God does exist...

by czarofmischief 348 Replies latest jw friends

rem

Love Truth,
>>Read the line immediately following that quotation from Gould where I said essentially the same as you.
This is what you said immediately following the Gould quote:
"You could argue that Gould also stated that bacteria and fruit flies have experienced ?small-scale changes? via genetic mutations, and thus serve as excellent examples of evolution. But on the other hand, he tells us that mutations (?small-scale changes?) do not cause evolution. Which is it?"
This is not even close to what I said. I said that you took the quote out of context by throwing out the part about Natural Selection's role. You, sir, are imagining things.
>> Of course he's not using it the same way you are, Captain Obvious! I know what Dobzhansky's credentials are, and I'll take his definition over yours any day.
Except for the fact that Dobzhansky is not defining Evolution here, which you would know if you understood the context of the quotation in question. You clearly don't, so you continue to make yourself look like a fool.
>>YOU want to limit the discussion to Biological Evolution for obvious reasons, I will not do so. " Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous ", indeed! I obviously did not misunderstand the quotation, and it is indeed relevant.
We have been discussing biological evolution all this time. You are introducing a red herring. notice Dobzhansky said the "concept" of evolution (small "e") - not the "Theory" of Evolution (big "E"). Therefore the quote has nothing to do with the biological theory you claim has holes. You are obviously confused.
>>I already discussed the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you haven't read what I wrote yet. Or perhaps it's too much for you to comprehend
I've read your cut and paste treatement of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and it is easy to show that your understanding is flawed. It is true that entropy increases over time, but there is no law that says that pockets of entropy can't decrease within the system - as long as the average entropy for the system as a whole increases. If you know of such a law, please post it with references.
Also, you seem to have the mistaken notion that Thermodynamics cares about information and complexity. It doesn't. Information and the amount of complexity has no input into the mathematical calcualtions of Thermodynamics. Only energy is relevant. If your version of the Laws of the Universe were true, it would be impossible for a fetus to grow into an adult. But any 1st year undergrad student would know that, right?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
You have failed to demonstrate that Biological Evolution, or any other type of evolution, such as evolving languages, breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Since the evolution of language is a fact, either your understanding of the 2nd Law is in error, or the 2nd Law is wrong. I'm betting on the former explanation.
rem
czarofmischief

Abaddon:
You, on the other hand, and many theists and most religionists, will not chnage a theological model even if it doesn't fit in with the evidence.
Um, not true. Not true at all. My original theological model was the JW one, which I discarded when the sources proved corrupt, the Bible was proven uninspired, and the overwhelming intellectual dishonesty of the borg finally outweighed my fear of corporate dissolution.
That's why I wanted to avoid discussing evolution - my current model can easily accomodate it, in fact, the God I know and "worship" would probably use something subtle and purely physical to accomplish his purpose. Like evolution. Therefore the whole issue of evolution is a straw man, an argument I don't need to fight. It's L_T who is still enamored of the Bible. The Bible itself can be stretched to include evolutionary theory - but in so doing you have to overcome the basic assertion that it is the immutable word of God. That's why I've avoided the conversation until lately.
However - you are conspicuously avoiding the question: How does evolution actually work? How does the DNA change to provide the mutations that natural selection then either weeds out or blesses? What is the current theory? I once suggested the things I'd been taught in school, but was mocked as knowing nothing about evolution. So, educate me. How does the DNA change?
You are also avoiding the plain fact that many scientists, including teachers, assign the level of faith to the idea of evolution that is often seen in Catholic education regarding the trinity. For instance, in high school, the first question on the first science test I took in tenth grade was a true or false question. "Evolution is a fact." Now any dummy can put true and get the point awarded for answering "correctly." And any zealot can put false and get singled out as a "moron". But why would a teacher want to force a question that is actually requiring the student to "deny his faith?" to get the points? What kind of Inquisitorial tactic is that? Like it is some kind of loyalty oath that we all have to take, abandoning the things we were taught by our parents who we know and love?
I concur that the evidence for natural selection is overwhelming, and undeniable. But the mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are still highly debatable - ergo, why should students be forced to buy into the whole theory as presented in rather substandard textbooks. In the end, all the student remembers from a science class like that is that Scientists don't believe in God - and they want everyone else to not believe in God, either. In effect, it's a kind of conversion, not education.
"Evolution is a fact, not a theory." That's what the true/false question was. But what model of evolution? It's like saying "Monotheism is a fact." But what "model?" Calvinist, New Age, Roman Catholic, Islam, or North Italian Cave Jew?
So forgive us for responding in this manner - when the science community insists on converting rather than educating our students; the pressure we were put under was intense, and painful and we are still angry about it. I know I am.
CZAR
rem

