How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Let everyone believe   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Let everyone believe

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


0 posted 03-05-2009 03:52 PM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosopy

Quote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Living entities metabolize, grow, die, reproduce, respond, move, have complex organized functional
structures, heritable variability, and have lineages which can evolve over generational time, producing
new and emergent functional structures that provide increased adaptive fitness in changing environments.
Reproduction involves not only the replication of the nucleic acids that carry the genetic information but
the epigenetic building of the organism through a sequence of developmental steps. Such reproduction
through development occurs within a larger life-cycle of the organism, which includes its senescence and
death.

With the understanding of the structure of DNA focus shifted to the abiotic routes to nucleic acids, which
could serve then serve as templates for their own replication. Although Dawkins assumed a nucleic acid,
formed by chance, would be the start of life since it would “self replicate” (Dawkins 1976), many
approaches to getting to nucleic acids involve a role of minerals to help form scaffolds that serve as sorts
of ordering templates and even as catalysts for nucleic acid formation (Cairns-Smith 1982; see summary
in Lahav 1999). The discovery that RNA is capable of some catalytic activity has led to the postulate of
not only a nucleic acids first but more generally of an ‘RNA world’ (Gilbert 1986). Variants of this
approach represent the dominant mode of thinking about the early phases of the emergence of life
(Maynard Smith and Szathmary 1995). Given that some type of metabolism would be needed to sustain
RNA replication, a number of approaches blend replication-first with metabolism-first (Dyson 1982,
1999; de Duve 1995; Eigen 1992).
________________________________________________________
An alternative view, congenial to a thermodynamic and systems approach to the emergence of life, takes
the above move a step further and emphasizes the need the presence of the main factors that distinguish
cells from non-cells: metabolism via autocatalytic cycles of catalytic polymers, replication, and a physical
enclosure within a chemical barrier like that provided by the cell membrane. This might be termed a
proto-cell-first approach (Morowitz 1992; Weber 1998; Williams & Frausto da Silva 2002, 2003).
Chemical constraints and the self-organizing tendencies of complex chemical systems in such a view
would have been critical in determining the properties of the first living beings. (Kauffman 1993, 1995,
2000; Williams & Frausto da Silva 1999, 2002, 2003; Weber 2007). With the emergence of the first
entities that could be termed living would come the emergence of biological selection or natural selection
in which contingency plays a much greater part.


Copyright © 2008 by
Bruce Weber
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life/


What this article is explaining suggests that early theories first put forth in the 1920s "(Woodger 1929; Haldane
1929, 1931; Hogben 1930)." was based on the second law of thermodynamics "(1943 Erwin Schrödinger)"
and "influenced J. D. Bernal in his 1947 lectures on the physical basis of life"

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


This theory has since been discarded with the emergence of DNA and RNA understanding and the
current studies on the origins of life are now based on other theories such as "replication-first" ,
"metabolism-first" and  the "proto-cell-first approach".

Eric - there is a big difference between what you choose to believe and what is a proven or
unproven fact. I suggest it is best to base one's beliefs on faith and not scientific theory.

Turtle


[Edit - just shortened the long separators that would create horizontal scrolling for people with lower resolution screens. - Ron ]

[This message has been edited by turtle (03-06-2009 12:01 AM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


1 posted 03-05-2009 10:49 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I suggest it is best to base one's beliefs on faith and not scientific theory.

There's a difference?

Turtle, would you mind terribly giving this thread a more meaningful title, please? One that doesn't presuppose everyone knows the history of the prior conversations? One maybe that invites other members of the community to participate, too?

turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


2 posted 03-05-2009 11:59 PM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle

Sorry Ron,

I really don't want to debate someone's faith with them. I'm not anti-God and have my own beliefs. I'm just trying to get this discussion out of open.

Turtle

[This message has been edited by turtle (03-06-2009 12:00 AM).]

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


3 posted 03-06-2009 04:16 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:


     I suggest it is best to base one's beliefs on faith and not scientific theory.





     To base one's beliefs on Scientific Theory is to base one's beliefs on faith.  While the nature of the Theology may be different in some ways, in the end one comes to a point where it is necessary to make a leap of faith and to say in each case, this is the case that I think most likely.

