAPSE_OF_EVOLUTION

g1noah

30-01-2010, 06:00 PM

[Post deleted by owner.]

vseehua

31-01-2010, 08:47 AM

youngyew

31-01-2010, 04:06 PM

g1noah

02-02-2010, 10:51 PM

[Post deleted by owner.]

youngyew

03-02-2010, 12:27 PM

Their approach is instead rather eclectic - e.g. homosexuality is justified with reference to animal behaviour, but murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing are somehow denunciated despite being daily occurrences in the animal kingdom.
Murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing harm other people; homosexuality doesn't though.

Meaninglessness is relative, multi-faceted and personal.

tsar

03-02-2010, 06:28 PM

g1noah

03-02-2010, 11:40 PM

[Post deleted by owner.]

youngyew

03-02-2010, 11:50 PM

I think I agree with bluez_aspic. We only view muder as wrong because we've been taught it is wrong.

Don't get me wrong. I believe/uphold that murder is wrong, but I also believe it is important to recognise how we came to this "conclusion".

Coming back to evolution, the statement "survival of the fittest" can easily be replaced with "elimination of the weak". So thinking along those lines, medical intervention is bad for the human race as a whole, because we are actively supporting the "weaker" ones - i.e. those with congenital defects, genetic diseases like MS and cystic fibrosis. We are allowing these people to survive and reproduce, passing on their "bad and defective genes". We have more or less removed a lot of selection pressures on our own race.

Yet are we going to stop intervening? Are we going to stop saving lives? SURELY NO. Why? Because we're human. And if you like, we're created in the image of God. Your statement that "it harms other people" doesn't apply as a product of sound scientific reasoning. It's only bad because morally it is bad. It's only bad because we are human beings, and we should be proud of that.
The question is, who taught us murder is wrong? It's often implied by many believers that murder as a sin is a new knowledge bestowed upon us via God's commandments, but evidence abounds that many civilisations have independently developed ethical codes including murder as an unethical conduct. And in many of those civilisations, animism is the dominant belief system. Are we then ready to reach the conclusion that animism taught us murder is wrong as well?

Anyway, the crux of the matter is this: whether we should act according to the "natural" way (we call it "is") displayed by our animal friends or the "nurtured" way (we call it "ought") taught by our society, has nothing to do with whether evolution is or should be valid. The latter can only be approached via strict scientific approach, and though philosophers and believers are inclined to discuss the ramification of its truthfulness, it shall has zero influence on our quest for the truth. The truth is not what you like, the truth is what remains after you cease to believe.

As for the medicine-helping-the-evolutionary-disadvantaged issue, we had a thread here:
Should medical research prolong human's life? - ReCom.org (http://recom.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4917)

p/s: Multiple sclerosis is not considered a "genuine" genetic disease the way cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease and Duchenne's muscular dystrophy are classically categorised. So MS is more in the rank of Diabetes, hypertension and breast cancer, as far as "genetic-ness" goes.

g1noah

03-02-2010, 11:54 PM

[Post deleted by owner.]

tsar

04-02-2010, 08:51 AM

The question is, who taught us murder is wrong? It's often implied by many believers that murder as a sin is a new knowledge bestowed upon us via God's commandments, but evidence abounds that many civilisations have independently developed ethical codes including murder as an unethical conduct. And in many of those civilisations, animism is the dominant belief system. Are we then ready to reach the conclusion that animism taught us murder is wrong as well?

Anyway, the crux of the matter is this: whether we should act according to the "natural" way (we call it "is") displayed by our animal friends or the "nurtured" way (we call it "ought") taught by our society, has nothing to do with whether evolution is or should be valid. The latter can only be approached via strict scientific approach, and though philosophers and believers are inclined to discuss the ramification of its truthfulness, it shall has zero influence on our quest for the truth. The truth is not what you like, the truth is what remains after you cease to believe.

As for the medicine-helping-the-evolutionary-disadvantaged issue, we had a thread here:
Should medical research prolong human's life? - ReCom.org (http://recom.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4917)

p/s: Multiple sclerosis is not considered a "genuine" genetic disease the way cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease and Duchenne's muscular dystrophy are classically categorised. So MS is more in the rank of Diabetes, hypertension and breast cancer, as far as "genetic-ness" goes.

