Evolution

[killbot1000]

I have to think that deep concern for knowing the truth has the effect of alienation, not uniting people.

 

Ah yes, you are correct, but religion was never about truth, it was about faith, because when faith is the central motivator instead of truth, it can be right, even when its wrong, this hasn't alienated people, its brought people together. All I am saying is that our human software is outdated, and we need an update. Thats all. I am not trying to bash religion in any way except to say that its obsolete.

[Maxintosh]

the Bible is the equivalent of the Inquirer or Fox News!

Yeah, can you imagine living your whole life and making important decisions based on those things? That's why the bible does no good in modern times.

 

And the Aztecs are the moral high ground

What in you mind allows you to equate having skills in math - with morals?

[brainbone]

Evolutionary biology can't explain complexity, but chaos theory does. As far as I can tell the biologists haven't a clue.

 

What exactly are you saying here? Are you trying to plug chaos theory in for the random mutations required in evolutionary biology? Please expand on where you're trying to go with this.

 

Bringing me to my point: incompatibility of arguments.

 

On Evolution vs. God: Religion and evolution are not on the same playing field. You can't compare the two, you can't use arguments from one to "disprove" the other, and the nonsense coming from this thread is proof of just that.

 

Why? (warning: gross over simplifications ahead)

 

Religion/God is based on faith. God is an answer for the unknown, a friend/comfort for those that need such a thing, etc. (insert other "reasons to believe in God(s)" here) Anything is possible with God (anything that God says is possible anyway). You can't disprove "God". Trying to argue about a Gods existence is pointless. You either believe or you don't, or your don't care. A common mistake, however, is trying to apply ones belief in god to the validity of any particular science (see below).

 

Evolution is a science, not a faith. Everything is NOT possible in a science/theory. The science sets up rules, and any observation that breaks those rules disproves the science/theory, sending it back to the drawing board. There is no "faith" in evolution. Evolution CAN be disproved (for example, find a human skull in 30 million year old fossil records). Using a religion to disprove any science, including evolution, is just as pointless as trying to disprove that religion, when the noodly appendage of a religion's God(s) could have skewed the results of your attempts to disprove/prove anything.

 

So, back to evolution: Are there gaps in evolutionary science? Yes, but they are being filled in. Has anything been able to "disprove" evolutionary science so far? No. Is this because evolutionary biologists turn a blind eye to contrary evidence because they are blinded by "faith" in their science? No. Many actually work quite hard at trying to "disprove" their science -- it only helps to strengthen the understating of it.

 

"But how can evolution account for (insert complex organism here)": Try Google, or even better, your local library or natural history museum -- (just not your local church or religious text). Evolutionary biology has a long way to go, but if you're asking these questions, you'll be surprised by what's already known.

 

Am I insulting (insert religion here)? No. Simply pointing out that it has no place in the discussion of evolution, other than the fact that your religion may disagree with the findings of the science -- but that's nothing new for religions and science. Don't mix the two and you'll be just fine.

[QuietOC]

What exactly are you saying here? Are you trying to plug chaos theory in for the random mutations required in evolutionary biology? Please expand on where you're trying to go with this.

Again I'm rather biologically ignorant, so I can't really comment about it. I really don't see why I should care much about evolution or its particulars. It seems like a tautology to me. The only wierd thing is the "opposition" to evolution, but that seems to be all just ignorance too really.

 

Now chaos theory is even less theory than evolution. I am pointing to the fact that we have a good understanding of why the complex often arises from the simple (but non-linear)--just plain, fairly simple, deterministic math. There is no need to appeal to probabilities as the reality of anything, which is great. For some this may be more reason to deny their metaphysics--I hope so.

 

Of course chaos theory is even less understood than evolution and quantum physics. It is horrible to see what "philosophers" want to claim by it. My bigger concern is that a lot of scientists don't understand math very well. I personally want lay the blame on probablistic "math" for a lot that ails the softer sciences. Indeterminancy, irrationality, chance, probability, fate all belong to the same unreality club. Yes, many want them to exist. Yes, some can be useful tools, but we have no need for any of them to be real. Surprising marvels exists in the nature of reality, and one doesn't even need the filters of observation to find it. They exist right in precise abstractness of math itself. It often seems to me like western academics is cracking up. Okay, I guess that is just post-modernism.