     My thinking is, however, that the similarities are more profound than the differences, and account for the animosity so often seen sadly played out between the two positions.  Both religious positions compete for converts.  They compete for the same niche in the same biome.
turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


4 posted 03-06-2009 01:55 PM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle

Quote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To base one's beliefs on Scientific Theory is to base one's beliefs on faith. While the nature of the Theology may be different in some ways, in the end one comes to a point where it is necessary to make a leap of faith and to say in each case, this is the case that I think most likely.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Bob,

I'm a little surprised at this coming from you Bob. I'm really a live and let live kinda guy. I think everyone has a right to believe what they want to believe. For me personally, on more than one occasion fate has taken my life and turned it in a direction I had never considered or was even aware existed. I have experienced what could be considered miracles and seen things that could only be considered supernatural. For me to deny the existence of something beyond human understanding would be a lie. This has nothing to do with Theology, science, or anything else. It is just my personal experience.

Science and theology are not the same thing. Science is a study and consensus that presupposes nothing and is based on physical evidence. Theology is a philosophy that presupposes the existence of a higher being and is not based on physical evidence. You suggest that one must choose between the two. I do not agree. I think it is possible even proper to believe in and except both. This stance that the religious right takes on evolution (for example) is in error and misguided. In my mind evolution is undeniable. Does that deny the existence of God? Not at all. I'm sure many will disagree and quote scripture to prove me wrong, but they do not consider what would be the alternative to evolution.

What about Genesis Chapter 1. Did not God command all creatures to be fruitful and multiply? To multiply is simply procreate, but "be fruitful" means to evolve and fill every niche to the best of their ability. Consider: No matter who or what created man a child is the combination of the seeds of both a man and a woman. The consequence of this IS evolution. What would they have God do, make us all a bunch of identically cloned 5-foot 3-ince Eunuchs?

Why is the Christian right so concerned with this at all? Isn't the Old Testament only needed to establish that the God of David is the one Christ represents? If they believe Christ died for them and represents them in heaven then it should not matter HOW life began. Their concern is Christ and the New Testament, they are forgiven regardless of previous beliefs.

To me evolution is a beautiful thing and is a tiny glimpse into just one aspect of  how the hand of God works its magic. Science has given us a gift of understanding of God that here-to-fore has not been appreciated. To me, evolution is indisputable and part of God's plan. Physical evidence has supported it for the past 150 years and the addition DNA evidence makes it irrefutable.

I think the curret beliefs of the Christian right are only destined to go the way of those that claimed the world is flat and witches float.

[This message has been edited by turtle (03-06-2009 04:47 PM).]

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


5 posted 03-06-2009 04:13 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I happen to believe that the theologies are compatible as well.  I happen to think that evolution is real as brick.  I simply happen to think that science is also a matter of belief and faith, though the faith involved is in evidence.  
turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


6 posted 03-06-2009 04:52 PM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle

Or perhaps the faith not involved?

For me it all boils down to tolerence. I feel that everyone has the right to believe as they choose......
And that includes you  

  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


7 posted 03-06-2009 08:41 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Science is a study and consensus that presupposes nothing and is based on physical evidence.

Science (and its big brother, Math) presupposes a LOT.

Indeed, without axioms and postulates, no formal system could ever be forged. Some presuppositions, like Euclid's for example, are written down and occasionally challenged. Others are much more insidious. There is no proof, for instance, that cause necessarily precedes effect, yet that is something I suspect you, and certainly all of science, takes on faith.
turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


8 posted 03-07-2009 04:17 AM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle

Hi Ron,

Quote
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Indeed, without axioms and postulates, no formal system could ever be forged. Some presuppositions, like Euclid's for example, are written down and occasionally challenged. Others are much more insidious. There is no proof, for instance, that cause necessarily precedes effect, yet that is something I suspect you, and certainly all of science, takes on faith.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes I guess I am drawing a conclusion without clarifying my thinking.

"Theory" presupposes or suggests a possible idea, but that "idea" is not excepted as fact by science. It is examined using physical evidence and logical consideration. Theology is a philosophy based on belief and is not deducible as fact though logical examination and physical evidence. Are axioms used in science and math to examine a theory's validity? Certainly.

Lets look at "cause and effect". The second law of thermodynamics suggests that "work" requires energy. Newton's theory suggests that every action requires an equal and opposite reaction. Darwin's theory suggests stress causes change.