Czar,
I'd be reluctant to call a bad science teacher "the scientific community". The true/false question you were asked is misleading because Evolution is both a fact and a theory depending on what aspects you are talking about. I probably would have answered the question "false" and gotten it wrong because the teacher was stupid.
In reality, though, I don't see why scientific teaching has to cater to the whims of religous thought. It is a science class - not philosopy. I'm sorry if you feel like it's conversion. Is it conversion to teach that the world is round or that the Earth orbits the sun?
You also seem to think there is more controversy about the mechanisms of Evolution than there really are. There is controversy about some very technical, focused aspects of certain mechanisms, but as a whole, Natural Selection along with some others such as sexual selection, etc. are regarded as the correct mechanisms. There may be controversy, but it's more along the lines of "how much influence does horizontal genetic transfer have in overall population genetics". No one is seriously questioning whether Natural Selection works.
To answer your question regarding how does DNA change to provide mutations. There are several different pathways to mutations, but the most obvious is copying errors. The DNA doesn't make exact copies of itself all of the time. It is estimated that there are over 100 copying errors in every human from the genes that come from their parents. Also, radiation and cosmic particles are known to cause mutations. Horizontal genetic transfer has also been observed, though it is rare.
There is a lot of good information about this on the www.talkorigins.org website.
rem
Farkel

czar,
If faith creates true happiness, love, health and full self-expression in anyone's life, I'm all for it. I'm also all for people who can achieve those lofty goals without faith. If those are also the goals God wants for his children, then he shouldn't worry if people can achieve them on their own. If people achieve those goals without Him in their life and he DOESN'T like that fact, then he's a pretty shitty God, IMNSHO.
Different strokes for different folks, and all that. It might be noted that true happiness, love, health and full self-expression are NOT the goals the WTS leaders want for their members. They want book sellers and people recruiters. "True(tm) Happiness" within the WT religion is merely a meaningless and empty expression.
Farkel
Love_Truth