 

Many actually work quite hard at trying to "disprove" their science -- it only helps to strengthen the understating of it.

To think, I just said something similar about my understanding of the Bible.

 

Epic of Gilgamesh

This has been on mental "To Read List" for awhile. Would you recommend it?

 

I am currently reading Biblical Text and Texture: A Literary Reading of Selected Texts by Michael Fishbane, which has finally pushed me out of my contemplation of the just the first three chapters of Genesis into the bigger narrative. So, far it has seemed helpful.

[brainbone]

To think, I just said something similar about my understanding of the Bible.

 

It's impossible to "disprove" God, or any religion. There is no reason to waste time on it. For example, let me know exactly what could be discovered, outside of common sense, that could disprove the existence of the Abrahamic God, fully convincing followers that their God does not exist.

 

A supernatural God is just that, outside of observable reality. If you can't observe it you can't disprove it, or prove it.

 

[Evolution] seems like a tautology to me.

 

Exactly how? Evolution sets up expectations. If you are able to find fossil records that break those expectation (the human skull in 30 million yr. old fossils is an overwhelmingly obvious example), then you can show something false in Evolution. So while evolution has held true with all input to date, there is the outside chance that a future discovery could blow the whole thing out of water (unlikely, but possible). This is not tautology, but good science.

 

You state that "evolutionary biology can't explain complexity", missing the point that this is exactly what evolutionary biology does. It explains this complexity in an extremely simple way: Natural selection.

 

Please expand on your misunderstanding of how natural selection accounts for complexity.

[QuietOC]

A supernatural God is just that, outside of observable reality. If you can't observe it you can't disprove it, or prove it.

How can I avoid observing God? I observe the abstractness, precision, and beauty of math in my mind. This is prior to any science of observation. Maybe beauty and good are mere speculation? 

[brainbone]

How can I avoid observing God? I observe the abstractness, precision, and beauty of math in my mind. This is prior to any science of observation. Maybe beauty and good are mere speculation?

 

But you're not observing "God", you're only observing what you perceive to be from god --- how can you prove to me that those perceptions were made from your god? You cannot show me any observation that will undoubtedly bring me to the conclusion that "this is God or is from God". There is no physical connection between god and your observations, only a metaphysical one that can not be measured in any way.

[QuietOC]

Natural selection.

Yes, natural selection is the tautology.

 

So, complexity is selected naturally?

 

We can mathematically model complexity causally arising out of deterministic simplicity. It doesn't require randomness. It doesn't require gradualism or uniformitarianism. It requires a few things which are all probably available biologically.

[QuietOC]

You're only observing what you perceive to be from god

Yes, exactly.

how can you prove to me that those perceptions were made from your god? You cannot show me any observation that will undoubtedly bring me to the conclusion that "this is God or is from God". There is no physical connection between god and your observations, only a metaphysical one that can not be measured in any way.

Sure, I think I (and the Bible) may even be using God much the same as Einstein. Even God cannot prove himself because the type of proof you ask for is irrational! You could get proving evidence of some lesser being, but not this one. Proof itself is his creation. If you make him irrational (as many religious people do) than something impossible might crop up, I guess as proof.

 

The unexpected and unique can happen naturally. Everything including something like a bodily resurrection to a new kind of human life could be a natural act. You are correct to see supernaturalism as cop out view of divinity. Accuracy beyond the ability of observation is the mark of natural divinity--the prediction of the unpredictable. One could also think about general relativity and knowledge of the elsewhen as a mark of divity. So, there's a method or two. Now do we have anything with the marks of the divine?

[brainbone]

Yes, natural selection is the tautology.

Yes. The process of natural selection happens to organisms, regardless of the input.

So, complexity is selected naturally?