Can I state as fact,  cause = effect? I don't think so, it only suggests that, given physical evidence and consensus of opinion, there is a likleyhood that cause and effect may be related.
turtle    
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


9 posted 03-07-2009 07:47 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

I believe there are flaws to all.

Except this morning's sunrise was especially perfect in my eyes.

be it science or God's way of saying "Good morning," it was well appreciated.
turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


10 posted 03-07-2009 10:44 PM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle

Hi rwood,

Yes, that is the poet's perspective and I agree whole heartedly.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


11 posted 03-09-2009 06:18 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Turtle:
quote:
To me, evolution is indisputable and part of God's plan. Physical evidence has supported it for the past 150 years and the addition DNA evidence makes it irrefutable.


As a believer in God, I still reject Evolution more on lack of evidence, than upon Theological incompatibility.  God could have done it that way.  And Evolution as fact certainly wouldn't do away with the necessity of God.  The atheism (or naturalism if you prefer) that was initially piggybacked as a corollary, has been amply shown to be fallacious.  I still think TCA is a myth.

There is a growing body of scientists (not only religious ones either) who, since the world micro-biology has opened up to our gaze, have begun to doubt that "natural selection" explains the complexities we see.  Of course none of them deny Evolution per se, but doubt the supposed extent of its action ... hence the reasonable inferences of "micro-evolution" in contrast to the far-fetched extrapolations of "macro-evolution".  

What is the "irrefutable" evidence from genetics that you speak of?


Stephen  
turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


12 posted 03-09-2009 08:01 PM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle

Hi stephen,

Quote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The atheism (or naturalism if you prefer) that was initially piggybacked as a corollary, has been amply shown to be fallacious
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a bold statement.  I am not advocating that anyone give up their faith. I think that faith is a good thing, or can be a good thing. You are a person of strong faith and I respect and appreciate that. I am afraid though, that you are misinformed. Any science journals I've read state just the opposite of what you contend here. Furthermore, in my understanding it is Religion that is trying to attack evolution. The scientists could care less, they are merely investigators that follow where the evidence leads.

Quote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The current explanation of evolution, the Modern Synthesis, rests much more on the 150 years of work done since Darwin by hundreds of thousands of people pursuing thousands of lines of research in a dozen different fields. Selectively quoting that humble man won’t make evolution go away.
Science can not prove the supernatural, because the supernatural can not be counted on to show up for every experiment. If you could force God to show up and perform on command, you’d be controlling him. Since you can’t, you can’t include him in a scientific experiment. Science neither proves nor disproves religion. But a scientific mind is more likely to notice the lack of current evidence for God. Most scientists care no more for disproving God than they do for disproving Santa Claus: it’s not their department and they have other things to do.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://sciencenotes.wordpress.com/2008/04/26/evolution-vs-intelligent-design-in-expel   led/


Are you aware of the Federal courts findings in the case of  Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District


PBS had a really interesting special about this trial that proves inteligent design is Creationism and not a science at all.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html


Also in  the article I quoted in my original post it states Reproduction involves not only the replication of the nucleic acids that carry the genetic information but the epigenetic building of the organism through a sequence of developmental steps.

This is the current model used to investigate evolution, not the one that is argued against in Creationism's book on inteligent design. This earlier model (Based on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics) was deemed to be unprovable due to the fact that the chemical make-up of the earths atmosphere at the time of life's apperance can not be replicated.

Quote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is the "irrefutable" evidence from genetics that you speak of?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hmmm,,Well, perhaps it's the fact that similarities between the genes that code proteins are present in all life. The DNA of a banana is 30% similar to human DNA. The DNA of a fruit fly is 50% similar to humans. The DNA of a dog is 75% similar to humans. The DNA of a chimpanzee is 98% similar to humans. I don't think that  it would take a leap of faith for us to see the corollation. The corollation simply stands on its own.

If you are truly interested in how the geneome project makes Darwin's theory irrefutable read this:

"Functional and Comparative Genomics Fact Sheet"

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/compgen.shtml


  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


13 posted 03-11-2009 01:23 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Turtle,

thanks for the reply.

quote:
Any science journals I've read state just the opposite of what you contend here.


Yes, scientists do often assume Macro-Evolution is true.  But when it comes to describing how complex systems have turned into other complex systems over time, there is virtually nil in the peer-reviewed-journals.  The only things I've read are highly creative accounts of how it may have happened, with no evidence that it even could have happened that way.  

