Eiviyn, I don't know much about the world of Biology but this seems interesting. What are your thoughts on this:
It speaks about irreducible complexity.
I like to keep my replies short, and explaining why irreducible complexity is wrong probably isn't going to be short.
At a protein level, your body operates very similar to a machine. These "protein machines" are made up of protein parts, just like a regular machine.
Creationists state that these machines are proof of God, because if you remove a single part, the machine breaks.
One life-size example of this they cite is that these machines are similar to a mouse trap, and I'll use that example to show why it's wrong.
While these machines do break if you take a part away, they can still take on other useful functions.
A mouse trap doesn't work if you take away the catch. However, it could still function as a tie clip.
"Ah, that's absurd. The function is so different that it couldn't possibly work like that!"
Another example they use is the evolution of the human eye. Now, unfortunately for them, this is one of the best documented cases of evolution there is. We have a full record of how an eye started as a patch of light-sensitive cell-skin, into a full-fledged eye. If my answer above doesn't satisfy your query, and I suspect it probably doesn't, you should check this out;
I'm a biochemist, or someone who studies chemistry in biology.
Your examples are things which involve people. You may as well have said "If I get 100 people to guess a number between 1 and 10, why can't science predict it?" It probably can, but not to much accuracy.
Economics follows the above. It can be studied, but at the end of the day it's inaccurate because it's based on what people do, rather than what nature does.
Nature is consistent. People are not. This is why, as you say, social sciences are less predictable than natural sciences like chemistry, physics and biology.
Well yes, but does this mean you think we should perform social sciences in the same way as we perform natural sciences? That would be my definition of a naturalist, in this case. Because if you think there's a difference in the way we should approach both subjects, you'd automatically be a hermeneutic. And if you are a hermeneutic, 'there is no repeatable, lab-tested proof of X' isn't an argument you can make, because that's not how hermeneutic science works.
Actually I've never personally heard of this as an example of irreducible complexity, though it's possible, since Darwin brought it up as well. I remember Dawkin's little speculation, though. I actually think that eye is used as an example of incredulity. As in 'at what point do you guys realise how freaking complex biological systems are? The amount of complexity you're trying to wave off with simplistic and fantastical explanations' kind of deal. Logical or philosophical possibility isn't enough, it has to be plausible, and it has to be supported by evidence. (And no, 'there's lots and lots of support from all over the magical world of science that support it, so we don't need direct proof!' isn't enough. You actually have to say what the evidence is.)
Typical creationist. Watch the video and it has names of all the species which you can visit today, showing each stage of eye development. If you don't trust "magical scientists" then perhaps you'd trust your own eyes and hold the evidence in your own hands. This science isn't mysterious, you just want it to be.
I dunno if that's intelligent design, but it didn't look like evolution to me. This is a problem that I have with a lot of evolutionary stories, is that a lot of fairy-tale style
Well yes, but does this mean you think we should perform social sciences in the same way as we perform natural sciences? That would be my definition of a naturalist, in this case. Because if you think there's a difference in the way we should approach both subjects, you'd automatically be a hermeneutic. And if you are a hermeneutic, 'there is no repeatable, lab-tested proof of X' isn't an argument you can make, because that's not how hermeneutic science works.
That's basically what I said, yes. However I'd be less concerned about labeling it.
Nothing discovered thus far by humanity requires supernatural involvement to operate.
Thanks for the reply there Eiviyn. And Mudz, thanks for your ideas as well.
Very interesting how we and the official debaters on this subject somewhat take on the same form or modes of being.
Mr. Kaku said, in a hundred years we'd still be arguing this thing. He uses his own theory and took the stance of a theist mindset to show an example of how people can and will be able to argue about this subject to infinity. I believe he makes a good point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Well, the general concept of a god is that it would be able to do anything. So, it could appear as if it doesn't exist. So there's really no way to disprove of one. Therefore, there's really no way to close the argument that there is no god with 100% certainty. So yeah, this argument could go on for a while. Side note, many religions stress faith, suggesting that the religion acknowledges how unprovable god could be.
By the way, just because someone is apart of a religion, it doesn't give them infallible logic. They're still people, capable of mistakes.
Well, the general concept of a god is that it would be able to do anything. So, it could appear as if it doesn't exist. So there's really no way to disprove of one. Therefore, there's really no way to close the argument that there is no god with 100% certainty. So yeah, this argument could go on for a while. Side note, many religions stress faith, suggesting that the religion acknowledges how unprovable god could be.
By the way, just because someone is apart of a religion, it doesn't give them infallible logic. They're still people, capable of mistakes.