Rem,
This is not even close to what I said. I said that you took the quote out of context by throwing out the part about Natural Selection's role. You, sir, are imagining things.
I shall get to natural selection, aka the circular argument, in a post to follow.
Except for the fact that Dobzhansky is not defining Evolution here, which you would know if you understood the context of the quotation in question. You clearly don't, so you continue to make yourself look like a fool. We have been discussing biological evolution all this time. You are introducing a red herring. notice Dobzhansky said the "concept" of evolution (small "e") - not the "Theory" of Evolution (big "E"). Therefore the quote has nothing to do with the biological theory you claim has holes. You are obviously confused.
He is defining evolution here. Look, we could go back and forth on semantics. Biological evolution, Cosmological evolution, abiogenesis, etc are all part and parcel of atheistic theories of evolution, to explain how things came to be as they are. This is the general sense which Dobzhansky, I, and others have used the term ?evolution?. That does not mean that those who believe evolution are necessarily atheists, many are theists, as I have mentioned previously. If evolution could be proven, it would simply explain how God created things. Again, I repeat myself. Just as you attempted to pigeonhole the meaning of ?faith?, you now attempt to pigeonhole the meaning of ?evolution.? The English word ?evolution? does not necessarily mean ?biological evolution?, as I?ve pointed out many times previously. So using the term ?evolution? does not imply a lack of understanding of evolutionary biology concepts on my part. I won?t be pigeonholed. This argument over semantics needs to stop.
As I have explained, however, I clearly do not believe in biological evolution or in abiogenesis (or analogous theories). So, the reason I am exposing evolutionary theories is that it raises the issue of design, which can only be explained by an intelligent being I call "God". One step at a time there, be patient. There are other reasons for taking the conversation this way at present, as well.
I've read your cut and paste treatement of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and it is easy to show that your understanding is flawed. It is true that entropy increases over time, but there is no law that says that pockets of entropy can't decrease within the system - as long as the average entropy for the system as a whole increases. If you know of such a law, please post it with references. Also, you seem to have the mistaken notion that Thermodynamics cares about information and complexity. It doesn't. Information and the amount of complexity has no input into the mathematical calcualtions of Thermodynamics. Only energy is relevant. If your version of the Laws of the Universe were true, it would be impossible for a fetus to grow into an adult. But any 1st year undergrad student would know that, right?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html (A rebuttal, not a refutation) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html (Another rebuttal, not a refutation)
Again, having a different conclusion is ?flawed?, how? Tyranny of Authority again. I never said that entropy must remain continuous. Rather, it can be, and often is, like a sine wave of increasing amplitude, where entropy is represented by the amplitude. Again, you put words in my mouth, bad habit of yours. Your analogy of fetus to adult is a very bad one that just serves to illustrate it is you who misses the point. Design, intelligence, a blueprint?, such is found in DNA, accounts for how the zygote becomes fetus, becomes an infant. It is you who is confusing the 2 nd law of Thermodynamics with the argument of ordering vs complexity. Again, as so often is the case, you distort what I wrote.
You have failed to demonstrate that Biological Evolution, or any other type of evolution, such as evolving languages, breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Since the evolution of language is a fact, either your understanding of the 2nd Law is in error, or the 2nd Law is wrong. I'm betting on the former explanation.
Not so. As I stated previously, t he Second Law of Thermodynamics states that systems must become more disordered over time. But the 2 nd Law does not explain the other necessary requirements for the abiogenesis, or of biological evolution. Living cells could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multi-cellular life could not have evolved from protozoa. Why? Merely having an energy field available to an open system does not mean that the system will somehow automatically become organized or increase in complexity. Four conditions, not just one, must be met. The energy must be available (The Sun is available); the system is ?open?(it is); the energy conversion systems are present (Rem, Abbadon, etc, care to explain the presence of energy conversion systems in your theory?); and the specific program (blueprint) directs the ongoing construction. (There?s another one for you).
Now, can we agree to limit the arguments over semantics?
Cheers,
Love_Truth
P.S.- I'd add that I've spent considerable time on the talk origins website, and the others that drwtsn, abaddon, and you have posted. I am not ignoring those. I will post something here that may prevent another semantic discussion, from the talk origins website:
An Index to creationist claims. A collection of creationist claims which aims to be comprehensive. It includes brief rebuttals and, in many cases, pointers to more information. Note the proper use of the word "rebuttal", not "refutation". Please make a note of it. Thanks.
rem