The fact that species have small-scale changes over time, is irrefuted by all sides of the debate.  We know that mutation/natural selection gives rise to biological change.  The exrapolation that it explains ALL biological diversity is a huge leap beyond what the actual data shows.

quote:
The current explanation of evolution, the Modern Synthesis, rests much more on the 150 years of work done since Darwin by hundreds of thousands of people pursuing thousands of lines of research in a dozen different fields. Selectively quoting that humble man won’t make evolution go away.
Science can not prove the supernatural, because the supernatural can not be counted on to show up for every experiment.


Yes, but that "150 years" has not produced anything compelling beyond the fact that Darwin's mechanism works in small degrees.  A belief in Evolution as the explanation of all bio-diversity, like God, cannot proven since there is no way (or time scale) in which to test it.  The fossil record is simply baffling to the Overall Theory, and has only amused us with new phrases like "punctuated equilibrium" which are thoroughly descriptive rather than explanatory.

As far as I can understand, ID is not trying to directly "prove the supernatural", but to suggest that crediting larger intelligence to the systems we see, is an inference to the best explanation.  If those kinds of larger inferences make you uncomfortable, just remember that's exactly what we have with Neo-Darwinism.  Given that the latter attributes the whole thing to random process, while the former may involve intelligent powers, the former is the stronger of the two.

quote:
Are you aware of the Federal courts findings in the case of  Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District


Yes I am.  This does little, as far as our discussion goes ... other than reiterating the fact that it is a very politicized controversy.  Would you concede my point if the court had ruled differently?  And remember that Neo-Darwinism is the grand orthodoxy right now.  Change comes slow and hard, as the underfunded heretics attempt to challenge the giant.  


quote:
PBS had a really interesting special about this trial that proves inteligent design is Creationism and not a science at all.


I beg your pardon, but the trial proves no such thing.  And PBS siding with scientific orthodoxy, and not with a group who have been slurred as 'creationists in disguise'?  Imagine that.  Remember PBS gave Carl Sagan his thoroughly anti-theistic and naturalistic "Cosmos"  

Though, I will still be interested to watch the documentary.

quote:
Also in the article I quoted in my original post it states Reproduction involves not only the replication of the nucleic acids that carry the genetic information but the epigenetic building of the organism through a sequence of developmental steps.

This is the current model used to investigate evolution, not the one that is argued against in Creationism's book on inteligent design. This earlier model (Based on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics) was deemed to be unprovable due to the fact that the chemical make-up of the earths atmosphere at the time of life's apperance can not be replicated.


The current model of Evolution is Darwin's, which involves a mechanism that works only after replicating life begins.  

You are speaking not of Evolution per se, but of abiogenesis, which is in a sort of pre-science speculative stage (as far removed from bona-fide science as the Pre-Soctratic philosophers were from the Age of Science).  Nothing wrong with that, as long as its admitted up front.  The article you quoted is mulling the idea that minerals and crystals somehow served as a copying surrogate replicator for organisms (presumably so that Darwin's mechanism might still be able to hobble along without a reproductive system).  This falls in the same category as conjuring an infinite number of Universes (outside of known space-time) to explain the fine-tuning of our own.  It makes great stuff for Discover magazine and science fiction readers, but it isn't really what I call science.  But then again, the article you quoted was from an Encyclopedia of philosophy, which is more fitting I suppose.

quote:
Hmmm,,Well, perhaps it's the fact that similarities between the genes that code proteins are present in all life. The DNA of a banana is 30% similar to human DNA. The DNA of a fruit fly is 50% similar to humans. The DNA of a dog is 75% similar to humans. The DNA of a chimpanzee is 98% similar to humans. I don't think that  it would take a leap of faith for us to see the corollation. The corollation simply stands on its own.


It's not unreasonable.  But that doesn't make it scientifically irrefutable.  It is the same problem with the use of "homology".  It can be explained in terms of origins, or in terms of design.  Similarities in Picasso's works do not imply that one painting gradually became another.  When many examples of homology were shown to be genetically diverse, the strength of the argument waned.  Genetic observation, for that same reason, should not be triumphalistic.  


I will read the articles.