I never said gods don't exist.
I said Christianity can't provide evidence for their claims.
They had the scholars, the monks, universities, they kept learning and knowledge alive through the dark ages (actually the dark ages were a time of great intellectual and cultural advancement).
So you don't understand history either.
I'm not correcting all the errors in your post. I genuinely can't be bothered. If you want to summarise some key points, I'll reply.
I hope you guys realize that most Narcissist love to high-jack religion. Just saying. It makes me wonder how could a message of freedom become a system based on oppression.
I hear that at the start of one particular religion today (wont mention because they're quite sensitive, but you know what I mean) it was rather somewhat close to helping the poor kind of deal.
I also just came to a thought, "Is it possible for people to adapt into/evolve into someone that just couldn't take seeing happy, care-free, balanced individuals?"
(I jumped to dealing with this thing and more into this line since I find it more important to stop the false prophets than the God)
You see, we can have a good God in the future, if we really do have the God-gene, a God that sends rain to both the good and evil, who makes the sun shine on everyone.
If people adhered to non-homosexual lifestyles, then not only would HIV be far, far less prevalent, but it may not have even gotten a significant start.
So in fact, if people did follow Church doctrine, we might well have never had the epidemic.
Just no. HIV is spread most often through heterosexual means.
It's also bigoted to tell people how to live their lives. There is numerous scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. It is present in over 1500 species.
Quote:
A 400 million year old species of fish that scientists claimed was evolving, because it has suspicious looking fins, and then they yank one of the extinct fish out of the ocean and hello! It looked exactly the same. 'Oh, well that's because it's a Lazarus taxon.' Scientist speak for, 'we just make stuff up whenever it looks like we're wrong.'
Whatever dubious creationist site you got this from, I can't be bothered to double check right now. Even so, it's irrelevant because:
A) If you want to see evolution on human time scales then I suggest working with fruit flies, look at a dog breeding chart, or watch bacteria become resistant to drugs in a lab.
B) You should be skeptical of everyone, but one scientist being wrong is irrelevant. Science's progress speaks for itself. So does religion's (aka. none).
C) Evolution is a fact. The debate is over. Being a biologist today without believing in a core scientific framework like evolution is like trying to be a doctor without believing in germ theory.
Quote:
There's a historical record for one. There's 'eyewitness accounts'.
The same can be said of aliens and bigfoot. Religious people love talking about dubious claims of the distant past because you can make up whatever you want and nobody can prove you wrong.
Quote:
And has anyone made a decent refutation of Gentry's haloes yet? www.halos.com
There's the Cambrian explosion, where life fairly much exploded on the scene, with no viable precursors in the Pre-Cambrian. (Darwinian evolution really should have been falsified by now, but what are you going to do?) Which is why Punctuated Equilibrium was invented.
Oh great, so what did I miss, is the Earth really not 6000 years old? The evolution of life is fine for you up until 500 million years ago? That's where you draw the line? Either way, if there were truly no viable precursors in the pre-cambrian, then we wouldn't be alive today. This is a bizarre argument. Nowhere have I heard that punctuated equilibrium was a problem.
But if you don't like it, find another explanation instead of throwing your hands up into the air and saying "I give up, goddidit." That's intellectual laziness. It's not even an answer. How can you even accept that as an answer?
Even if evolution is totally wrong, this is what the bible proposes as an alternative:
1. Fire breathing monster in the book of job
2. Giants once walked the earth
3. People once lived to be 800 years old
4. A talking donkey
5. The trinity. God gives birth to himself so that he can sacrifice himself to himself
6. Samson slays 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass. This is basically Christianity's version of Hercules.
7. Man lived in a whale for 3 days
8. Jacob wrestles with god & WINS
You could switch this stuff with any of the other fairy tales you grew up with, like three little pigs or snow white, and you wouldn't know the difference. Personally, for me, I choose to be an adult.
Quote:
The world-wide prevalence of a world-destroying flood legend in basically every culture that matches up even to details like the boat (sometimes tree, though) or the surviving family, etc. This is best explained as indicating an actual event, that happened before the divergence of these cultures. The more the bible is validated on these accounts, the stronger the inference grows for historical accuracy.
Nobody can read that link and still say such a flood is scientifically possible. We've been through it in this thread, somewhere on page 8. The idea that there was in actuality a flood that covered the planet in its entirety and that there was a man who brought each of every animal with him is just stupidity of the highest order of magnitude, no matter what religion you are. And there's the proof. Sorry if that's offensive, but that's just the way it is. Suffice to say, I really could care less if you believe in a flood, as long as you acknowledge that it was magically facilitated by a deity who then went on to erase the scientific evidence.