Aggregate enough genetic mutations that positively effect an organism over many generations. Result: You potentially have a more complex organism than you started with. Rinse and repeat.

We can mathematically model complexity causally arising out of deterministic simplicity. It doesn't require randomness. It doesn't require gradualism or uniformitarianism. It requires a few things which are all probably available biologically.

Whether a genetic mutation (be it the occurrence of the mutation or type of mutation) is random, the effect of outside interference, triggered by the organism internally, a collection of the aforementioned, or something completely different, is inconsequential -- all that matters is that they do happen. The study of how they happen is an interesting subject on it's own, moving in to genetics, and certainly outside the scope of what most are capable of discussing on this forum. I remember reading about higher rates of genetic mutations being observed when organisms are under stress, unfortunately I'm unable to cite any sources. Again, interesting subject, but one I cannot make informed comments on.

One could also think about general relativity and knowledge of the elsewhen as a mark of divity. So, there's a method or two. Now do we have anything with the marks of the divine?

One could also say it's the probable result of human intelligence, resulting from natural selection...

Proof itself is his creation.

But that answers nothing: "God" exists because something must have started the creation of the universe. What created God? Certainly, if the universe required a creator to exist, so must God. what created God's creator? and so on and so fourth. With so many other things to learn, chasing your tail looking for proof of God is a pointless exercise. It's simply mental masturbation that eventually leads to the insanity of one applying supernatural power to a God that can interact with their reality, and give them everlasting life if they only have sex with their partner using a sheet with a hole in it... what a wad to blow! (yes, yes, I know most religions are bit more complex than that, relax.)

 

So, again, there is no point in arguing the existence of god. It gets you nowhere. You can't prove there is a God, and you can't prove there isn't.

[Maxintosh]

Brainbone, you're claiming that no one can prove God, but that only proves that part of you believes that God has to be as religions describe him as. Kind of ironic isn't it? The ancient Aztecs said it best; "no word, no sound can describe God". Look at it this way, would it be possible for an ant to describe algebra? Of course not, but that doesn't mean that algebra doesn't exist. NASA scientist have a famous saying that just because something can't be proven, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. We are only human, and you are assuming that humans inherently know everything. You should know better than that. If humans knew everything then there'd be nothing for us to discover

[brainbone]

Brainbone, you're claiming that no one can prove God, but that only proves that part of you believes that God has to be as religions describe him as. Kind of ironic isn't it?

 

You're reading too far into what I said.

 

- Yes, I said "no one can prove a God". And that is a true statement.

 

- I also said, "no one can prove a God doesn't exist". That is also a true statement.

 

- I never said that a god has to be as religions describe, however that is the way the god has to be for that religion.

 

Again, there is no point arguing about the existence of a God. You're either convinced there is, that there isn't, or that you don't care. If you shouldn't argue about the existence of god, since no one has a leg to stand on, then it seems equally plausible that you shouldn't use God as a position in any argument outside your own personal decisions.

[QuietOC]

- Yes, I said "no one can prove a God". And that is a true statement.

The majority of future consists of either indeterministic or deterministically unpredictable events. I believe that indeterminism doesn't exist and is irrational, but even assuming determinism, the fundamental properties of space-time mean most events remain practically unpredictable and many we know are technically unpredictable (mathematically chaotic).

 

Given a deterministic, non-linear, unpredictable space-time. Only the Creator of that space-time is able to accurately predict anything technically unpredictable that happens in that space-time. All beings in that space-time can predict the predictable events of that space-time, but the unpredictable is permenantly outside their knowledge until they actually happen (technically, they are past).

 

The Creator is able to deterministically share any information he chooses with his space-time beings, though such information will also partially determine space-time itself. Space-time can only hold a very miniscule amount of information (e.g. look into the data requirements to solve chess.) So if the Creator wishes to share information with space-time beings he will need to be very selective.

 

Thus space-time beings are able to recognize at least some information that can only be divine. This information--the Creator's knowledge of the unpredictable--is both natural and divine. Also since he is the Creator, these natural, unpredictable events are also his determined action. The Creator need not introduce super-natures, or sub-natures to act.