Stephen
turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


14 posted 03-11-2009 02:44 PM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle

Quote:
Yes, but that "150 years" has not produced anything compelling beyond the fact that Darwin's mechanism works in small degrees. A belief in Evolution as the explanation of all bio-diversity, like God, cannot proven since there is no way (or time scale) in which to test it. The fossil record is simply baffling to the Overall Theory, and has only amused us with new phrases like "punctuated equilibrium" which are thoroughly descriptive rather than explanatory.

This is strange? Where do you get your facts? Wesley Elsberry says The scientific literature on evolutionary biology is copious.. Also, in that 150 years of investigation, all evidence found has supported evolution and Darwin's theory, but no evidence has ever been found to support ID, to my knowledge.

Quote:
Yes I am. This does little, as far as our discussion goes ... other than reiterating the fact that it is a very politicized controversy. Would you concede my point if the court had ruled differently? And remember that Neo-Darwinism is the grand orthodoxy right now. Change comes slow and hard, as the underfunded heretics attempt to challenge the giant.

No. I cannot concede to "ifs" and "maybes" when the facts are staring me in the face.


Quote:
I beg your pardon, but the trial proves no such thing. And PBS siding with scientific orthodoxy, and not with a group who have been slurred as 'creationists in disguise'? Imagine that

Oh Stephen. I respect your faith, but this statement is complete fabrication. Since when is taking a bunch of fanatics to court for trying to force their dogma on children by presenting creationism as scientific fact, a slur? You fail to recognize who won the case.

Quote:
You are speaking not of Evolution per se, but of abiogenesis, which is in a sort of pre-science speculative stage (as far removed from bona-fide science as the Pre-Soctratic philosophers were from the Age of Science).

Heh. All scientific study is based on the testing of a proposed model (Theory) That's why it's called science.

Quote:
It's not unreasonable. But that doesn't make it scientifically irrefutable...... Similarities in Picasso's works do not imply that one painting gradually became another.

Well now, I suppose if you could breed Picasso's paintings we might see a progressive change.
....Is there even a point here?

Quote:
As far as I can understand, ID is not trying to directly "prove the supernatural", but to suggest that crediting larger intelligence to the systems we see, is an inference to the best explanation. If those kinds of larger inferences make you uncomfortable, just remember that's exactly what we have with Neo-Darwinism. Given that the latter attributes the whole thing to random process, while the former may involve intelligent powers, the former is the stronger of the two.

We are both getting into protracted theories and complicated argument here. Lets look at this simply. ID purposes that each species has it's own tree of life. Bananas have their tree. Fruit flies have their tree Dogs have their tree. Chimpanzees have their tree. Huimans have their tree. This is all very convenient and it suggest that humans are separate from other life forms. Darwin's theory suggests that there is one tree of life and all species are a branch off that tree. ie.:

Intelligent design:

Banana   Fruit-fly   dog   chimpanzee   human
  /            /             /              /           /    

Evolution:

Banana   fruit-fly   dog   chimpanzee   human
__/_____/______/______/_________/

ID might have been a plausible argument prior to our understanding of DNA, but if ID were true then the DNA of each species would not be related to the others. Today's understanding of DNA says that all living things are related. So DNA evidence not only supports evolution, it disproves Intelligent Design. It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the correlation with one's own eyes. A chimpanzee LOOKS more like a human than a dog. A dog LOOKS more human than a fruit-fly. A fruit-fly LOOKS more human than a banana. and the DNA evidence says our eyes are seeing what DNA explains.

Stephen, I honestly admire your faith, but your faith is based on the Bible. Is it the Bible that suggests this theory of Intelligent Design? The Bible says:

Quote:
The book of Genesis tells us that God created man in His own image, forming man from the dust of the earth and breathing into his nostrils the breath of life (Genesis 1:26-27; 2:7).

This is not Intelligent Design. The Bible doesn't say that God created a species that evolved into man, as ID suggests. It says God created man as a whole and complete being. This entire argument of ID is a mere fabrication created to counter the theory of evolution.

I highly recommend that those of faith abandon this fabrication that is counter to both the Bible AND science. There is no need for this, it is your faith that matters not how we got here.

turtle
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


15 posted 03-11-2009 05:09 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Turtle:
quote:
I didn't say that nothing in the literature supports Darwin's mechanism for biological change.  I said that nothing in the literature supports Darwin's assertion that the mechanism is responsible for all bio-diversity we see.  I'd be happy to discuss / consider any data you might directly quote,, attempting to put it in your own words and commentary, rather than links only.

