A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

[wxtornado]

Man, I hate to be on this side - but yes.

Why do you "hate to be on this side"?

 

[Toxick]

Why do you "hate to be on this side"?

Cause I don't want to sound like a treehugging Jesus-hater.




It was just a oneline wisecrack. Don't take it personally.

 

[Tonio]

If you're talking about abiogenesis, then we simply don't know, and don't claim to.

Since the 1950s, experiments with amino acids have shown a strong possibility of life arising from nonlife. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey clearly demonstrated the spontaneous formation of amino acids under many conditions. Manfred Eigen and Sol Speigleman demonstrated the spontaneous formation, replication, and mutation of amino acids including RNA.

 

[wxtornado]

Since the 1950s, experiments with amino acids have shown a strong possibility of life arising from nonlife. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey clearly demonstrated the spontaneous formation of amino acids under many conditions. Manfred Eigen and Sol Speigleman demonstrated the spontaneous formation, replication, and mutation of amino acids including RNA.

Science, ain't it great?!

 

[LateApex]

Since the 1950s, experiments with amino acids have shown a strong possibility of life arising from nonlife. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey clearly demonstrated the spontaneous formation of amino acids under many conditions. Manfred Eigen and Sol Speigleman demonstrated the spontaneous formation, replication, and mutation of amino acids including RNA.

Synthesizing a few strands of DNA is a far cry from creating life; all of our current attempts at "creating" life still need to hijack a current living entity.
While it is possible that we may one day create a fully synthetic being, it is equally as possible that the final spark of life will always elude our grasp.

 

[Tonio]

And, the written word from people who spoke directly with God, wrote down specifically what was said by Jesus, or witnessed the occurances themselves. So, we learn from a multitude of sources with virtually exact stories, to ensure the meaning gets across.

My point about "someone else's word" applies to scripture as well. We cannot assume that the Gospels are accurate as written, and we cannot assume that the authors were in fact Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. While the first three Gospels are similar, scholars generally agree that one of them was a source for the others, although they disagree as to which one was the source. Plus, we cannot assume that the canonical Gospels were any more accurate (or even less accurate) than the other Gospels that were not adopted as canon. The stories about Jesus were told for some time before being written down, and the texts changed over time during the copying process.

How does it adversely effect analyzing what's actually happening?

Because if you're focused on pleasing someone else and you're worried about displeasing the person, that takes away from your ability to evaluate situations and make moral decisions. As an analogy, if someone is standing on your foot, your focus is going to be on wanting the person to move off your foot.

 

[Tonio]

It only makes sense. For God to have created things, He was here before the questions were conceived, let alone answered. So, He provided the answers when asked.

While that has some interior logic, it has no exterior logic if one removes the assumption about a god existing.

The truth and moral authority are claims any and all can make. It's entirely up to each individual what they determine the truth to be, what they conclude their moral authority will be. Religion may claim it, but it doesn't make it true for each individual. Many a person has chosen death over denying their beliefs.

True, but I'm objecting to the fact that religions make those claims in the first place, and then threaten eternal suffering for people who question those claims. The claim goes against the principle of intellectual freedom.

To understand it took this scientist's imagination to comprehend what was being shown in Einstein's equations, and extrapolate an imaginative answer. Then, Hubble tested it.

By "imagination" I meant conceiving of something purely in one's head with no external influence. The example you offered may be better described as innovative thinking.

I agree, it doesn't answer ALL questions any more than theistic thoughts do. But, theistic thoughts are more inclusive in possibilities into the why's, not just the how's.

A possibility doesn't have automatic credibility simply by being a possibility. Only the probable ones deserve serious consideration, and that probability rests on evidence.

I'm not sure how it takes away from the meaning to believe they're literally true, but I do understand that the stories are told on more than one level. That actually adds credence to the stories to me - there WAS a garden of Eden, there WAS a flood, etc.

Those other levels inherently conflict with the historical accuracy level, because the other levels involve metaphorical or allegorical meanings. One can either focus on whether a story is accurate or inaccurate, or one can find a metaphorical meaning. This happens all the time with urban legends - when the stories are passed along, inconvenient details get left out because they don't conform to the storyteller's metaphorical agenda.

That is the exactly the problem with creationism. It starts with an agenda, which is blaming humanity for the existence of all suffering, and then structures its story about the creation of life and humanity to support that agenda.