Love Truth,
>>He is defining evolution here. Look, we could go back and forth on semantics. Biological evolution, Cosmological evolution, abiogenesis, etc are all part and parcel of atheistic theories of evolution, to explain how things came to be as they are. This is the general sense which Dobzhansky, I, and others have used the term ?evolution?.
You are free to use the word "evolution" in this way if you wish, but please define your terms when you do so, otherwise you are just confusing the discussion. It would be best if you would instead just say what you mean (abiogenesis, etc.) rather than expect the rest of us to read your mind. Please do *not* use quotes about this general meaning of the word "evolution" to apply to the specific theory of biological evolution. This is what you said:
>> Yes, I know, you?ll quibble over the definition of evolution, yet life had to come from somewhere, somehow, so in that sense, the spontaneous appearance of life, no matter what you call it (abiogenesis, chemical evolution, biopoiesis, spontaneous generation, etc), is arguably correctly defined as part and parcel of evolution theory, it being an atheistic explanation you assert, or are you asserting that God created life, and it evolved from there?
See, you said abiogenesis is correctly defined as part of evolution theory (there is only one Evolution Theory). You are wrong. Evolution Theory is very specific to biological organisms that are already living. Dobzhansky's quote does not change this as I demonstrated earlier - he was using the word "evolution" (small e) to mean change in general. You are muddying the waters. (as did Dobzhansky with his poor choice of words)
We can discuss abiogenesis and cosmology if you would like, but please, for the love of all that is holy, stop calling it Evolution. It is not Evolution. Evolution is a well founded theory. Theories (more like hypotheses) about abiogenesis may be and probably are wrong. I concede that it is possible that one or more gods did create life, but it is almost certain that if it/they did, it/they did so using Evolution. Special creation, on the other hand is completly out of step with observation and that is where Evolution is a better theory.
So stop harping on Evolution. You've already admitted that it doesn't threaten theism. Evolution is not an atheistic theory. It doesn't care whether there is a god or not.
>>Again, having a different conclusion is ?flawed?, how? Tyranny of Authority again.
Flawed because you think you falsified Evolution (big E - see how the waters get muddied?) with your interpretation of the 2nd Law when I demonstrated that it is impossible to do so unless you can provide some corresponding law that says pockets of entropy cannot decrease within the system. It logically follows that if you do not present this law, your falsification fails. Elementary. I'm awaiting your proof of this special Law that I've never heard of before.
>>Your analogy of fetus to adult is a very bad one that just serves to illustrate it is you who misses the point. Design, intelligence, a blueprint?, such is found in DNA, accounts for how the zygote becomes fetus, becomes an infant. It is you who is confusing the 2 nd law of Thermodynamics with the argument of ordering vs complexity. Again, as so often is the case, you distort what I wrote.
Again, show me the mathematical formulas that take into account complexity when applied to the 2nd Law. Unless you can show how they relate mathematically, you are the one who is confused.
>>Merely having an energy field available to an open system does not mean that the system will somehow automatically become organized or increase in complexity.
Some complexity has already been demonstrated in the laboratory. Organic material has been created in a test tube from inorganic matter using only electrical sparks. There is still a lot of work to be done in this area and I am certainly not dogmatic about any type of abiogenesis hypothesis, but it has never been proven that it is impossible for this to happen. This is one of those areas where I simply say "I don't know" and leave it at that. I do not make up an unprovable entity (or entities) to explain it away.
rem
czarofmischief

Farkel
Different strokes for different folks, and all that. It might be noted that true happiness, love, health and full self-expression are NOT the goals the WTS leaders want for their members. They want book sellers and people recruiters. "True(tm) Happiness" within the WT religion is merely a meaningless and empty expression.

Yar, I heard that! I concur with your explanation completely. The God I know is a sneaky, underhanded trickster who always has an ace up his sleeve, even when there's twelve aces on the table already. what was it Pratchett and Gaiman said in Good Omens: It's like playing poker in a dark room with a dealer who won't tell you the rules and is always smiling.
REM
I'm gonna go look up that site, just for interest's sake. Always something more to learn, although the Creation book did more to destroy my interest in science than anything else on earth. Yerg, what a horrible book.
When I learn more, I will come back and we can discuss the social implications.
CZAR
Abaddon