Firstly, I did not call upon Christian teachings to uphold that murder is wrong. The phrase "if you like" was intentional, and meant to underscore the fact that we were nurtured to believe that murder is wrong. It's fine with me if you simply view it as morally wrong, or just "can't do it cos it's not right".

I did not understand your last statement. You were arguing with bluez_aspic on "murder hurts people", as if you have already accepted the fact that "hurt" is a wrong thing that one should avoid. Now you're advocating scientific approaches to your latter statement, as if neutral on the topic? Perhaps I misread your meaning. Suffice to say, as humans we do not practice a disproportionate distribution of resources to ensure the survival of the best offspring. I think the best example would be the mother cat and her kittens - the weak one is left to die. The very act of charity is quite uniquely human.

I tried my very best to digest and understand your reply, and I agree with most of it. But, why does secular evolutionary view have anything to do with the abolishment of any notion of morality? Not to mention the utter meaningless of everything.

Correct me if I am wrong. Evolutionary view is a scientific theory supported by facts and evidence, while morality is a whole different issue. They should be mutually exclusive. A theory which contradicts the holy book of any religion, would not undermine its credibility, unless he/she is a fundamentalist, who believe word by word that are ever written in a holy book. And, as for the utter meaningless of everything, it is another whole different issue. As for me, I believe in the theory of evolution, yet I am living a very meaningful life. I am happy, though I am busy. I have dreams and goals, I have friends and families. These are what give my life meaning. It's not a matter of believing in some secular scientific theories.

As for the part where you mentioned about murders and stuffs, I would like to say that, although humans and animals share common ancestor, human life is governed by a set of "rules". In fact, each and every species of organisms has their own "rules", with some common "rules" shared between species, that is also part of the consideration in classifying the species. (There should be a biological term for this, but I haven't come across it yet. May be someone can enlighten me on this?) That's why we can't compare everything with animals. You can called it as eclectic, but it is an educated eclectic, based on assumptions like you mentioned. However, these assumptions are supported by numerous experiments and evidence.

First thing first, we cannot say that those genes that we viewed as "defective", do not have any values. If only any environmental factors change, we, the healthy normal people, might be the one dying out in large numbers. I am not implying that, we humans are helping those with defective genes to survive, because we can foresee that those genes might have selective advantage one day. In this matter, we cannot view it entirely in biological sense. Like you said, WE ARE HUMAN.

(Something extra, studies show that, although we are unable to modify our gene directly, we might be able to control the expression of it, through epigenome. This might be one valid reason to support why are we helping the weak and the poor.) Go to this link for more information. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1951968-1,00.html

Science is science, and religion is religion, they are mutually exclusive of one another. Science makes our world a better place to live in, through increasing our knowledge on this existing world; while religion provides people with mental comfort and courage and goals to live on in this wretched world. Embrace the religion you choose, whole heartedly, while continuing your adventure in the scientific fields. Why these much conflicts? If we can somehow lessen these conflicts, wouldn't our world be a better place to live in, in a win-win situation? People, just open up your logical mind, and start thinking.

By the way, "We're created in the image of God." is an incorrect statement, because it can never be proven nor disproved.

Unfortunately g1noah, evolution is a very "here and now" process. Our environment currently does not allow those with the abovementioned conditions to survive, and frankly I don't see how a person with a Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia or Cystic Fibrosis would survive in any kind of environment without medical intervention. Then again it's probably, like you said, just because we haven't encountered such an environment in the first place.

Ah truth, I must apologise for the (and the next) huge digression. A common theme across theology is that God is beyondthe realm of human thought. A theologian rarely seeks to prove A hence B hence C hence God exists. Rather, standard theology would be saying: God is beyond the realm of logical proof. I hope this quote from Tokens of Trust by Rowan Williams helps.