 

[Tonio]

Synthesizing a few strands of DNA is a far cry from creating life; all of our current attempts at "creating" life still need to hijack a current living entity.
While it is possible that we may one day create a fully synthetic being, it is equally as possible that the final spark of life will always elude our grasp.

The goal isn't to create artificial life like Dr. Frankenstein. The goal is to investigate what processes may have resulted in life itself. Your two possibilities may be valid, but we cannot assume that they're equal. Either one may have a greater probability than the other.

 

[LateApex]

The goal isn't to create artificial life like Dr. Frankenstein. The goal is to investigate what processes may have resulted in life itself. Your two possibilities may be valid, but we cannot assume that they're equal. Either one may have a greater probability than the other.

Evolution still doesn't answer the critical question: What does it mean to be "alive"? At what point does a bundle of carbon and proteins make the jump to life? And how does that life gain sentience?

Religion is a human pursuit and as such is flawed and limited in scope, but so is science. One cannot simply use one to argue away the other. Any thinking man must realize that there are elements of both to our existence.

Can faith prove the existence of a higher power? No.
Does science stand absolutely? No.

 

[wxtornado]

Evolution still doesn't answer the critical question: What does it mean to be "alive"? At what point does a bundle of carbon and proteins make the jump to life? And how does that life gain sentience?

Nor does evolution claim to answer such questions - it's not what evolution is about.

 

[LateApex]

Nor does evolution claim to answer such questions - it's not what evolution is about.

Yes.

Thank you.

I know what evolution is...

 

[This_person]

Science questions itself, and its axioms. Science is an evolving system. Science is not static or dogmatic.

Just don't put yourself in denial and ignore good science because your beliefs disagree with the facts.

Scientists ignore facts all the time because they disagree with their beliefs, though. The example I gave of Einstein and the Big Bang is just one huge example - Albert wouldn't accept the evidence in front of him, even when it was demonstrated, because it conflicted with his belief in a constant universe. So, he attacked the scientists that came up with the thought because he couldn't refute their data.

Science is no more trustworthy a religion than any other. It just has arrogant claims to make it seem different.

 

[This_person]

I don't have as much of a problem with faith since humans drafted everything regarding the topic. ... I have by beefs with religion since it is such a powerful thing, it is quite susceptible to manipulation by crooked people for their own gain. I am all for believing whatever one likes, but it seems that a sense of individuality is necessary to help prevent jerks from hijacking the whole thing.

I couldn't agree with this more! Everyone has the right to believe what they like, and must individually decide.

Religion is not the only thing susceptible to manipulation, though. Science is equally open. Take the Gore "global warming" fiasco, for example.

 

[This_person]

True, but I'm objecting to the fact that religions make those claims in the first place, and then threaten eternal suffering for people who question those claims. The claim goes against the principle of intellectual freedom.

The religious claims have no bearing on how people act who don't believe in them. Just like the "threatening" of eternal suffering - religious people don't threaten non-believers with it, we don't have the power nor authority to make it happen. We think the non-believers choose the eternal suffering. If the non-believer is actually a non-believer, there's no threat, because they don't believe the consequence is from a valid source. Nobody loses.

A possibility doesn't have automatic credibility simply by being a possibility. Only the probable ones deserve serious consideration, and that probability rests on evidence.

And, until then, it's just another thought. Like all theories of how life began.

Those other levels inherently conflict with the historical accuracy level, because the other levels involve metaphorical or allegorical meanings. One can either focus on whether a story is accurate or inaccurate, or one can find a metaphorical meaning. This happens all the time with urban legends - when the stories are passed along, inconvenient details get left out because they don't conform to the storyteller's metaphorical agenda.

That is the exactly the problem with creationism. It starts with an agenda, which is blaming humanity for the existence of all suffering, and then structures its story about the creation of life and humanity to support that agenda.

You make the assumption that creationism has a human agenda. That's an unprovable assumption, and clouds your perception.

 

[LateApex]

The religious claims have no bearing on how people act who don't believe in them. Just like the "threatening" of eternal suffering - religious people don't threaten non-believers with it, we don't have the power nor authority to make it happen. We think the non-believers choose the eternal suffering. If the non-believer is actually a non-believer, there's no threat, because they don't believe the consequence is from a valid source. Nobody loses.And, until then, it's just another thought. Like all theories of how life began.You make the assumption that creationism has a human agenda. That's an unprovable assumption, and clouds your perception.

Hmm...

Not quite sure about that.

