Support NeoGAF

[JGS]

I think there can be more discussion around the whale picture.

The picture claims to show the evolutionary path of the whale from land based mammal. From what I can gather from JGS' argument, and please correct me on this, he agrees that all the animals shown there are valid species of animals who live within the time frames described on the graph. What he doesn't agree with is that the animals further up on the graph are ancestors of the animals below. They may be similarly created animals (at least to the ones immediately above and below) but they are not related in a family tree type of sense. What this leads me to believe that JGS believes is that those animals were created (not evolved from the one before) about the time the graph shows those animals appearing in the fossil record and then going extinct when they stop appearing. Do I have this right?

I always feel I have to be careful with my words, but I will say yes to the extent that I have never personally verified the time frames, but I have no problem with them as stated. I also don't have a problem with speciation but it would be a miraculous occurrence to overcome the impossibility.

I am wondering. Do you believe the creator has any hand in the extinction process? I am guessing that you believe that there are natural/man caused extinctions but do you believe that God is more directly involved in any? In any from the whale example?

I don't know.

I don't think there would be much reason for him to be involved in the extinction process unless a particular of anmals, like dinosaurs, served their purpose. I guess he could see the dinosaurs and say "Holy crap, they're too big and the world needs oil later, so..." Overall, I tend to think nature takes it's course and extinctions happen on their own. To be clear, I'm not sure though.

 

[JGS]

And once again, Dudes

Spoiler

the liar

is getting it wrong.

I wasn't asking for gap filling. Did you even read the quote?

you are filling in the gaps that are not explained...The issue is what you do with the gaps. I say there's no reason for them to be explained.

I was saying that the diagram was looking to fill gaps when there's not a need to. I was not asking for any missing link proofs. It's the need of you guys to explain the missing links, not mine.

I'm fine with the fossil record as is.

 

[Kinitari]

And once again, Dudes

Spoiler

the liar

is getting it wrong.

I wasn't asking for gap filling. Did you even read the quote?



I was saying that the diagram was looking to fill gaps when there's not a need to. I was not asking for any missing link proofs. It's the need of you guys to explain the missing links, not mine.

I'm fine with the fossil record as is.

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding here - you feel as though the gaps (I mean... no matter what there is going to be a gap, if just for simplicities sake) between each of the fossils in the whale picture (for example) don't need to be explained, that 'God did it' is an accurate enough explanation, and that speciation is an 'out there' explanation from them?

I feel as though I am putting words in your mouth, but is this roughly what you are trying to say?

If that's the case, do you understand why Science cant fall back on the God explanation? And do you understand that speciation is only a 'crazy pretty much impossible idea' because you make it out to be? There is absolutely no reason why it isn't possible, in fact their are huge databases of evidence backing it up - I can give you current day examples of speciation, I can give you phenotypical examples, I can give you anything from genetic to fossil evidence. It's only ridiculous because someone would want it to be - a Deity has absolutely no evidence to back it up - I am not saying this means a Deity does not a exist - I can't possibly know that, but earlier you said that examples of Speciation are as worthless as the paper it's printed on - and I really want to know why you feel this way, what is it about speciation that seems so exotic to you?

 

[JGS]

I was going to pose the same question but in a different way.

Which 'gaps' in particular do you have problems with JGS?

That's not what I was saying. See above.

I guess if God did this by putting in mechanics we see every day in nature (natural selection, mutation etc) - then no problem, it's just convoluted and adds unnecessary complexity to a simple solution. The only reason we'd add God into the equation is because we want him to be there, not because his touch is observable, or because there is a particularly large hole in speciation that needs to be filled with mysticism.

That's not the only reason.

Even if it were, why wouldn't you consider it? From what I understand, science is not concerned with complexity when explaining things and a lot of complex stuff occurs factoring God in or not.

Why would it be more appealing to think that a manatee mutated into a sea creature? It wasn't observable either was it? Why would natural selection play a role if we are discussing one type of manatee dying out over another with the survivor being the dominant one we all know and love now? To be clear, those are serious questions. I don't pretend to know more than you about this stuff. You're the Evolution thread starter for crying out loud!:lol

 

[JGS]

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding here - you feel as though the gaps (I mean... no matter what there is going to be a gap, if just for simplicities sake) between each of the fossils in the whale picture (for example) don't need to be explained, that 'God did it' is an accurate enough explanation, and that speciation is an 'out there' explanation from them?

I feel as though I am putting words in your mouth, but is this roughly what you are trying to say?

If that's the case, do you understand why Science cant fall back on the God explanation? And do you understand that speciation is only a 'crazy pretty much impossible idea' because you make it out to be? There is absolutely no reason why it isn't possible, in fact their are huge databases of evidence backing it up - I can give you current day examples of speciation, I can give you phenotypical examples, I can give you anything from genetic to fossil evidence. It's only ridiculous because someone would want it to be - a Deity has absolutely no evidence to back it up - I am not saying this means a Deity does not a exist - I can't possibly know that, but earlier you said that examples of Speciation are as worthless as the paper it's printed on - and I really want to know why you feel this way, what is it about speciation that seems so exotic to you?

I didn't say that. The accusation was the whole too many missing links argument that evolutionists all know and hate, thus the picture. I was saying I din't care one iota about the gaps, but you did hence the need for the chart.

I'm not debating this, just addressing a lame brained attempt at humor that failed because I didn't say what the picture suggested.

 

[Dever]

JGS, why do you think speciation is nearly impossible?

 

[Kinitari]

I didn't say that. The accusation was the whole too many missing links argument that evolutionists all know and hate, thus the picture. I was saying I din't care one iota about the gaps, but you did hence the need for the chart.

I'm not debating this, just addressing a lame brained attempt at humor that failed because I didn't say what the picture suggested.

Gotya, your issue isn't with the evolutionary picture having 'spaces' in between species - just a warning, when you use the term 'gap' when talking about speciation, that's the first thing everyone is going to think about.

That's not what I was saying. See above.

That's not the only reason.

Even if it were, why wouldn't you consider it? From what I understand, science is not concerned with complexity when explaining things and a lot of complex stuff occurs factoring God in or not.

Science is concerned when it comes to the complexity of things, when it's unnecessarily so - if I take 5 steps to explain something that can be explained and substantiated in 2 steps just as easily (if not clearer), the 2 step solution is now the defacto solution.

Why would it be more appealing to think that a manatee mutated into a sea creature?

Appeal has very little to do with it - it's simply about seeking out answers to questions, and by understanding these answers we then can understand (and thereby influence) our world better.

It wasn't observable either was it?

Observable doesn't necessarily mean we need to see it in a lab, or with our two eyes. Sometimes we can observe things through (yes I'll say it again) fossil data, or DNA evidence - I know sometimes people trust their own two eyes better, but let me show you something real quick -

These two birds are officially categorized as a different species, they can no longer interbreed, but any passing Joe Schmuck would probably not see any sort of difference, sometimes we need to dig deeper than just what our eyes can see.

Why would natural selection play a role if we are discussing one type of manatee dying out over another with the survivor being the dominant one we all know and love now?

It can be very useful better understanding evolutionary hiccups that have occurred in the last few bajillion years, we can then better understand how to protect the animals alive today. If we know what messed with the last species, we can work to prevent it happening again. Although now I'm not sure if I am answering the question you are asking me ^^ - for some reason I am reading this as "Why does it matter whether/how an animal went extinct 5million years ago?".

To be clear, those are serious questions. I don't pretend to know more than you about this stuff. You're the Evolution thread starter for crying out loud!:lol

You know I am honestly surprised that thread turned out the way it did, I honestly had no idea I knew that much about Evolution - I still don't think I am anywhere near as knowledgeable as a lot of GAF, but I guess I know a thing or two.

 

[Earthstrike]

Kinitari, I think that making headway in your discussion with JGS about evolution requires addressing the definition of species.

In my brief readthrough of what has been posted between you two JGS said this little snippet " ... one species doesn't beget another".

A lot of people ("evolutionists" included) don't really understand that a species isn't defined by one animal.

Its probably better to work with the definitions here. A species is a group of animals that are capable of reproducing with one another. This is what defines species and so you can never give birth to a "new species". Any child and its parents will practically always be the same species. The nuance people don't appreciate is that that child may not be of the same species as its great great great (x1000) grandmother. Species are never defined by an individual, they are defined by groups of animals, and consequently species are emergent on the timescale of vast expanses of offspring generations, as opposed to emerging over single generations.

Again, I'm sure you know all this since I've read your evolution thread too, but the point here is that I think this is what JGS doesn't understand. It is likely also the case that there is a belief that every animal belongs to one and only one species, when in fact, if there exists a population of animals where most members are capable of only breeding with certain other members, but some can breed with everyone, then its possible for an animal to be parts of two species. A closely related common ancestor of two species can be a member of both species. I think people simply assume a one-to-one correspondence given the way we talk about animal classification. There's a real lack of understanding of the simple idea that speciation is simply an emergent property of genetically localized aggregations of phenotypic characteristics within a population of genetically similar animals.

 

[Kinitari]

Kinitari, I think that making headway in your discussion with JGS about evolution requires addressing the definition of species.

In my brief readthrough of what has been posted between you two JGS said this little snippet " ... one species doesn't beget another".

A lot of people ("evolutionists" included) don't really understand that a species isn't defined by one animal.

Its probably better to work with the definitions here. A species is a group of animals that are capable of reproducing with one another. This is what defines species and so you can never give birth to a "new species". Any child and its parents will practically always be the same species. The nuance people don't appreciate is that that child may not be of the same species as its great great great (x1000) grandmother. Species are never defined by an individual, they are defined by groups of animals, and consequently species are emergent on the timescales vast expanses of offspring generations, as opposed to emerging over single generations.

Again, I'm sure you know all this since I've read your evolution thread too, but the point here is that I think this is what JGS doesn't understand. It is likely also the case that there is a belief that every animal belongs to one and only one species, when in fact, if there exists a population of animals where most members are capable of only breeding with certain other members, but some can breed with everyone, then its possible for an animal to be parts of two species. A closely related common ancestor of two species can be a member of both species. I think people simply assume a one-to-one correspondence given the way we talk about animal classification. There's a real lack of understanding of the simple idea that speciation is simply an emergent property of genetically localized aggregations of phenotypic characteristics within a population of genetically similar animals.

Mmm, I was hoping to try and get JGS to clarify earlier what he would categorize as the act of speciation - I didn't want to push it to hard because of an irrational fear I have of people running away from these sorts of conversations, and I really do enjoy them.

And to the bold... I posted this earlier in the "weird things that turn you on thread"

A thorough understanding of Evolution... man so hot. Especially if she can distinctly give me examples of speciation... oooh yeah. Don't even get me started on girls who discuss the merits and shortcomings of taxonomy. Man... raging hard right now.

So... I'm not really a coffee sort of guy, but...

 

[Dude Abides]

And once again, Dudes

Spoiler

the liar

is getting it wrong.

I wasn't asking for gap filling. Did you even read the quote?



I was saying that the diagram was looking to fill gaps when there's not a need to. I was not asking for any missing link proofs.It's the need of you guys to explain the missing links, not mine.

I'm fine with the fossil record as is.

At this point I think the "JGS is a joke poster" hypothesis seems best supported by the evidence. The reader should compare the bolded statements and note that they appeared in the very same post.

 

[Kinitari]

At this point I think the "JGS is a joke poster" hypothesis seems best supported by the evidence. The reader should compare the bolded statements and note that they appeared in the very same post.

I think I get what he's trying to say, he doesn't care about the 'gaps', we do. To him the concept of speciation is something that's impossible, although I still don't really know what the problem is. I really hope he can help me out with that.

 

[Earthstrike]

So... I'm not really a coffee sort of guy, but...

Lol, well I am in Canada buuuuuuuuuuuuuut,
I'm a guy.

This is neogaf dude.

 

[Dude Abides]

I think I get what he's trying to say, he doesn't care about the 'gaps' we do. To him the concept of speciation is something that's impossible, although I still don't really know what the problem is. I really hope he can help me out with that.

I wouldn't get those hopes up to high. That is what he's saying, but why? It's because the theory of speciation needs to explain the gaps but the creation hypothesis does not. That's why he said evolution proponents "need" to fill it. Thus he can attack the gaps and dodge getting into specifics except "lol talk origins." It's just the same argument in a slightly different rhetorical form. The only thing that could possibly convince him is time travel or possibly Jesus himself.

 

[Kinitari]

Lol, well I am in Canada buuuuuuuuuuuuuut,
I'm a guy.

This is neogaf dude.

We could make it work!!

I wouldn't get those hopes up to high. That is what he's saying, but why? It's because the theory of speciation needs to explain the gaps but the creation hypothesis does not. That's why he said evolution proponents "need" to fill it. Thus he can attack the gaps and dodge getting into specifics except "lol talk origins." It's just the same argument in a slightly different rhetorical form. The only thing that could possibly convince him is time travel or possibly Jesus himself.

You're too old and bitter! I believe! I believe we can make some progress, I will find out what JGS's problem with speciation is if it kills me!

 

[Mario]

JGS, it would be really good if you could clarify your position on a number of issues. You have suggested your comments (at least with respect to speciation) are all clear, unambiguous and understandable to any who can speak English. I contend they are not. Please indulge me and clarify some of the following points.

Wait, you're not talking about Talk Origins or that nice drawing of animals are you? Surely not! :lol

I read it.

Do you consider Talk Origins, and specifically the page on Observed Instances of Speciation, a credible resource? If not, why not?

Do you consider the scientific papers referenced on the bottom of that page credible resources? If not, why not?

Aspects of evolutionary theory that I don't agree with are 0% proven.

Can you list what aspects of the Theory of Evolution you don't agree with that by extension you believe have been 0% proven?

What would be the problem with "God" seeing the manatee as a land based mammal and helping it along to being a sea based one?

In your proposed hypothetical, what would be God doing physically to the "land based manatee" to "help it along" to become a "sea based manatee"?

I also don't have a problem with speciation but it would be a miraculous occurrence to overcome the impossibility.

Why do you consider natural speciation impossible?

 

[Count Dookkake]

Even if it were, why wouldn't you consider it? From what I understand, science is not concerned with complexity when explaining things and a lot of complex stuff occurs factoring God in or not.

This is an important excerpt.

Science has no problem with complexity. The problem is with unnecessary complexity. You skipped over that word to make your point, making your point kinda wrong.

 

[JGS]

Very intelligent stuff

Thanks for the answers. You have to realize that, although I do love science contrary to what others say, I am no scientist nor have I claimed to be so. Thus I do not know the entire implications of discussing speciation so i have no way of disagreeing with it entirely unloess soken in absolute terms. The writer of Genesis did not know speciation at all which is why I find it odd to expect him to.

I think a lot of people pretend to be scientsts just to back up their opinion. I do not think that of you regardless of what you think of me.

However, I want to be clear on something. Are you thinking in absolutes or particulars? In other words, am I even allowed to agree with particulars of your example or, like everything else, am I required to think of the whole kit and kaboodle? If I have to accept it all, then we agree to disagree. I think this might go a long way toward shortening the arguments or at least put them to an end as being completely pointless.

If I acknowledge the parts proven, of course I have no issues with that. It's like I said in my long post:

I'm willing to change belief in a second if mine are disproven.

Mine haven't been disproven so...here we are.

I'm far more open minded than I am painted which is OK. It's my fault for egging it on. However, if you read most of the posts throughout the board that should be pretty clear. The crux of the matter is proof. I need it or I've got no reason to believe you. It adds not a cubit to my life or happiness to go along with someone just because. Again, I appreciate the explanations, but explanations won't cut it in dismissing the belief in God.

Offtopic but a little germaine to the subject, I just got back from watching Inception so I'm a little wobbly in the brain. I'll discuss more stuff later, but right now that's all still sinking in. Excellent movie and I'm watching Dark Knight now as a Nolan chaser. I'm pretty sure Dark Knight is better but Inception is definitely a repeat movie! Wow.

 

[JGS]

This is an important excerpt.

Science has no problem with complexity. The problem is with unnecessary complexity. You skipped over that word to make your point, making your point kinda wrong.

It's not that important. The adjective was based on what the poster said. I didn't agree with it.

God is only an "unnecessary" complexity for the person that dismisses him, so the word didn't fit for my statement.

 

[JGS]

JGS, it would be really good if you could clarify your position on a number of issues. You have suggested your comments (at least with respect to speciation) are all clear, unambiguous and understandable to any who can speak English. I contend they are not. Please indulge me and clarify some of the following points.

I honestly don't know why it's hard to understand (Actually that's not true, but that's another discussion) and the fact that you called me a troll makes me suspect of your reading my words to begin with, but letting bygones be bygones:

Do you consider Talk Origins, and specifically the page on Observed Instances of Speciation, a credible resource? If not, why not?

It's a credible source to discuss abiogenesis and evolution. It's probably the best one online which is why it's amusing that people link to it like I've never heard of it. It's only been mentioned in every evolution subject ever existing!

The problem is the same as all the others. It omits God. That is the science communities right, but that does not mean that it is unscientific to consider God.

Do you consider the scientific papers referenced on the bottom of that page credible resources? If not, why not?

The references are used to refer to the points that Talk Origins bring up, so they are as credible as the web site correct?

Can you list what aspects of the Theory of Evolution you don't agree with that by extension you believe have been 0% proven?

It basically boils down to kinds becoming different kinds. It does not happen on the mass scale required to explain the variety of life on earth.

In your proposed hypothetical, what would be God doing physically to the "land based manatee" to "help it along" to become a "sea based manatee"?

Who knows?:lol

I made that hypothetical up in 10 seconds. It took longer to write the disclosure!

However, maybe the same process that straught up godless intervention claims.

Why do you consider natural speciation impossible?

Like I wrote to Kinitari, I'm starting to think this is an issue regarding blanket statements. If it can be proven I can believe it. If it can't be proven, I tend to not believe. Further, I tend toward it being impossible because it can't be duplicated or observed. I am aware of the little fish in the lake and maybe by some miracle a fish became an amphibian over millions of little changes (That haven't been proven), but that would not be repeated over and over again to the tune of millions. It's impossible until it's possible.

However, even then, it doesn't disprove God does it? Why should it?

 

[JGS]

JGS, why do you think speciation is nearly impossible?

Sorry, I missed this but explained it as best I could post-Inception.

 

[JGS]

You pretty much said you enjoyed winding people up.

THAT's the definition of a troll? I didn't know. I thought it was about disrespect and insults which I did not engage in iirc.

Well, winding people up is basically telling you my thoughts which I do like to do although it gets no where. Sorry & I'll stop upon request.

 

[jdogmoney]

The problem is the same as all the others. It omits God. That is the science communities right, but that does not mean that it is unscientific to consider God.

Yes it is.

Science is observable.

God is not.

Science is testable.

God is not.

The results of those tests are repeatable.

God is not.

Science is concerned only with the naturalistic universe.

God is not.

Science is proven to work.

Spoiler

We dunno.

 

[Mario]

I honestly don't know why it's hard to understand (Actually that's not true, but that's another discussion) and the fact that you called me a troll makes me suspect of your reading my words to begin with, but letting bygones be bygones

Well, I appreciate you putting forward straightforward answers, and hopefully for answering my following questions (feel free to ask further questions of your own).

It's a credible source to discuss abiogenesis and evolution. It's probably the best one online which is why it's amusing that people link to it like I've never heard of it. It's only been mentioned in every evolution subject ever existing!

The problem is the same as all the others. It omits God. That is the science communities right, but that does not mean that it is unscientific to consider God.

It is unscientific to consider God when the case for God cannot be framed in terms of the scientific method. As pointed out by jdogmoney above, God cannot be subjected to the combination of hypothesis, observation, repeatable testing, prediction, and independent verification.

To get more specific about it with respect to evolution, Creationist claims are also unable to be put forward in a way which makes them approachable by science. Creationist claims are usually put forward as attacks on aspects of evolutionary theory (e.g. irreducable complexity, symbiotic relationships etc), looking for a chink in the armour, rather than proposing a standalone, alternative, scientific "Creationist Theory" which itself could be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

As it happens, God is not included in the Theory of Evolution because God is not necessary for it to be complete or for the evolutionary process itself to function.

That doesn't mean in and of itself that God doesn't exist, God didn't create humankind, and God isn't a guiding hand in evolution etc. However, invoking God is not necessary for explaining the diversity and complexity of life because the Theory of Evolution on it's own is sufficient scientifically (the existance of life being a seperate issue).

To summarise and boil this down to the simplest point, while the Theory of Evolution does not disprove God, it eliminates the necessity for God to be involved in evolution and the resultant diversity and complexity of life.

The references are used to refer to the points that Talk Origins bring up, so they are as credible as the web site correct?

I'd actually suggest it is the other way around as the scientific papers have been subjected to more formal scrutiny and peer review (though it could be argued that the volume of traffic of TalkOrigins has honed the content of the site and weeded out errors).

If you consider both the website and the referenced scientific papers credible, then do you agree that there are dozens of observed instances where speciation has occured?

It basically boils down to kinds becoming different kinds. It does not happen on the mass scale required to explain the variety of life on earth.

If the scientific papers referenced on TalkOrigins are credible, then we have witnessed at least some instances of speciation.

If you agree speciation can occur naturally, do you believe it is limited to small or compartmentalised changes and on a small scale? If so, why?

Who knows?:lol

I made that hypothetical up in 10 seconds. It took longer to write the disclosure!

However, maybe the same process that straught up godless intervention claims.

So, God might do something like alter the genetic makeup of a "land dwelling manatee" to proactively adapt it towards being a "sea based manatee"?

You suggest that natural processes might be able to do the same thing, but consider the chance of this happening being so small as to be considered a "miracle". Do you therefore agree then that there is a chance (which you consider very small) that such adaption could occur naturally?

Like I wrote to Kinitari, I'm starting to think this is an issue regarding blanket statements. If it can be proven I can believe it. If it can't be proven, I tend to not believe.

You suggested above that you consider the scientific papers referenced on TalkOrigins were a credible source. Do you not consider them proof that speciation occurs?

If not, what would you consider sufficient proof to the point where you would believe it?

Further, I tend toward it being impossible because it can't be duplicated or observed. I am aware of the little fish in the lake and maybe by some miracle a fish became an amphibian over millions of little changes (That haven't been proven), but that would not be repeated over and over again to the tune of millions. It's impossible until it's possible.

Given the geographic expanse of the Earth combined with the variety of terrain, weather and climate, would you agree that there are at least hundreds of different pockets of life like the fish in the lake where changes could be happening independently?

However, even then, it doesn't disprove God does it? Why should it?

As mentioned above, the Theory of Evolution in particular doesn't disprove God, but it is self contained without invoking God as an explanation for the diveristy and complexity of life.

 

[Nocebo]

I admitted no such thing and you're stretching things. I said you were wrong to think that just because science states it, does not make it so.

Even if it wasn't so, science DOES state it. Your claim was that genesis didn't conflict with science. However even if science were wrong (which for the record it is not), you would be wrong in your claim. Would you not?

you are correct- Genesis does not jibe with science.

If I am correct then you would be wrong and this is your admission.

Further I don't even hear science doing that - only you.

No wonder you're confused. You must not be reading or listening a lot of science related material.
Just 2 easily found examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pItVGYa863k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
It's so obvious that science accepts common ancestry in evolution that I'm thinking you might mean something else. What exactly are you getting at?

Now if science actually becomes so arrogant to claim that what is hypotheisized = truth, then it is in disagreement with Genesis. that has not happened except in your imagination.

What's with the ad hominem? Also speciation is not a hypothesis.

edit:
Another clip from the earlier Ken Miller video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY
This man is religious by the way.

More about whale evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2C-3PjNGok&feature=related

Giraffe evolution *Caution for the squeemish: They dissect a giraffe (and play around with the organs)*:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUlx0LVzeP0
They don't seem to get deeper into the evolution until part 3 tho but it's interesting series overall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tos50Wx41p4&feature=related

Just adding more occasionally just because:
Flightless cormorant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e5cs0PtuA4
Their wings are smaller than other cormorants. Can't you see how over an even longer period other features could change such that it could resemble something like say a penguin or whatever? There are tons of other examples of vestigial organs that support evolution. Why do we have a tailbone (in rare cases babies even grow a tail!)? Why is our jaw too small for all our teeth? Why do we grow thick hair on our backs as babies inside the womb and then lose it? Why is our respiratory system connected to our ingestive system? Why do we have an appendix? etc.

 

[JGS]

Yes it is.

Science is observable.

God is not.

Science is testable.

God is not.

The results of those tests are repeatable.

God is not.

Science is concerned only with the naturalistic universe.

God is not.

Science is proven to work.

Spoiler

We dunno.

That's silly. You're saying that if it isn't observable, then it isn't science. There have been plenty of things science hasn't observed. Are you saying it becomes science only when science acknowledge it?

Again, I couldn't care less what science as a field does, but you do not have the ability to say that I can't believe in god and like science. How stupid is that to even say?

 

[JGS]

Even if it wasn't so, science DOES state it. Your claim was that genesis didn't conflict with science. However even if science were wrong (which for the record it is not), you would be wrong in your claim. Would you not?
If I am correct then you would be wrong and this is your admission.

I have brought this up a few times already. The fact that some aspects of anything exists does not mean that it works with everything unless you're telling me that it has to. If dso, I disagree.

No wonder you're confused. You must not be reading or listening a lot of science related material.
Just 2 easily found examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pItVGYa863k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
It's so obvious that science accepts common ancestry in evolution that I'm thinking you might mean something else. What exactly are you getting at?

You're fairly confused about what I was saying. Science does not make up stuff as fact and then pronounce it fact. That's why things are explained in terms such as theory (I know what theiry means too, but I know that's not going to stop someone from explaining it to me). What science does not prove, it cannot state as fact. Why os that difficult to grasp? Further why would it be difficult to grasp the idea that a dispute a non-fact fact?
What's with the ad hominem? Also speciation is not a hypothesis.

edit:
Another clip from the earlier Ken Miller video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY
This man is religious by the way.

More about whale evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2C-3PjNGok&feature=related

Giraffe evolution *Caution for the squeemish: They dissect a giraffe (and play around with the organs)*:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUlx0LVzeP0
They don't seem to get deeper into the evolution until part 3 tho but it's interesting series overall:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tos50Wx41p4&feature=related

Just adding more occasionally just because:
Flightless cormorant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e5cs0PtuA4
Their wings are smaller than other cormorants. Can't you see how over an even longer period other features could change such that it could resemble something like say a penguin or whatever? There are tons of other examples of vestigial organs that support evolution. Why do we have a tailbone (in rare cases babies even grow a tail!)? Why is our jaw too small for all our teeth? Why do we grow thick hair on our backs as babies inside the womb and then lose it? Why is our respiratory system connected to our ingestive system? Why do we have an appendix? etc.

You are still thinking I don't believe in evolution? Really?

Did I say anything about doubting transistional fossils? Really?

It again must come down to accepting something all or nothing because that is how a lot of brains around here are functioning. If one piece is happening, then the other must be happening. I don't believe this to be the case. That's all.

 

[JGS]

Well, I appreciate you putting forward straightforward answers, and hopefully for answering my following questions (feel free to ask further questions of your own).




It is unscientific to consider God when the case for God cannot be framed in terms of the scientific method. As pointed out by jdogmoney above, God cannot be subjected to the combination of hypothesis, observation, repeatable testing, prediction, and independent verification.

To get more specific about it with respect to evolution, Creationist claims are also unable to be put forward in a way which makes them approachable by science. Creationist claims are usually put forward as attacks on aspects of evolutionary theory (e.g. irreducable complexity, symbiotic relationships etc), looking for a chink in the armour, rather than proposing a standalone, alternative, scientific "Creationist Theory" which itself could be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

As it happens, God is not included in the Theory of Evolution because God is not necessary for it to be complete or for the evolutionary process itself to function.

That doesn't mean in and of itself that God doesn't exist, God didn't create humankind, and God isn't a guiding hand in evolution etc. However, invoking God is not necessary for explaining the diversity and complexity of life because the Theory of Evolution on it's own is sufficient scientifically (the existance of life being a seperate issue).

To summarise and boil this down to the simplest point, while the Theory of Evolution does not disprove God, it eliminates the necessity for God to be involved in evolution and the resultant diversity and complexity of life.




I'd actually suggest it is the other way around as the scientific papers have been subjected to more formal scrutiny and peer review (though it could be argued that the volume of traffic of TalkOrigins has honed the content of the site and weeded out errors).

If you consider both the website and the referenced scientific papers credible, then do you agree that there are dozens of observed instances where speciation has occured?




If the scientific papers referenced on TalkOrigins are credible, then we have witnessed at least some instances of speciation.

If you agree speciation can occur naturally, do you believe it is limited to small or compartmentalised changes and on a small scale? If so, why?




So, God might do something like alter the genetic makeup of a "land dwelling manatee" to proactively adapt it towards being a "sea based manatee"?

You suggest that natural processes might be able to do the same thing, but consider the chance of this happening being so small as to be considered a "miracle". Do you therefore agree then that there is a chance (which you consider very small) that such adaption could occur naturally?




You suggested above that you consider the scientific papers referenced on TalkOrigins were a credible source. Do you not consider them proof that speciation occurs?

If not, what would you consider sufficient proof to the point where you would believe it?




Given the geographic expanse of the Earth combined with the variety of terrain, weather and climate, would you agree that there are at least hundreds of different pockets of life like the fish in the lake where changes could be happening independently?




As mentioned above, the Theory of Evolution in particular doesn't disprove God, but it is self contained without invoking God as an explanation for the diveristy and complexity of life.

I have to get ready for work, but this is getting more complicated then necessary. It's my fault as everything I'm saying is interpreted into the big large strokes, but I'll try again:

I'm not asking the science world to do anything! They have been functioning just fine for all these years without any demands from me. Heck I even like science believe it or not- probably not!

When I say God is ommitted, I'm saying that not only is he not be considered (I get that he can't be), but he is dismissed as something to even believe in. I'm saying that whether Genesis is a fine explanation of how life got here or if it's allegory, or if Gaea was the one who created everything (Creation transcends a religion), it is not reasonable or rational to expect people to not fall to the concept that creation is a viable option even if it's bigger than what the science field can study/observe.

So science will often take the approach of "If this happened in this case then it could happen in this other case and thus it probably did happen in all cases" which I don't adhere to. Honestly I don't have to until all the other cases are proven. However, it still would not change my belief in God one iota, nor should it.

What I don't like is the idea that people show me "proofs" and then expect me to give up my beliefs when there's no reason to do so. It's not hurting anyone even if I viewed Genesis as a creationist does rather than my "liberal" interpretation.

 

[Nocebo]

I have brought this up a few times already. The fact that some aspects of anything exists does not mean that it works with everything unless you're telling me that it has to. If dso, I disagree.

No, I was telling you that your statement that "genesis does not conflict with science" is wrong. How many times do I have to say this? Even if what science accepts is wrong, it is in conflict with genesis and thus making your claim false. Agreed?

Did I say anything about doubting transistional fossils? Really?

Yes, implicitly you did. You said one species could not branch off into another species and said there was no evidence for it. You even laughed at fossils being proof of anything?

It again must come down to accepting something all or nothing because that is how a lot of brains around here are functioning. If one piece is happening, then the other must be happening. I don't believe this to be the case. That's all.

What do you mean by this? You don't have to accept it. However science does, that's the purpose of the videos. They clearly show that scientists accept that species branch off into other species over time. Isn't that the issue you were having? This being true science does indeed conflict with genesis.

Are you implying that since translational forms haven't been found for 100% of all living things that it somehow lends credence to anything in genesis?

Genesis doesn't even mention flying insects. Where did they come from then? And again genesis doesn't stroke with geology and astronomy either! Even if it was in accordance with evolution somehow (which it's not) you still have your work cut out for you if you wanted to believe it's in line with other scientific studies.

 

[Chaplain]

Holy Wars
Genre: Documentary
Director:Stephen Marshall
Cast:Aaron Taylor, Khalid Kelly

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/holywars/

Holy Wars is about two men with two different ideologies, both deeply rooted in fundamentalism - Christianity and Islam. The film follows Aaron Taylor, an evangelical Christian Missionary from the Bible Belt, and Khalid Kelly, an extremist Muslim Irish convert living in London. Both men believe that an apocalypse is inevitable, after which their religion will rule the world. Over the course of tracking their lives from the inception of the “War on Terror” through the election of Barack Obama, one of the men goes to the darkness of uncompromised hate, the other towards the light of a better understanding. Holy Wars is an extraordinary, thought provoking portrait of two radical believers who are transformed by events in our changing world.

 

[JGS]

No, I was telling you that your statement that "genesis does not conflict with science" is wrong. How many times do I have to say this? Even if what science accepts is wrong, it is in conflict with genesis and thus making your claim false. Agreed?

You've said that abunch of times. I get it. Now what?

Yes, implicitly you did. You said one species could not branch off into another species and said there was no evidence for it. You even laughed at fossils being proof of anything?

That's true. However, I'm not doubting the fossil record itself. Sorry for the confusion. However, your links don't offer proof of of my dispute with it and I looked at them.

What do you mean by this? You don't have to accept it. However science does, that's the purpose of the videos. They clearly show that scientists accept that species branch off into other species over time. Isn't that the issue you were having? This being true science does indeed conflict with genesis.

Are you implying that since translational forms haven't been found for 100% of all living things that it somehow lends credence to anything in genesis?

That's not true. Science have to accept anything that not proven or true. It can accept things based on it wants, but it cannot accept something not a fact as fact. Otherwise, science is just faith in a lab coat.