If all we meant by "God" was a bigger and better agent within the same system, a higher stage of explanation but still within the same universe, we'd still need a further explanation (that's why school-going children go on asking, "if God made the world, who made God?"). Religious philosophers have tried to avoid this by insisting that when we get to the stage of referring to God, we are no longer talking about levels of explanation within the same syhstem; we're trying to get our minds around the idea of an activity that is so utterly consistent with itself, so unaffected by any other activity, that it is, so to speak, its own explanation, its own 'cause', eternal and unchanging.

The truth is not what you like, the truth is what remains after you cease to believe.

And you believe in this statement yes? Are you not guilty of your own accusation?

but I'll agree with you on the first part of your statement. Also many thanks for the MS update. :)

youngyew

04-02-2010, 10:37 AM

I did not understand your last statement. You were arguing with bluez_aspic on "murder hurts people", as if you have already accepted the fact that "hurt" is a wrong thing that one should avoid. Now you're advocating scientific approaches to your latter statement, as if neutral on the topic? Perhaps I misread your meaning. Suffice to say, as humans we do not practice a disproportionate distribution of resources to ensure the survival of the best offspring. I think the best example would be the mother cat and her kittens - the weak one is left to die. The very act of charity is quite uniquely human.
Among others, the Golden and Silver Rules "do to others what you would like to be done to you" and "do not do to others what you would not like to be done to you" have emerged as some of the most remarkably similar ethical codes in most civilisations. In fact it's often argued that these rules probably have evolutionary basis in them. So I am not arguing that "murder is wrong just because it's wrong"; I am arguing that "murder is wrong" because all societies have evolved the ethics saying it's wrong, and it probably has an underpinning evolutionary explanation.

As for "leaving the weak one to die", it's simplistic to say that the logical approach of ethics endorses it. We have evolved to love all our children (except a minority of parents of course), so killing the weaker ones would inflict incalculable emotional harm to the parents and the whole family.

And you believe in this statement yes? Are you not guilty of your own accusation?
I don't believe in logic; and I have never claimed to know the full truth. And I don't have to believe in everything I propose you see; I don't believe that I have two eyes.

Stop reducing every single human knowledge to an equal level with every other belief system. As we have gone through before (http://recom.org/forum/showpost.php?p=292472&postcount=64), the belief in Santa Clause, the belief in Jesus Christ, the belief in Joseph Smith, the belief in L Ron Hubbard and the belief in the oblong-spheroid-ness of the Earth are on very different levels. I will not hesitate in upholding the "superiority" of the last "belief" over the previous "beliefs", if that's what you are trying to hold me against. I would rest my case if at the end of the day, you still want to call me "guilty" of doing this. This is the third time we are writing the same conversation :P

vseehua

04-02-2010, 10:45 AM

The cycle never ends eh?

youngyew

04-02-2010, 10:46 AM

p/s: You probably accused me guilty because I seemed to imply that I "have", "know" or "stand for" the truth; and that I will be the "winner" after believers cease to believe. But I wasn't trying to claim any of those as I am equally small as you, if you like, in front of the grand truth. I am only saying this line as a general description of the grand truth, and as a reminder to everyone that too often we infuse our wish into what the version of the truth we subscribe to, and in the process jeopardise our quest for the truth. For example, about 150 years ago, just how many people dismissed Charles Darwin based no more than "LOL you think your great grandfather is a monkey?"?

g1noah

04-02-2010, 04:29 PM

[Post deleted by owner.]

Hei

05-02-2010, 06:33 PM

Perhaps evolutionary stable strategy could explain some the questions. Basically, it implies that altruistic acts are prevalent in an evolutionary stable strategy, a strategy(programmed by the gene) that is highly resistant to the invasion of other alternative strategies that could arise through mutation.

To oversimplify(by A LOT), the rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is quite stable, in the sense that the organism inclined to it would be less likely to go extinct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism

One thing I would like to point out but not correct, it seems to me most of the people here has an individual-centered view of evolution or maybe a group-centered view, but the gene-centered view(popularize by Dawkins) has an added credibility because it "fits" in a lot of situations that would otherwise contradict natural selection.

g1noah

05-02-2010, 09:41 PM

[Post deleted by owner.]

youngyew

05-02-2010, 10:51 PM

You can try reading "The Selfish Gene". It's one of his defining works which outlines the gene-centred view Hei was talking about. :)

g1noah

05-02-2010, 11:18 PM

[Post deleted by owner.]

youngyew

06-02-2010, 01:23 AM

Not sure whether it's available in Malaysian bookstores. It should be.