[brainbone]

Given a deterministic, non-linear, unpredictable space-time. Only the Creator of that space-time is able to accurately predict anything unpredictable that happens in that space-time. All beings in that space-time can accurately predict the predictable events of that space-time, but the unpredictable is permenantly outside their knowledge until they actually happen (technically, they are past).

 

Thus all space-time beings are able to recognize information that can only be divine. Note that this information--the Creator's knowledge of the unpredictable--is simply natural. Also since he is the Creator, these natural, unpredictable events must also be his determined action. The Creator need not introduce super-natures, or sub-natures to act.

 

The Creator is also able to deterministically share any information he chooses with his space-time beings, though such information will also partially determine space-time itself. Space-time can only hold a very miniscule amount of information (e.g. look into the data requirements to solve chess.) So if the Creator wishes to share information with space-time beings he will need to be very selective.

 

Great... but it has nothing to back it up. It can be neither proven nor disproven. Is it something that can not be argued for or against, since no one can have enough information to argue any of your conjectures. Again, it gets us nowhere. It's a waste of thought. You are mentally masturbating.

[QuietOC]

Great... but it has nothing to back it up. It can be neither proven nor disproven. Is it something that can not be argued for or against, since no one can have enough information to argue any of your conjectures.

But we do have what claims such divine information--with some of the information being about events now past, so we are able to evaluate them. I am evaluating some of them.

[brainbone]

But we do have what claims such divine information--with some of the information being about events now past, so we are able to evaluate them. I am evaluating some of them.

 

What claims such divine information? The Bible? The Bible is of the same {censored} I was just covered with from your previous post. Any part that can be proven or disproven relate only to the historical accuracy of it. Any of its divine claims fall into the same boat as before. They can be neither proven nor disproven. Again, it gets us nowhere. It's a wonderful history of mental masturbation.

[QuietOC]

Any part that can be proven or disproven relate only to the historical accuracy of it. Any of its divine claims fall into the same boat as before. They can be neither proven nor disproven.

No, I have just shown how any text's historicity can be the key to judging its divinity. If the text makes accurate predictions of unpredictable natural events that then actually happened, then someone has very good reason to claim that the information must have been divine sourced.

 

This is a reasonable test for anything claiming to be divine revelation. I also think the minor accuracy of accurately describing what we can know should count. Let's see how the books of Elohim/Yahwey, Spaghetti Monsters, fairies, Krishna, Zeus, et. al. hold up.

[brainbone]

No, I have just shown how any text's historicity can be the key to judging its divinity. If the text makes accurate predictions of unpredictable natural events that then actually happened, then someone has very good reason to claim that the information must have been divine sourced.

 

Just because you can't currently quantify how a prediction was made (assuming you find a valid, non-vague prediction of an "unpredictable natural event" in religious text), doesn't mean you can automatically default the prediction to imply proof of God, or even a higher probability of God. It simply means you can't currently explain how the prediction was made without resorting to mental masturbation. We've made no progress.

 

But, against my better judgment, I'll bite. For the sake of argument, lets say you do decide to rate "x" religious text better because it statistically predicts more unpredictable natural events. What have you now gained? Is every other word of that text to carry more weight just because a couple predictions in it were correct? Or on more basic black and white terms; does one true in a sea of false make the false true?

[Maxintosh]

I said "no one can prove a God". And that is a true statement.

 

- I also said, "no one can prove a God doesn't exists". That is also a true statement.

What in your mind makes you think that both of these statements can be true at the same time? God either exists or he doesn't. "Proving" it, or not "proving" it, has nothing to do with the actual truth

[brainbone]

What in your mind makes you think that both of these statements can be true at the same time? God either exists or he doesn't. "Proving" it, or not "proving" it, has nothing to do with the actual truth

 

Re-read my post. Both statements are universally true. It has everything to do with the truth. The truth is, you can't know the "truth" on this subject of God. No one can. Because of this simple fact, ones perception of a God, or a Gods will, should hold no weight in any public discussion or scientific endeavor.