[quote]Me:  Would you concede my point if the court had ruled differently? ...

Turtle:  No. I cannot concede to "ifs" and "maybes" when the facts are staring me in the face.


I'm glad you said "no", because this illustrates my point that the winning (or losing) of a legal trial does not in and of itself have bearing on the issue.  The whole issue is highly politicized, and from my perspective, a system which is built on a kind of 'orthodoxy' is bound to resist.

About those facts that stare you in the face ... How about us hearing one or two.

quote:
Oh Stephen. I respect your faith, but this statement is complete fabrication. Since when is taking a bunch of fanatics to court for trying to force their dogma on children by presenting creationism as scientific fact, a slur? You fail to recognize who won the case.


This statement is so loaded with prejudice that I hardly need to say anything.

To say that ID is composed of religious fanatics is a fabrication.  Several of them are agnostic.  Others hold religions which do not oppose evolution as dogma (such as Michael Behe), and therefore their criticisms of Darwinism reasonably would have to be based on something else.

quote:
Heh. All scientific study is based on the testing of a proposed model (Theory) That's why it's called science.


Okay, then tell me in detail how far we've come on the "testing" of abiogenesis.


quote:
Me:  It's not unreasonable. But that doesn't make it scientifically irrefutable...... Similarities in Picasso's works do not imply that one painting gradually became another.

Turtle:  Well now, I suppose if you could breed Picasso's paintings we might see a progressive change.
....Is there even a point here?


Analogies, by nature, are always limited.  But yes there is a point; namely that direct organic connection is not a corollary of similarities in form.  If Evolutionists can cite the evolution of automobiles, and computer generated "evolution", and fail to see the implications of intelligent design in their analogies ... I suppose I get to use Picasso.        

quote:
ID purposes that each species has it's own tree of life.


Not necessarily.  Different ID thinkers have differed here.  The ID claim, as far as I understand, is much more basic ... claiming that rather than attributing all bio-diversity to random-mutation/natural-selection, it should be admitted that there is no evidence of complex biological systems having been formed incrementally step by step.  Michael Behe is one ID'er, who entertains the thought that a common ancestor might actually be plausible, but still insists that complex biological systems didn't just randomly form mutation by mutation.  To believe so may have scientific implications, but it is more philosophy than science.

quote:
Darwin's theory suggests that there is one tree of life and all species are a branch off that tree.


Which has been anything but problem free.  The fossil record is atrocious at demonstrating this.  What do you make of the Cambrian Exposion, as it relates to Darwin?  

quote:
ID might have been a plausible argument prior to our understanding of DNA


ID is even more plausible since our understanding of DNA, since we now know that virtually all repeatable mutations result in what is detrimental to survival.  Fruit flies with too many wings die, they don't fly better.  What has not been proven, not even an inkling, is that the wings that are there came about through mutation.

quote:
if ID were true then the DNA of each species would not be related to the others.


Similar to the homology argument, you are assuming that an Intelligent designer hasn't used the same "building blocks" in his design.  That doesn't mean that we should extrapolate that a seeing eye had to incrementally develop from a light sensitive spot.  One may believe so, of course.  But it is so far in the realm of conjecture, that to call it "fact", when scientists can't even begin to explain the process in any testable form ... is more than presumptive.  

quote:
if ID were true then the DNA of each species would not be related to the others. Today's understanding of DNA says that all living things are related.


ID says that all living things are related.

quote:
It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the correlation with one's own eyes. A chimpanzee LOOKS more like a human than a dog. A dog LOOKS more human than a fruit-fly. A fruit-fly LOOKS more human than a banana. and the DNA evidence says our eyes are seeing what DNA explains.



Are you allowed that "common sense" kind of intuition, as a basis for a system which tends to disallow the same for other views?  Remember that Richard Dawkins wrote in The Blind Watchmaker, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

I would say, with Dawkins, that appearances favor Intelligent Design more than Common Descent.

quote:
Stephen, I honestly admire your faith ...


And I honestly admire yours.  

quote:
The Bible doesn't say that God created a species that evolved into man, as ID suggests. It says God created man as a whole and complete being. This entire argument of ID is a mere fabrication created to counter the theory of evolution.