Quote:
All these things are pieces of evidence that one would take to a cosmic court, if so available. They do not necessarily constitute proof, but they certainly qualify as evidence.
Yes, but it's no coincidence that hearsay & testimony are considered the lowest form of evidence. As Eivin said, creationists have no scientific, repeatable evidence that can be tested in a lab.
There is as much evidence for god as there is for bigfoot.
Quote:
just like I went from old-earth to young-earth.
o.O
How does that even happen? Either way, weren't you referencing the Cambrian explosion in your earlier argument?
It's getting late though so I won't bother addressing the rest of the misconceptions and just skip ahead to this:
Quote:
They had the scholars, the monks, universities, they kept learning and knowledge alive through the dark ages (actually the dark ages were a time of great intellectual and cultural advancement)
Here is the definition of dark ages:
Dark Ages (historiography), the concept of a period of intellectual darkness and economic regression that supposedly occurred in Europe following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.
I don't know what creationist books you're reading, but they sound like they belong in the trash bin if they tell you the dark ages are a period of great intellectual advancement. Religion had its chance to run the world, but the dark ages are over.
Interesting point. I see I'm in the position of defending the Catholic Church, how bizarre. But I did bring up a contemporary example, so:
The Pope is making a religious and moral objection. He don't think he is denying that unprotected sex can result in HIV transmission. Not that condoms always work either. What if he banned unmarital sex altogether? Wouldn't that prevent HIV from spreading through a populace? How about cirumcision? That's been shown to improve sexual health.
If people adhered to non-homosexual lifestyles, then not only would HIV be far, far less prevalent, but it may not have even gotten a significant start.
So in fact, if people did follow Church doctrine, we might well have never had the epidemic. These sort of religious rules tend to work better in tandem. Christian rules work well with Christian behaviour. A prohibition against condoms doesn't work so well, only because an already bad situation has developed. Closing the barn after the horse escapes, type thing.
That said, I was discussing the relationship between the Church and science, not between Church doctrine and medicinal practises. This would only be religion vs. science, if the Church was teaching people that praying to God prevented HIV with more efficiency than a condom. If that is the case, then you've made your argument.
It's not a terrible objection in itself though. You have a valid point, in that the Church doctrine has been inopportune in its application and allowed a lot of HIV spread. (I'm assuming what you're telling me is accurate.) But there are far greater causes of HIV than the absence of penis protectors.
AIDS is more common in homosexual men because they frequently do not use protection. It's that simple.
However, we were talking about an evolution-developed vaccine you mentioned which the evil scientists use to make AIDS spread faster. I assume you're taking that statement back since you've not mentioned it in your retort?
He's refering to how it started, in which case, he is correct.
Perhaps in the USA, but in Africa after it entered into the hunters' systems, it spread through regular old prostitution that resulted from the urbanization in the "Scramble for Africa". At least that's what it says on wikipedia unless you have any other sources?
Not that the notion of assigning blame to a sexual orientation for this condition is any less absurd.
If you were to ask God for one proof that you consider to be the ultimate, undeniable proof of His existence, what would it be?
Ultimate? I can't really pinpoint one thing, as long as it's physical, testable & repeatable. It has to be something that happens to multiple people or that more than one person can verify because I have no way to tell if I'm not hallucinating. The mind is a powerful tool, but it's susceptible to hallucination. For example, if we could detect with our scientific instruments this hidden layer of reality called "heaven" that theists have been talking about for so long, it would be a major breakthrough. Even a single event seen by multiple people and captured on video camera would force me to reconsider my stance. 9/11 happened once, we got decent, clear camera footage and everybody was able to go see the wreckage of the twin towers for themselves. Given all the supposed miracles that have happened, there is proportionately less camera footage and legitimate results to go around (unless you count vague pictures appearing on toast/peanut butter to be a miracle).
One other thing that would be a great proof of God is if everyone on the planet agreed to pray at midnight on a certain day for everyone be healed of cancer. This is a benevolent and selfless prayer that could truly demonstrate God's infinite power and love. Yet let me ask you guys an honest question. If every person on the planet actually did pray for everyone to be cured of cancer, do you honestly believe it would work? Rhetorical question. Of course not. What'd you expect? :P
I like to keep my replies short, and explaining why irreducible complexity is wrong probably isn't going to be short.
At a protein level, your body operates very similar to a machine. These "protein machines" are made up of protein parts, just like a regular machine.