Yes The Selfish Gene talks about meme too. It actually was where the word was first coined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

tsar

06-02-2010, 03:36 AM

Among others, the Golden and Silver Rules "do to others what you would like to be done to you" and "do not do to others what you would not like to be done to you" have emerged as some of the most remarkably similar ethical codes in most civilisations. In fact it's often argued that these rules probably have evolutionary basis in them. So I am not arguing that "murder is wrong just because it's wrong"; I am arguing that "murder is wrong" because all societies have evolved the ethics saying it's wrong, and it probably has an underpinning evolutionary explanation.

As for "leaving the weak one to die", it's simplistic to say that the logical approach of ethics endorses it. We have evolved to love all our children (except a minority of parents of course), so killing the weaker ones would inflict incalculable emotional harm to the parents and the whole family.

I don't believe in logic; and I have never claimed to know the full truth. And I don't have to believe in everything I propose you see; I don't believe that I have two eyes.

Stop reducing every single human knowledge to an equal level with every other belief system. As we have gone through before (http://recom.org/forum/showpost.php?p=292472&postcount=64), the belief in Santa Clause, the belief in Jesus Christ, the belief in Joseph Smith, the belief in L Ron Hubbard and the belief in the oblong-spheroid-ness of the Earth are on very different levels. I will not hesitate in upholding the "superiority" of the last "belief" over the previous "beliefs", if that's what you are trying to hold me against. I would rest my case if at the end of the day, you still want to call me "guilty" of doing this. This is the third time we are writing the same conversation :P

Ah yes, one could probably argue the evolutionary basis of helping others. However, may I point out that all the participants of a symbiotic relationship expect something in return, i.e. the tools necessary for survival. I don't know, perhaps it is an evolutionary artifact, but the human act of being compassionate and kind without expecting anything in return doesn't quite feel like one that we would observe in the animal world.

The evolutionary basis of parental love is perhaps interesting as well. That said, going all out to preserve a child who is incapable of surviving is also rare in the animal world. If I may again use the mother cat anectode, the mother saves her milk for her healthy babies. I have personally observed chickens doing the same thing.

p/s: You probably accused me guilty because I seemed to imply that I "have", "know" or "stand for" the truth; and that I will be the "winner" after believers cease to believe. But I wasn't trying to claim any of those as I am equally small as you, if you like, in front of the grand truth. I am only saying this line as a general description of the grand truth, and as a reminder to everyone that too often we infuse our wish into what the version of the truth we subscribe to, and in the process jeopardise our quest for the truth. For example, about 150 years ago, just how many people dismissed Charles Darwin based no more than "LOL you think your great grandfather is a monkey?"?

Bearing in mind the quote about God, may I point out that your arguments about belief in santa claus, belief in Joseph Smith do not apply? You are still arguing on the basis of this universe, and I am here telling you that you CANNOT argue against/for the existence of God because He transcends the universe. God is not something below the realm of logic. He is above it. Capesh?

Also, your definition of belief is woefully lacking. Do you believe the font I use is Times New Roman? Do you believe I use green pens? Do you believe the computer can be turned off? When we say "believe in God", we are no longer talking about something that is detached from ourselves. We are talking about something very intricately human, something that is of our very own nature. Can you believe that you do not exist? Can you believe that you aren't kind? Can you believe that you can't think logically and coherrently?

I have tried to avoid your "young earth" arguments up till now because I don't want to start a war in ReCom. Your tone leaves me no choice. I only believe in the bible because I believed in God, in Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit, in His apostles first. I am not bound by the bible, I am bound by the supreme being that exists in the Holy and Undivided Trinity. The bible was revealed by God as His word through the authority of the Magesterium of His Church. Yes youngyew, I am a Roman Catholic, I do not subscribe to sola scriptura. All these beliefs you accuse me of are baseless.