You always here religious groups claiming that the non-believers are going to burn in hell for their sins.

 

[Tonio]

The religious claims have no bearing on how people act who don't believe in them. Just like the "threatening" of eternal suffering - religious people don't threaten non-believers with it, we don't have the power nor authority to make it happen. We think the non-believers choose the eternal suffering. If the non-believer is actually a non-believer, there's no threat, because they don't believe the consequence is from a valid source. Nobody loses.

It's an indirect threat for a couple of reasons. First, since there's no evidence for the claims, it's reasonable to suspect that the claims originated with the religious people themselves and not from their alleged gods, which brings up the question of their motives. Second, the claim implies that it's acceptable to intentionally inflict eternal suffering. That argument may have some interior logic if the suffering was targeted at serial killers, who themselves brought suffering to others. But the eternal suffering is targeted at people for having the "wrong" beliefs. Morally, that's no different from deeming it acceptable for secular totalitarian governments to inflict torture on people who speak out against the governments.

I should emphasize that a huge percentage of my arguments here would apply to secular ideologies that make claims of exclusive truth, ideologies that are hostile to scientific inquiry and intellectual freedom. The key difference is that those ideologies don't claim that their truths come from transcendental sources that cannot be challenged.

And, until then, it's just another thought. Like all theories of how life began.

There are many such scientific theories, and they are more than just thoughts because they begin with accumulated data and current scientific knowledge. Evidence for any or all of them comes from laboratory experiments.

You make the assumption that creationism has a human agenda. That's an unprovable assumption, and clouds your perception.

Creationism's human agenda is staggeringly obvious from the works of "creation scientists" like Duane Gish and from the exhibits at the Creation Museum.

 

[wxtornado]

But the eternal suffering is targeted at people for having the "wrong" beliefs. Morally, that's no different from deeming it acceptable for secular totalitarian governments to inflict torture on people who speak out against the governments.

There's also the problem of the aborigine in New Guinea born in the year 256 CE whose never heard of Jesus.

 

[This_person]

Hmm...

Not quite sure about that.

You always here religious groups claiming that the non-believers are going to burn in hell for their sins.

It's the belief of most religions that non-believers will not be given the rewards of the belief. The point is that the religious people are not threatening the non-religious, we're explaining our religion. If someone doesn't believe in the religious views, than they should have no fear of the consequences - because they'd be no more real than the religion.

 

[LateApex]

It's the belief of most religions that non-believers will not be given the rewards of the belief. The point is that the religious people are not threatening the non-religious, we're explaining our religion. If someone doesn't believe in the religious views, than they should have no fear of the consequences - because they'd be no more real than the religion.

Unbelievers are condemned to hell because of unbelief. How much they sin will determine how much they suffer in hell. (Not that anyone there will enjoy it). Jesus said that there are different degrees of punishment & reward in the Gospels

...

 

[This_person]

It's an indirect threat for a couple of reasons. First, since there's no evidence for the claims, it's reasonable to suspect that the claims originated with the religious people themselves and not from their alleged gods, which brings up the question of their motives. Second, the claim implies that it's acceptable to intentionally inflict eternal suffering. That argument may have some interior logic if the suffering was targeted at serial killers, who themselves brought suffering to others. But the eternal suffering is targeted at people for having the "wrong" beliefs. Morally, that's no different from deeming it acceptable for secular totalitarian governments to inflict torture on people who speak out against the governments.

The difference, and the reason it's not an implied "threat", is who is inflicting the suffering. When man is inflicting it upon man for thoughts and ideas, that's not the same as the belief that someone who chooses to not follow God's laws will be punished by God. I don't feel it's a threat to say "this is what I think, this is the source of my information, and this is what the source says the consequences and rewards are."

I should emphasize that a huge percentage of my arguments here would apply to secular ideologies that make claims of exclusive truth, ideologies that are hostile to scientific inquiry and intellectual freedom. The key difference is that those ideologies don't claim that their truths come from transcendental sources that cannot be challenged.

No, their truths come from human sources that cannot be challenged, or one risks human consequences (job loss, censure, academic/social isolation, etc.) One risks the consequences from the source.

Creationism's human agenda is staggeringly obvious from the works of "creation scientists" like Duane Gish and from the exhibits at the Creation Museum.

We're mixing thoughts, here. When I speak of creationism's agenda (or lack thereof), I speak of Moses, not Duane Gish. I speak of the source of the information, not how it can be (mis)used.