I highly recommend that those of faith abandon this fabrication that is counter to both the Bible AND science. There is no need for this, it is your faith that matters not how we got here.


Now this is the most amazing argument as of yet.  You're asking me to accept that ID is incompatible with the Christian Faith as rooted in the Bible (which I disagree with emphatically), by taking a strict literalist interpretation of Genesis, and in the same breath espousing a theory which would be utterly at odds with such a literalist interpretation.  You urge me to reject a theory which you think is at odds with science and the Bible ... and then strangely ask me to embrace both, though you've already made it clear that you think both can't be true.

First of all, ID does not suggest that humankind developed from another species... though a person who believes in ID may believe that.  As I said before its central claims are much more basic than that ... being more critical of species-to-species evolution based upon lack of evidence to support it.  So in that sense, it is quite compatible with the Bible's view of Special Creation.


I think you also make Genesis more rigid than it has to be.  For example, though some espouse an Earth just a few thousand years old, the text tells us that God didn't create the "sun moon and stars" until the 4th day ... giving us a clue that perhaps the "days" need not be literal 24-hour days, but a simple literary device by which historical creation is described.  This has been noted by several Church Fathers, such as Origen and Augustine, and other post-Reformation Theologians.  I mention this to suggest that the Bible may be more accomodating of sciecne (that happens to be accurate) than you might suspect.

Still, If I believed your ultra-literal view of Genesis, ID would be much more compatible with it than Darwinian Evolution.  As it stands, I reject Darwinian Evolution for lack of scientific evidence ... but I think if you're going to believe in Evolution, its still your best bet to think that Genesis may accomodate it, and to concede with G.K. Chesterton when he said that a slow miracle would still be a miracle.    


Stephen
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


16 posted 03-11-2009 06:54 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


The ID movement is just backdoor creationism.

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

Phillip E. Johnson - Founder of ID and chief architect of the Wedge strategy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

.
turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


17 posted 03-11-2009 08:45 PM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle

Hi Stephen,

Quote:
About those facts that stare you in the face ... How about us hearing one or two.

Certainly, and I am not just talking about the decision in the trial, but the facts presented during and after the trial. Errors were found in the editors original transcripts  that showed  where excerpts from an original work on Creationism had been copy/pasted over to hide discrepancies in the book on Intelligent Design, because it would have shown a link between Creationism and ID. This info is in the PBS link I provided you. Grinch has pointed out another, so that makes two.

Hi Grinch      
Of course I agree, And the  Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, provides even further evidence.

Quote: (My self)
"I highly recommend that those of faith abandon this fabrication that is counter to both the Bible AND science. There is no need for this, it is your faith that matters not how we got here."

Quote: (Stephen)
but I think if you're going to believe in Evolution, its still your best bet to think that Genesis may accomodate it, and to concede with G.K. Chesterton when he said that a slow miracle would still be a miracle.

Cool! Yes in a way, I do agree. If you take what is said in Genesis metaphorically; how true it could be. If God took dust (Mankind) and breathed life (Faith) into it, then perhaps what the Bible is saying is that "faith" is what guides and influences humanity. This perspective requires neither Evolution, or Intelligent Design to be valid.

turtle      


[This message has been edited by turtle (03-12-2009 02:23 AM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


18 posted 03-11-2009 09:23 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I fail to see how Genesis accomodates the evolution.  Adam is said to be made from dust, and Eve to be made from Adam's rib.  Where do our animal ancestors fit into that?  
turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


19 posted 03-11-2009 09:30 PM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle

Hi Essy,

Yeah, that is kinda weird, but it doesn't say it the Bible that God created "animals" from dust and "breathed life" into them does it? It only says "Be fruitful and multiply". I wonder why that is........

Oh, and I'm not saying evolution or Intelligent Design plays any part in the metaphorical meaning of Genesis. I couldn't know that anyway.

turtle
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


20 posted 03-11-2009 10:29 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Turtle

Both man and beast are called the same in the bible: nephesh chayah (living soul).  

Man's creation is a little more specified, but there isn't anything to suggest that the creation of animals lacked the same kind of creation in order to be living souls.  In order for them to be living souls they would need life breathed into them as well.

turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


21 posted 03-11-2009 11:28 PM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle

Yep! You're right essy,

In early Genesis Chapter 1, God created everything in Seven Days......(However you want to interpret that)and God told each living thing he created to be fruitful and multiply, including man and woman.