You are placing yourself in a high and mighty position when telling me to "stop", yet with the same breath you are talking about humility in the face of truth. You accuse me of infusing the truth with my own wants, but have you considered that you are doing the same thing? You refuse to accept a God because you think you're good enough to come upon conclusive proof that God exists. You value your supreme intellect above everything, and believe so strongly that it will bring you closer and closer to truth. In short youngyew, you have traded one ounce of humility for one kilogramme of pride. It's not called honesty, as someone once put it. It's called robing yourself in self satisfaction.

Back to infusing it with my own wants, I can tell you very honestly Rome wasn't where I thought I'd end up. It would be premature for me to say anything about you.

Coming back to science, facts are one thing, interpretation is another. Just because you choose to interpret facts in a way doesn't make your interpretation right. Experiments are designed to minimise interpretation but in the end it is still up to the experimenter to decide what the results are telling him.

youngyew

06-02-2010, 09:33 AM

Ah yes, one could probably argue the evolutionary basis of helping others. However, may I point out that all the participants of a symbiotic relationship expect something in return, i.e. the tools necessary for survival. I don't know, perhaps it is an evolutionary artifact, but the human act of being compassionate and kind without expecting anything in return doesn't quite feel like one that we would observe in the animal world.

The evolutionary basis of parental love is perhaps interesting as well. That said, going all out to preserve a child who is incapable of surviving is also rare in the animal world. If I may again use the mother cat anectode, the mother saves her milk for her healthy babies. I have personally observed chickens doing the same thing.
You have a very dim view of animals. Not all animals are ruthless scavengers, bloodless siblings and mean mothers. Mourning, sharing and caring have all been observed in various animals.

Bearing in mind the quote about God, may I point out that your arguments about belief in santa claus, belief in Joseph Smith do not apply? You are still arguing on the basis of this universe, and I am here telling you that you CANNOT argue against/for the existence of God because He transcends the universe. God is not something below the realm of logic. He is above it. Capesh?
And conveniently Santa Claus, Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard are not transcendental and are therefore subject to a less lenient view and we should then subject them to logic.

You believe in the Christian God and therefore you are partial towards it. It's as simple as that. You simply can't be objective when it comes to Krishna vs YHWH vs Allah.

And I was not arguing against the existence of God. I am arguing that if there's a cosmic casino on the odds of the Earth being an oblong spheroid vs the odds of Joseph Smith being the second coming of Christ vs many other claims in religion, I will not hesitate in putting 99.9% of all my cosmic money into the former.

Also, your definition of belief is woefully lacking. Do you believe the font I use is Times New Roman? Do you believe I use green pens? Do you believe the computer can be turned off? When we say "believe in God", we are no longer talking about something that is detached from ourselves. We are talking about something very intricately human, something that is of our very own nature. Can you believe that you do not exist? Can you believe that you aren't kind? Can you believe that you can't think logically and coherrently?

I have tried to avoid your "young earth" arguments up till now because I don't want to start a war in ReCom. Your tone leaves me no choice. I only believe in the bible because I believed in God, in Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit, in His apostles first. I am not bound by the bible, I am bound by the supreme being that exists in the Holy and Undivided Trinity. The bible was revealed by God as His word through the authority of the Magesterium of His Church. Yes youngyew, I am a Roman Catholic, I do not subscribe to sola scriptura. All these beliefs you accuse me of are baseless.
Wait. I was attacking your arguments not you as a person. I don't even know you and I don't make enemies with an online persona. Sorry if that was what I appear to be. I was also not accusing you to be subscribing to sola scriptura - in which paragraph did I type "Tsar you believe in the infalllibility authority of the Christian faith"?

You are placing yourself in a high and mighty position when telling me to "stop", yet with the same breath you are talking about humility in the face of truth. You accuse me of infusing the truth with my own wants, but have you considered that you are doing the same thing? You refuse to accept a God because you think you're good enough to come upon conclusive proof that God exists. You value your supreme intellect above everything, and believe so strongly that it will bring you closer and closer to truth. In short youngyew, you have traded one ounce of humility for one kilogramme of pride. It's not called honesty, as someone once put it. It's called robing yourself in self satisfaction.

Back to infusing it with my own wants, I can tell you very honestly Rome wasn't where I thought I'd end up. It would be premature for me to say anything about you.
Again please do not take all this personally. I am sorry I sound over-the-line or even arrogant when I am being assertive. When I tell you to "stop" I wasn't giving you any instruction on what you should do with your belief; it was merely an instrument (probably a rude one, I concur) in what I disagree with you in your line of argument. I am not being your mummy. Sorry if it's all too rude.

When you have removed your anger, however, may I implore you to try to interpret my paragraph with some objectivity. The next time you come across a particular belief you don't subscribe to and they tell you things that are at odd with either the scientific evidence or your own belief, tell me what you are thinking and whether you accept what they say. We are all atheist to three million Gods that have existed on this Earth, the one-God difference between you and I, I hope, shouldn't make my point less obvious.

I don't value my supreme intellect above everything; I value concrete evidence over choosing from three hundred versions of the possible truths. I eagerly await all forms of evidence about everything in the universe - and I would argue that I am free from the influence of the wish of the direction the evidence would take me. To take a not-so-provocative example, a Malay nationalist would hope Hang Tuah is not of Chinese origin, so if the person were to be the investigating historian, he or she would probably be biased in the interpretation of the history facts. However, if the person is just a random Western historian, he or she is most likely removed from this bias. I argue the same case applies in the evolution vs creationism issue - the word creation science itself is ironic because they set forth a conclusion first and try to reach the conclusion. How can they not be biased? Would you mind to help me point out where such bias exists in evolution scientists? There are lots of Christians who work in this field, actually.

Also, about me having pride over my stance, I am not aligned with people who think they have the grand truth and go all over the world telling others.

Coming back to science, facts are one thing, interpretation is another. Just because you choose to interpret facts in a way doesn't make your interpretation right. Experiments are designed to minimise interpretation but in the end it is still up to the experimenter to decide what the results are telling him.
Scientific interpretation is definitely not a 100% straightforward thing. However, religious interpretation is infinitely more vague and personally customizable. There are no 300 sects of Newtonian physics, for example.

youngyew

06-02-2010, 10:39 AM

Perhaps physics is also going the way of religions.

youngyew

06-02-2010, 10:58 AM

Moderator Note: I just merged two similar threads on creationism vs evolution.

Hei

06-02-2010, 01:45 PM

#g1noah
On ESS : http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3400500132.html

I see you intend to read "The Selfish Gene", in that case I recommend Chapter 3 for a gist of the gene-centered view of evolution.

As someone has already mentioned, you can't prove any theory using the scientific method, you can only disprove it. To quote Einstein "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Which is why there are shitloads versions of string theory, it is untestable. God on the other hand, is unfalsifiable, right up there with FSM.

youngyew

06-02-2010, 03:57 PM

btw it is sometimes alleged that theists employ "God of the gaps" arguments to accomodate existing gaps in scientific understanding. But the evolution framework is so flexible that it can accomodate just about anything and everything - so it seems that the same attitude prevails among both sides of the divide.
It's true that our understanding and knowledge about evolution is revised and modified so often that it seems that it's becoming almost like another vague unfalsifiable theory. But it does remain falsifiable if counter-evidences are to be found. Who knows some day someone manages to interpret some junk DNAs and find some encrypted messages saying "God here, gotcha scientists!".

On the other hand, I think God of the gaps is still more flexible because you simply can't find a counter-evidence for the general concept of God. There's always an interpretation for any evidence or counter-evidence, and even if there isn't, there's always the infallible "God works in mysterious ways".

g1noah

06-02-2010, 07:19 PM

[Post deleted by owner.]

tsar

06-02-2010, 10:29 PM

You have a very dim view of animals. Not all animals are ruthless scavengers, bloodless siblings and mean mothers. Mourning, sharing and caring have all been observed in various animals.

And conveniently Santa Claus, Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard are not transcendental and are therefore subject to a less lenient view and we should then subject them to logic.

You believe in the Christian God and therefore you are partial towards it. It's as simple as that. You simply can't be objective when it comes to Krishna vs YHWH vs Allah.

And I was not arguing against the existence of God. I am arguing that if there's a cosmic casino on the odds of the Earth being an oblong spheroid vs the odds of Joseph Smith being the second coming of Christ vs many other claims in religion, I will not hesitate in putting 99.9% of all my cosmic money into the former.

Wait. I was attacking your arguments not you as a person. I don't even know you and I don't make enemies with an online persona. Sorry if that was what I appear to be. I was also not accusing you to be subscribing to sola scriptura - in which paragraph did I type "Tsar you believe in the infalllibility authority of the Christian faith"?

Again please do not take all this personally. I am sorry I sound over-the-line or even arrogant when I am being assertive. When I tell you to "stop" I wasn't giving you any instruction on what you should do with your belief; it was merely an instrument (probably a rude one, I concur) in what I disagree with you in your line of argument. I am not being your mummy. Sorry if it's all too rude.

When you have removed your anger, however, may I implore you to try to interpret my paragraph with some objectivity. The next time you come across a particular belief you don't subscribe to and they tell you things that are at odd with either the scientific evidence or your own belief, tell me what you are thinking and whether you accept what they say. We are all atheist to three million Gods that have existed on this Earth, the one-God difference between you and I, I hope, shouldn't make my point less obvious.

I don't value my supreme intellect above everything; I value concrete evidence over choosing from three hundred versions of the possible truths. I eagerly await all forms of evidence about everything in the universe - and I would argue that I am free from the influence of the wish of the direction the evidence would take me. To take a not-so-provocative example, a Malay nationalist would hope Hang Tuah is not of Chinese origin, so if the person were to be the investigating historian, he or she would probably be biased in the interpretation of the history facts. However, if the person is just a random Western historian, he or she is most likely removed from this bias. I argue the same case applies in the evolution vs creationism issue - the word creation science itself is ironic because they set forth a conclusion first and try to reach the conclusion. How can they not be biased? Would you mind to help me point out where such bias exists in evolution scientists? There are lots of Christians who work in this field, actually.

Also, about me having pride over my stance, I am not aligned with people who think they have the grand truth and go all over the world telling others.

Scientific interpretation is definitely not a 100% straightforward thing. However, religious interpretation is infinitely more vague and personally customizable. There are no 300 sects of Newtonian physics, for example.

I was merely pointing out that animals tend to be rather practical when it comes to survival. The weak is left to die, the strong are nurtured and protected as best possible. Does that translate to having a low view of animals? Do you now see what I mean about you? Regardless of what you say, you do have a predisposition to interpret evidence according to your own line of thought. You are not independent at all, and it's amusing that you can type the bolded sentence with such impunity.

I think I have failed miserably in trying to convey my message. Evidence is merely that, evidence. There is nothing concrete about anything save the belief you have in your interpretation.

You thought I was angry? Yes I dosed it with a lot of sarcasm and put in direct words, that does not make me angry. (again another proof of you not being "influenced"). This is exactly the same method you use when "being assertive". Can you see yourself in the mirror now? Thanks for your apology, though it really wasn't necessary.

Rather I would suggest you read my post clearly and think about your own stance towards others in general. Yes, you aren't aligned with a faction that promotes their version of truth, that makes it harder to see that you're merely aligned with the people who snobs others for their lack of "evidence". You stamp a "lacking" on the evidence and call it being honest. It's merely your own view, do you see that now? The fact that you are still using your "where I'd put my money analogy" shows that you are the one not reading what I said.

Here's a statement. I have no qualms if evolution were true, or if it weren't. I would be more than happy to develop this field in line with the christians you mentioned. This is the third time I'm pointing out that you make conclusions from evidence garnered when they don't take you in that direction. (1st time: animals. 2nd time: my 'anger')

Do you think I have not realised the folly of committing the act mentioned in your final statement? The fact that you even view religious interpretation as "inferior" to scientific interpretation shows your contempt (and hence your own worldview). You are not prepared to be wrong, you have accepted one as right beforehand. How you can even criticise the word creation is rather amusing.