Creationists state that these machines are proof of God, because if you remove a single part, the machine breaks.
One life-size example of this they cite is that these machines are similar to a mouse trap, and I'll use that example to show why it's wrong.
While these machines do break if you take a part away, they can still take on other useful functions.
A mouse trap doesn't work if you take away the catch. However, it could still function as a tie clip.
"Ah, that's absurd. The function is so different that it couldn't possibly work like that!"
Another example they use is the evolution of the human eye. Now, unfortunately for them, this is one of the best documented cases of evolution there is. We have a full record of how an eye started as a patch of light-sensitive cell-skin, into a full-fledged eye. If my answer above doesn't satisfy your query, and I suspect it probably doesn't, you should check this out;
Well yes, but does this mean you think we should perform social sciences in the same way as we perform natural sciences? That would be my definition of a naturalist, in this case. Because if you think there's a difference in the way we should approach both subjects, you'd automatically be a hermeneutic. And if you are a hermeneutic, 'there is no repeatable, lab-tested proof of X' isn't an argument you can make, because that's not how hermeneutic science works.
Typical creationist. Watch the video and it has names of all the species which you can visit today, showing each stage of eye development. If you don't trust "magical scientists" then perhaps you'd trust your own eyes and hold the evidence in your own hands. This science isn't mysterious, you just want it to be.
That's because you don't understand evolution.
That's basically what I said, yes. However I'd be less concerned about labeling it.
Nothing discovered thus far by humanity requires supernatural involvement to operate.
Thanks for the reply there Eiviyn. And Mudz, thanks for your ideas as well.
Very interesting how we and the official debaters on this subject somewhat take on the same form or modes of being.
Mr. Kaku said, in a hundred years we'd still be arguing this thing. He uses his own theory and took the stance of a theist mindset to show an example of how people can and will be able to argue about this subject to infinity. I believe he makes a good point.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
I disagree.
The church argued the Earth was flat. The church lost.
The church argued that Earth was at the centre of the universe. The church lost.
The church argued slavery was a right from God. The church lost.
The church doesn't really have much success with arguing against scientific consensus in the long run.
@Eiviyn: Go
Well, the general concept of a god is that it would be able to do anything. So, it could appear as if it doesn't exist. So there's really no way to disprove of one. Therefore, there's really no way to close the argument that there is no god with 100% certainty. So yeah, this argument could go on for a while. Side note, many religions stress faith, suggesting that the religion acknowledges how unprovable god could be.
By the way, just because someone is apart of a religion, it doesn't give them infallible logic. They're still people, capable of mistakes.
I never said gods don't exist.
I said Christianity can't provide evidence for their claims.
@Eiviyn: Go
I'm sorry, I must be mistaken. It looked as though you said "I disagree" to GnaReffotsirk's "in 100 years we could still be arguing this thing."
So you don't understand history either.
I'm not correcting all the errors in your post. I genuinely can't be bothered. If you want to summarise some key points, I'll reply.
Let's start with that, because the pope's ban on condoms in african countries has done more to spread HIV than anything I could imagine.
Im pretty sure legal prostitution has spread more.
I hope you guys realize that most Narcissist love to high-jack religion. Just saying. It makes me wonder how could a message of freedom become a system based on oppression.
I hear that at the start of one particular religion today (wont mention because they're quite sensitive, but you know what I mean) it was rather somewhat close to helping the poor kind of deal.
I also just came to a thought, "Is it possible for people to adapt into/evolve into someone that just couldn't take seeing happy, care-free, balanced individuals?"
(I jumped to dealing with this thing and more into this line since I find it more important to stop the false prophets than the God)
You see, we can have a good God in the future, if we really do have the God-gene, a God that sends rain to both the good and evil, who makes the sun shine on everyone.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Just no. HIV is spread most often through heterosexual means.
It's also bigoted to tell people how to live their lives. There is numerous scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. It is present in over 1500 species.
Whatever dubious creationist site you got this from, I can't be bothered to double check right now. Even so, it's irrelevant because:
A) If you want to see evolution on human time scales then I suggest working with fruit flies, look at a dog breeding chart, or watch bacteria become resistant to drugs in a lab.
B) You should be skeptical of everyone, but one scientist being wrong is irrelevant. Science's progress speaks for itself. So does religion's (aka. none).
C) Evolution is a fact. The debate is over. Being a biologist today without believing in a core scientific framework like evolution is like trying to be a doctor without believing in germ theory.
The same can be said of aliens and bigfoot. Religious people love talking about dubious claims of the distant past because you can make up whatever you want and nobody can prove you wrong.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
Oh great, so what did I miss, is the Earth really not 6000 years old? The evolution of life is fine for you up until 500 million years ago? That's where you draw the line? Either way, if there were truly no viable precursors in the pre-cambrian, then we wouldn't be alive today. This is a bizarre argument. Nowhere have I heard that punctuated equilibrium was a problem.
But if you don't like it, find another explanation instead of throwing your hands up into the air and saying "I give up, goddidit." That's intellectual laziness. It's not even an answer. How can you even accept that as an answer?
Even if evolution is totally wrong, this is what the bible proposes as an alternative:
1. Fire breathing monster in the book of job
2. Giants once walked the earth
3. People once lived to be 800 years old
4. A talking donkey
5. The trinity. God gives birth to himself so that he can sacrifice himself to himself
6. Samson slays 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass. This is basically Christianity's version of Hercules.
7. Man lived in a whale for 3 days
8. Jacob wrestles with god & WINS
You could switch this stuff with any of the other fairy tales you grew up with, like three little pigs or snow white, and you wouldn't know the difference. Personally, for me, I choose to be an adult.
There was no flood: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Nobody can read that link and still say such a flood is scientifically possible. We've been through it in this thread, somewhere on page 8. The idea that there was in actuality a flood that covered the planet in its entirety and that there was a man who brought each of every animal with him is just stupidity of the highest order of magnitude, no matter what religion you are. And there's the proof. Sorry if that's offensive, but that's just the way it is. Suffice to say, I really could care less if you believe in a flood, as long as you acknowledge that it was magically facilitated by a deity who then went on to erase the scientific evidence.
Yes, but it's no coincidence that hearsay & testimony are considered the lowest form of evidence. As Eivin said, creationists have no scientific, repeatable evidence that can be tested in a lab.
There is as much evidence for god as there is for bigfoot.
o.O
How does that even happen? Either way, weren't you referencing the Cambrian explosion in your earlier argument?
It's getting late though so I won't bother addressing the rest of the misconceptions and just skip ahead to this:
Here is the definition of dark ages:
Dark Ages (historiography), the concept of a period of intellectual darkness and economic regression that supposedly occurred in Europe following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.
I don't know what creationist books you're reading, but they sound like they belong in the trash bin if they tell you the dark ages are a period of great intellectual advancement. Religion had its chance to run the world, but the dark ages are over.
@Gradius12: Go
"Just no. HIV is spread most often through heterosexual means." He's refering to how it started, in which case, he is correct.
This is wrong.
As stated earlier, prostitution in Africa was the most common means of spreading AIDS.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0009936
AIDS is more common in homosexual men because they frequently do not use protection. It's that simple.
However, we were talking about an evolution-developed vaccine you mentioned which the evil scientists use to make AIDS spread faster. I assume you're taking that statement back since you've not mentioned it in your retort?
Honest question:
If you were to ask God for one proof that you consider to be the ultimate, undeniable proof of His existence, what would it be?
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Perhaps in the USA, but in Africa after it entered into the hunters' systems, it spread through regular old prostitution that resulted from the urbanization in the "Scramble for Africa". At least that's what it says on wikipedia unless you have any other sources?
Not that the notion of assigning blame to a sexual orientation for this condition is any less absurd.
Ultimate? I can't really pinpoint one thing, as long as it's physical, testable & repeatable. It has to be something that happens to multiple people or that more than one person can verify because I have no way to tell if I'm not hallucinating. The mind is a powerful tool, but it's susceptible to hallucination. For example, if we could detect with our scientific instruments this hidden layer of reality called "heaven" that theists have been talking about for so long, it would be a major breakthrough. Even a single event seen by multiple people and captured on video camera would force me to reconsider my stance. 9/11 happened once, we got decent, clear camera footage and everybody was able to go see the wreckage of the twin towers for themselves. Given all the supposed miracles that have happened, there is proportionately less camera footage and legitimate results to go around (unless you count vague pictures appearing on toast/peanut butter to be a miracle).
One other thing that would be a great proof of God is if everyone on the planet agreed to pray at midnight on a certain day for everyone be healed of cancer. This is a benevolent and selfless prayer that could truly demonstrate God's infinite power and love. Yet let me ask you guys an honest question. If every person on the planet actually did pray for everyone to be cured of cancer, do you honestly believe it would work? Rhetorical question. Of course not. What'd you expect? :P
Restore an amputee to health.
Not too much to ask given people think prayer cures illnesses.