Loves_Truth
So, you're not going to rebutt for example, my refutation of a 'falsification' of evolution that was based on a misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? You TRY, but you're essentially stacking your claim regarding abiogenesis on top of your claim regarding the 2nd law and as the claims you make regarding abiogenesis are not proved, neither is your other claim.
The interpretation of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is not opinion, any more than how one calculates Young's Modulus is a matter of opinion. This is something you stated clearly WAS a falsification that clearly isn't, and on factual, unarguable grounds rater than grounds of opinion.
Of course, there are probably close to twenty other 'falsifications' you gave, and each one was shown to be be based on ignorance or distortions; still no comment about those web sites ethics though...
Likewise, you claimed you could falsify evolution as abiogenesis was 'impossible'; I and others refuted the arguments you used, and rather than rebutting me, you re-state them, albeit from different sources.
You also ignore that one of your basic beliefs regarding evolution being impossible - no complexity without design - falsifies your own entire belief structure unless you base your belief structure on a presuppositionalistic claim.
If you do that, your argument is immediately reduced to the same level as e.g., a Hindu priest insisting on the literal nature of Hindu creation myths, or any other theist insisting that they are right no matter what the facts are.
Rather than engaging in the discussion, you'll wave your qualifications - I thought you were against argument from authority?
Yes, I have criticised various evolutionists for their lack of relevant qualifications - but only after showing the faults in their arguments.
But why bother; you've reduced yourself to an object of ridicule which is the typical outcome for the literal Creationist who has a discussion with an Evolutionist.
czar
That's why I wanted to avoid discussing evolution - my current model can easily accomodate it, in fact, the God I know and "worship" would probably use something subtle and purely physical to accomplish his purpose.
An entirely sane and sensible argument for the theist in the 21st Century.
However - you are conspicuously avoiding the question: How does evolution actually work? How does the DNA change to provide the mutations that natural selection then either weeds out or blesses? What is the current theory? I once suggested the things I'd been taught in school, but was mocked as knowing nothing about evolution. So, educate me. How does the DNA change?
Good question; I aplogise for the C&P w/URL, but I have to pick someone up from the airport today;
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB100.html
Very large mutations are rare, but mutations are ubiquitous. There is roughly 0.1 to 1 mutation per genome replication in viruses and 1/300 mutations per genome per replication in microbes. Mutation rates for higher organisms vary quite a bit between organisms, but excluding the parts of the genome in which most mutations are neutral (the junk DNA), the mutation rates are also roughly 1/300 per effective genome per cell replication. Since sexual reproduction involves many cell replications, humans have about 1.6 mutations per generation. This is likely an underestimate, because mutations with very small effect are easy to miss in the studies. Including neutral mutations, each human zygote has about 64 new mutations. [Drake et al. 1998] Another estimate concludes 175 mutations per generation, including at least 3 deleterious mutations [Nachman and Crowell 2000].
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
There are several types of mutations, including substitutions of one or a few nucleotides, deletions of nucleotides, duplication of segments of DNA or insertion of extraneous DNA segments into an unrelated DNA sequence. Such changes can occur in most cells in the body--liver, skin, muscle, etc.--without being transmitted to offspring when the organism reproduces. However, when mutations occur in the egg or sperm or, more generally in "germline cells" (i.e., the egg or sperm plus their embryological precursors), they can be passed on to future generations. Often, mutations are inconsequential: e.g. they may fall outside a gene, or if within a gene they may not change the amino acid encoded. Many genetic differences between closely related species are thought to represent such random inconsequential mutations. Sometimes, however, mutations critically damage the function of a gene. Indeed, such mutations are the cause of genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, phenylketonuria, and hundreds of others, as well as many genetic aberrations studied in laboratory animals. When molecular geneticists examine the DNA of patients with such well-characterized diseases, they can almost always find the defective gene and identify the mutation that inactivated it, since it is rare for such genetic disease to be caused by a deletion that removes an entire gene. Mutations causing genetic diseases and malformations are generally so detrimental to the organism's survival and reproductive success that in the wild--i.e. in the absence of modern medical science--they would tend to be "weeded out" by the pressure of natural selection. Rarely, mutations can be beneficial to an organism: these rare cases form the basis for evolutionary adaptations that improve the "fitness" of an organism to its environment.
As has been commented on, and as you yourself realise, god is unprovable and undisprovable; Evolution has not yet been falsified as a theory to explain the physical evidence we see.
Whether one decides that there are ontological reasons for deciding god exists or ontological reasons for deciding god doesn't exist is a seperate argument to wheteher or not the theory of evoltuion is the best available description for how life came to be the way it is today, guided by god, natural selection and god, or just be natural selection.
We can probably agree on is that the Creation and Flood accounts in the Bible are definately not literal descriptions!
ohiocowboy

Methinks that the only way to go is peanut butter on toasty bread with really crisp Bacon is the answer!!!
As for my belief in "GOD" "Jehovah", I would have to say now that I have mixed feelings. At times I want to believe that there is no "GOD", but other times I sit back, and cool my jets, and start to think a little different about things pertaining to "A higher power", I think I am at a roller-coaster stage in my life after being burnt by the Organization. Some feelings justify feelings of Atheism, but then again-could be the years of guilt and programming provides the upswing of "how dare I not believe in such a wonderful and Loving God as "Jehovah", but then realize how unloving and unjust this higher power can be-back and forth-I think I need a Dramamine-or at least a Xanax! LOL

God does exist...

Share this