There is believed to be a discrepancy though, further on in Genesis. God again creates man and, from his rib, woman. This doesn't make sense, unless this second creation is not another physical creation, but a metaphorical one. Perhaps our alikeness with all creatures is nothing more than a simple mechanism, and the second telling in Genesis is a metaphor for God giving mankind his faith that sets man apart from the animals.

Our difference from the animals may not be physical but intellectual, or metaphysical. Perhaps that "life" God breathed into man is our hope and faith and that is what sets us apart.

I don't know...It's just something I ponder at, and is probably based more on gut instinct than anything.

But there! Crazy as it may seem THIS is what I think.

As far as what God is though. I'm an Agnostic and I don't think it's possible to know who or what God is.

turtle      

[This message has been edited by turtle (03-12-2009 01:01 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


22 posted 03-12-2009 01:06 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch:
quote:
The ID movement is just backdoor creationism.

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."- P.E.J.


Is Phillip Johnson the sole spokesman for I.D.?  I would say that he went too far in what he said, though a more reasonable goal of I.D. might be to present the very real weaknesses of Neo-Darwinism, and of the presuppositions involved with methodological naturalism ... to suggest scientific theories in which God (as expressed quite seperately in Theology) would not be a priori opposed, ala Dawkins, Dennett, etc ...  In other words, so that school science class would not be a means to secularization.  

However, other ID'ers, like agnostics David Berlinski or William Dembski would not be so big on that goal.

Turtle:
quote:
Certainly, and I am not just talking about the decision in the trial, but the facts presented during and after the trial.


I was hoping you were going to talk about the "facts" of Neo-Darwinian Evolution.  I have little interest in the politicized trial, or alleged cover-ups on either side.  Falsified drawings of embryology have been in text-books supporting Macroevolution for years.  Piltdown Man was an outright hoax.  But I would never dream of suggesting that such poor examples disprove Evolution.

quote:
Cool! Yes in a way, I do agree. If you take what is said in Genesis metahorically; how true it could be. If God took dust (Mankind) and breathed life (Faith) into it, then perhaps what the Bible is saying is that "faith" is what guides and influences humanity.


I don't think the metaphor is endlessly bendable however ... whether you believe in Evolution as God's modus operandi or accept the critiques of ID about Darwin's idea, Genesis emphatically insists that creation is "intelligently Designed".

quote:
As far as what God is though. I'm an Agnostic and I don't think it's possible to know who or what God is.


If God exists (which as an agnostic, you concede he very well may), how do you know this is impossible?  Is your agnosticism itself a kind of absolute knowledge about the nature of God?  

Please excuse ... I always have to challenge hard agnosticism (no one can know), into the only two real options for that line of thought to rationally go, soft agnosticism (I don't know), or outright atheism (I know).


Essorant:
quote:
I fail to see how Genesis accomodates the evolution.  Adam is said to be made from dust, and Eve to be made from Adam's rib.  Where do our animal ancestors fit into that?


I guess it depends on whether you view the first few chapters of Genesis as strict historical narrative, or a literary framework to paint the basics of creation:  namely that God created the Universe, The Earth, Life on Earth, Humanity.  A unique aspect of the text is that is has to be revelatory, in that it describes something that happened when no human being was present ... giving us a clue that we are dealing with a unique kind of text.  

I am not suggesting that Genesis does in fact describe Evolution.  But I am suggesting that it may very well accomodate it, if we see it as the kind of Near-Eastern Literature that it is ... Theologically didactic rather than Western Scientific.  That's not to say that it doesn't speak of true history, but that it is far from standard historical narrative.


Stephen
    
turtle
Member
since 01-23-2009
Posts 491
Harbor


23 posted 03-12-2009 02:31 AM       View Profile for turtle   Email turtle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for turtle

heh,

I must be a middle if the road agnostic cause I know I don't know...

Why would I need to explain Neo-Darwinian Evolution when ID does such a good job of shooting itself in the foot. (chuckle)

  

But what is this you're saying to Essorant??? Are you now saying you support evolution?

Quote:
I am not suggesting that Genesis does in fact describe Evolution.  But I am suggesting that it may very well accomodate it
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


24 posted 03-12-2009 08:28 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I know several people who evolved from bananas...Toerag being one.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Let everyone believe   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors