by JanH 68 Replies latest jw friends
Most Picasso paintings share the same stuff, similar features etc.
Most Monet paintings share the same stuff, themes, colors, etc.
But yet each painting is created seperatly at different times by the creator, the painter.
Your also trying to prove your point by making good points in themselves yet they have no real connection with the subject matter.
rather than proving a point your really only making a point.
wendy
Blind faith can justify anything~Richard Dawkins
perfectpie,
You assert I haven't proven my point, yet you do nothing to show where I have failed.
The only claim vaguely resembling an argument (and then I use the term very broadly) that I find in your message is that species share "similar features." Now, this doesn't even touch on the argument I made in my first message: all species have genes for features they do not have (and do not need).
If a whale was directly created to swim in the oceans, why, pray tell, does it have genes for hind legs -- complete with knee joint and thigh muscles? Not only does it have these genes in its DNA, sometimes a phenotype actually demonstrates this by actually growing legs; totally useless for a creature that will die if it even comes to close to a beach.
I asked pointed questions like these above. You have made no attempt to answer.
It is this sort of helpless handwaving from creationists that makes it hard to avoid the conclusion that they are intellectually dishonest, ignorant, without a capacity for logical thought or a combination of these. Naturally, it is possible you did not actually read my article, nor the articles linked earlier, but just made what you thought were an argument against what you thought I said. Whatever the reason, it all serves to support the point I made earlier: today opposition to evolutionary science only exists among the ignorant, the illogical and the intellectually dishonest.
perfectpie, ignorance can be cured by education, logic can be learned using some mental discipline, and you can also improve your ethics. I advice you to do what is necessary.
- Jan
--
"Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets
Wendy,
Thanks for your kind words. Yes, it was an amazing result that I really had not expected. Good for you! Naturally, some (not all) religious people use God and religion like a crutch. They are convinced they will fall if they give it up, so they dare not even examine the evidence. Such religious ideas have made people dependent on religion, instead of making them stronger.
- Jan
--
"Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets
JanH; nice one mate, and one other thing; as an English person living and working in a country (The Netherlands) where most people speak English to fairly decent level (in addition to Dutch, German, and quite often French too... the Dutch are sickenly multi-lingual as a whole), I have to say your English is brilliant. I only say this as I noticed a small error (that could easily be a typo and is made by many native English speakers anyway), when you used 'to' for 'too', and suddenly realised you rarely make any mistakes. Full credit man... I am starting to learn Dutch, and know how much hard work is involved to even get started (not having a 'gift of tounges LOL!).
Well, most points made in rebutal of Jan's original post have already been addressed, but here's my Euro's worth;
I see a consistant trait in people who argue against evolution. I specifically mean evolution, not the origin of life or the origin of the Universe which are seperate things entirely. For example;
anewperson;
How so? Well, one can argue that when birds came into existence the so-called junk bits of genes for teeth were already pre-programmed into their genes. Why? Possibly so that if necessary birds could later on develop teeth, though such rarely ever is seen.This is part of a typical reaction by theists, which involves the application of force to fit a square peg into a round hole. A scientific fact is countered with an unscientific rejoinder. In the above anewperson is essentially saying 'You can't say that junk DNA proves things evolved, god may have put it there so that things could evolve'.
This above example also features another trait, what I call 'single stepping'. A good chess player 'looks' many moves ahead. A bad one will only look a few, or even one. So it is with logic, for example;
perfect pie;
The fact that Souls on the Earth share DNA stuff has nothing to do with evolution.The poster then goes on to use painting as a comparison. Yet junk DNA doesn't really fit the comparisons used. If you are talking about "themes, colors, etc.", you are talking about parrallel evolutionThe creator simply shared the same stuff when he seperatly created all things.
Another (particulary annoying) trait is ignoring points, or trying to pretend a point is answered when it is not, or changing points. Martin Skimmer does this when he answers the question of 'if something can't come from nothing, where did god come from' question with a switch and bait waffle about mirrors, and old Greek logical gambits, which DO NOT answer the question.
Often, little asides give away the initiating mindset of the poster; "The fact that Souls on the Earth... " (perfect pie) is a typical example. As is;
anewperson
But to many of us, Jan, it is a moot point as to which view is right insofar as to whether or not "a source for all existence exists," i.e. God.The poster in the above seems to be saying 'Whether evolution or creation is correct is a moot point, as if god created us he obviously still exists'.If God created directly or if God created indirectly (by evolution), regardless, God (source of existence) still exists.
And, again, anewperson;
To believers to deny that God exists would be to deny that existence exists, which is clearly illogical.Which (sorry) is just silly, as a believer who denies God exists is an unbeliever, and that process occured to many on this board without us denying existence.
Obviously, we all have an initiating mindset, but one that so comprehensively shows that a person has already resolved their belief structure and is simply trying to deflect anything that contradicts this, rather than comparing and contrasting presented evidence with internal beliefs and adjusting as required, is seen in anti-evoltuionists more often than in evolutionists.
All this is not due to lack of intelligence on the part of the persons displaying such behaviour. It's got nothing to do with their worth as a person either.
I suppose the reason many anti-evolutionists get upset when people say they are wrong is that they are typically theists, and many theists believe if you are wrong you are bad, so being told they are wrong feels to them like they are being told they are bad, when it actaully has nothing to do with that. Also, giving up a belief in god, and thus (probably) an afterlife is a very traumatic thing, and accepting we evolved is one of the defensive walls that guard the belief in god (although belief in god and in evolution are not neccesarily exclusive, let's be honest and accept that's what often happens, at least as regards many traditional concepts of god). But that's an aside really, as I want to limit this post to evolution rather than theism
Sometimes, to be fair, one feels that persons attacking evolution do so from the same level I would discuss baseball's 'worth' as a sport - I know a few things about it, but come from a country where it's not even a minority sport. I could not appreciate a conversation with an avid fan fully, as I don't know the wealth of detail or the nuances that a fan would know. The fact I didn't know about baseball doesn't make me dumb or less of a person, it just means I would need to learn more to fully benefit from a in-depth conversation. Thus it is at times with anti-evolutionists.
It often seems that the counter arguements to evolution are lifted wholesale from apologistic material, whose whole purpose is to argue for god, often a very specific conceptualisation of a creator god as found in the Bible. This material can often be replete with the same faults found in many counter-evolutionary arguements; contrary initiating mindset, square-pegism, single-stepping, and a lack of in-depth scientific knowledge.
Yes, evolutionists lift their arguements from 'evolutionist' material. but the purpose of that material is not to disprove the existence of god. Evolution has got nothing to do with arguing about whether there is a god or not. It CAN be used that way, but that's not what it's for; it's for establishing a scientific understanding of the development of life. As such it is less prone to such faults as deliniated above for anti-evolutionary arguement.
As regards the actual debate, D wiltshire questioned how reproduction came about. Jan answered this well. I can give a specific example of a 'primative' form of 'life' where 'life' is a self-replicating bio-chemical entity. Look into Mad Cow Disease or BSE (B.ovine S.pongiform E.ncapalathy (Sp?)), or it's human analogue, new varient CJD (C.ruitfelds-J.acobs D.isease (Sp?)). It is spread by Prions, which are simple proteins that can 'duplicate' themselves. There are other examples, but none I have at my mental fingertips. I would suggest anyone curious as to the origin of reproduction start there in their exploration of a large and interesting topic.
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
Greetings, Jan
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Like many creationists, you confuse "what" and "how". We know pretty well what happened. If we don't know the "how" (or, even, the "why") that doesn't change anything.If you find a human body, it is a fact that a person has died, and is dead. It remains a fact even if you are never able to find out why or how he or she died.
Better put, you confused my comments about “how” with “what,” or your “what.”
We know our physical surroundings, including our bodies, at least as far as our understanding goes to now. How it got started in order to be that way and whether there was any guidance along the way is another question, at this point one of faith. Conclusions, at this point, that our reality was started by some life form are stronger than as those that the inanimate or nothing started our reality do. This is my opinion because science has proved life can beget life but has not proved the inanimate can beget life.
Marvin, you are not playing even handedly.
As has been pointed out, you do not demand the same standards of proof from the theory of god as you do from the theory of evolution.
For example; "science has proved life can beget life but has not proved the inanimate can beget life".
You haven't proved that either!
I have a genuine question. It is a little direct, but I'm not being rude; Sorry to be a litle blunt; I think you've handled yourself with exemplelary manners in this debate.
What's the big deal about admitting you believe in god primarily because you want to and in spite of the lack of scientifc evidence for a 'god' origin of the Universe? If 'faith' is so great, then why not use it, instead of dressing up a non-scientific arguement in scientific clothes and hoping it will convince people?
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
Hi Jan,
I'm really enjoying this thread. Your main point is 'junk DNA.'
I'd like to add a couple of additional facts that have impressed me in my readings re evolution, rather than start a new thread. But don't want to take this thread off in a new direction.
One is placental animals and marsupial animals. It fits evolution much better than special creation, IMO. Which explains better the fact that marsupials live almost exclusively in Australia and placental animals live everywhere else? (I know, there are exceptions like koalas.) The continents were separated and the animals evolved separately.
Also, that 'living fossils' are mostly found in the ocean, where there is not as much need for evolution because the climate doesn't change greatly. On land, there are droughts, heat, cold and many climactic changes which push evolution along. Except the likes of the cockroach, which hasn't changed much.
Just my thoughts.
Pat
Abbadon,
If I may correct a statement of yours:
As regards the actual debate, D wiltshire questioned how reproduction came about. Jan answered this well.Here is the answer Jan gave:
Naturally, the most primitive "organism" left little to help us know exactly what it looked like. DNA came much, much later. It has been argued that the amino acid form of life was a quite late stage in evolution, even though it is the only extant life form today. Perhaps the earliest replicators were crystaline structuresWhile I appreciate the answer Jan gave I can't say that the answer was satifactory and convincing. Don't get me wrong, this is not a put down for Jan.
Still all in all at some point the Theist, and Atheist as well have to use leaps of Faith in their conclusions. Even if both beleive in evolution.
If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
Hello, Abaddon
I enjoy spirited discussion, and appreciate your feedback.
For example; "science has proved life can beget life but has not proved the inanimate can beget life".It is established scientific fact that life can beget life. I happen to know this from my own experimentation on the subject, with my wife. We have bore fruitage, and it is living.You haven't proved that either!
Unless I missed the announcement from the scientific community, there is no proof of life produced from the inanimate. It is true that this has been suggested as what took place, but this is an extrapolation, not proof that it actually occurred. As I said before, proving this would require observing the inanimate producing life outside the reach of anything living. A scientist creating life in a lab experiment would probably not suffice to prove that the inanimate produces life, because the scientist would be alive and setting up and/or running the experiment.
On the question of how our reality of life got started I have held out the same standard of proof by asking the same question of two options, origin from life and origin from the inanimate.
What's the big deal about admitting you believe in god primarily because you want to and in spite of the lack of scientifc evidence for a 'god' origin of the Universe? If 'faith' is so great, then why not use it, instead of dressing up a non-scientific arguement in scientific clothes and hoping it will convince people?My belief in God stems from my belief in a spiritual source, and this is an act of faith not science. I know I have spirituality (sense and need of purpose) and I know the Bible nurtures that spirituality. Since the Bible teaches of a creator God then I believe it. As I have said before, this is a result of faith, not science, but it’s still me acting according to what I know because I know I have spirituality and I know the Bible nurtures it.
My belief that our reality was started by life is a different subject, and I think scientific fact supports this belief stronger than belief that the inanimate or nothing started life. This is because we know life can beget life but we do not know that the inanimate can produce life. I believe this simple point of fact tips the scale in favor of our reality starting from some life form.
Hello Janh.
Here we go.
I belive that the scientific method of investigating the world around us is the best we have.
I also believe that there is evdence that life has progress from simple to more complex life over long periods of time.
I dont promote the idea that there is or isnt a God.
But I do believe there is not enought known about the universe to draw definite conclusions just yet.
I do not feel that the matter of how life on earth got to its present state is a closed book.
The evdience that you point to does not seem in itself to lead directly to the conclusion that you make.
The fact that there are parts of DNA code within us that are similar or the same as other animals or are defected and not used does not automaticly lead to the conclusion that all life forms are linked in an soley evolutionary fashion with no outside factors involved.
There is no reason why this could not be the case ( the DNA evidence)if special creation was involved as we do not know what it would take in order to create life and what information may be contained by many animals but not used as a leftover of a creative act.
For example when we make somethimg as humans there is often a waste product.Could it be that inorder to create life there is waste DNA involved?Often it is assumed that if there was a creator or a being that has interfeared with life on earth , that they somehow are perfect or would not make errors or that all life would be neat and tidy.This is just assumption.
For all we konw if there was a creator he could be a bumbling bafoon.
I'm not saying this evidence does not give weight to the idea that life forms are linked purely by evolution just that is not the only conclusion.
There is a lot about how humans and animals work that we dont know
and i look forawrd to finding out more.
One thing that has always puzzled me is the fact that the Human Brain is supposedly the most comlpex thing in the known universe yet took less time to evolve than the back bone or lung.
Wouldn't this suggest that there is some catalyst involved.
That could be another being or a purely natural event.