Genesis doesn't even mention flying insects. Where did they come from then? And again genesis doesn't stroke with geology and astronomy either! Even if it was in accordance with evolution somehow (which it's not) you still have your work cut out for you if you wanted to believe it's in line with other scientific studies.

Serious question, are you thinking that Genesis chapters 1-3 is designed to be a science book and thus worthy of disproving?

To me, you're looking at it from a scientist's perspective when the writer never claimed such a thorough scientific knowledge. Insects (or viruses, bacteria, etc...) did not interest the writer and, assuming he was ispired by God, it was not germaine to what led up to the creation of man and preparing the earth for him- anymore than the exact order of creation mattered when the days are clearly (Even from an atheist/creationist view) done in the form of groupings.

The argument is moot anyway unless you're saying that because Genesis didn't mention it, then the writer did not think they existed which is silly. He was probably swatting flies with the scroll he was writing on!

EDIT: Also, there is nothing wrong with the geology and astronomy parts, but the insect one was a little more off kilter so I focused on it.

 

[Kinitari]

I have to get ready for work, but this is getting more complicated then necessary. It's my fault as everything I'm saying is interpreted into the big large strokes, but I'll try again:

I'm not asking the science world to do anything! They have been functioning just fine for all these years without any demands from me. Heck I even like science believe it or not- probably not!

You'll have to forgive people, it seems like you don't understand certain parts of the Science we are talking about, or don't believe rather - so the geeks we are, we just want to find out what needs to happen for you to understand/believe.

When I say God is ommitted, I'm saying that not only is he not be considered (I get that he can't be), but he is dismissed as something to even believe in. I'm saying that whether Genesis is a fine explanation of how life got here or if it's allegory, or if Gaea was the one who created everything (Creation transcends a religion), it is not reasonable or rational to expect people to not fall to the concept that creation is a viable option even if it's bigger than what the science field can study/observe.

A good Scientist talking about something like... Evolution wouldn't even bring up God - he himself might believe or not believe, but it wouldn't matter in the discussion. It's not that God is omitted because the Scientist doesn't want people believing in God, it's because it has nothing to do with the subject. People are allowed to believe whatever they want, and sure there will be people who make fun of/laugh/laud people because of it - but that's not really in anyones power to change. To clarify though, I understand what you are trying to say (that religious people who believe shouldn't just stop believing because Science can't verify their beliefs) and I don't think any good Scientist is going to argue that.

At most, you might need to come to grips with the idea that the Science you thought was there that supported your claims probably isn't. That the Science you thought didn't exist that contradicted your claims fully exists. Maybe Science isn't as compatible with your belief system as you think it is. And maybe you need to start admitting that to yourself, either come to grips with the Science and change your beliefs so it aligns or continue to dismiss the Science not because of it's merits (or lack there of) but because you really just don't want it to be true.

So science will often take the approach of "If this happened in this case then it could happen in this other case and thus it probably did happen in all cases" which I don't adhere to. Honestly I don't have to until all the other cases are proven. However, it still would not change my belief in God one iota, nor should it.

I am a bit worried you still don't understand Speciation - it's not a single mutation that happens simultaneously among an entire population. Let me write a quick example:

There is a small mammal, let's say otter-like, lives near fresh water areas and eats plants. A magical hand grabs 10 thousand of them and puts them on an ocean beach, with a small stream/river pouring out - cliffs around the area prevent these little animals moving back to any sort of habitat that is better suited for them, or rejoin their brethren - in other words, they're stuck here.

Well now these otter things are going to struggle to survive, the fresh water plants that they normally eat aren't plentiful, and the salt water - while manageable, is very uncomfortable for them.

I won't go into the entire evolution fairy tale story, but maybe just one of these otters gains the ability to survive off of the seaweed that washes up on the beach, this guy is going to have it easy in life, and can invest a lot more time into banging chicks. He has a lot of babies and lets say half of them carry on this trait. Happy ending, his line is safe and doesn't die off (like a lot of the otters already have). Later on another non-seaweed eating otter starts to have less problems with saltwater - this is helpful because now he can move further out into the sea and eat some of the smaller fish and other plants that live there. He sexes up lots of ladies and half his brood can do the same. Another dude evolves feet better suited for running across sand, and now other animals have a lot more difficult time catching and eating him, he survives and gets to bang a lot as well. Eventually all that is left are these three evolved otters, and they bang amongst themselves and now we have otters than can run great on sand, eat sea weed and swim in salt water.

All of a sudden, one of the cliff walls collapse and there is now a path back to the lakes and the rivers, some of these otters are reintroduced to their long lost brethren. Problem is - they can't mate anymore. See, these trifecta evolved otters have too many genetic differences, the eggs wont take. Had the otters been reintroduced earlier, it would have been okay - if it was the otters that could JUST run across sand easier, or JUST digest sea weed, they would be similar enough to breed - those only were a few genetic differences. But all three at once just made it impossible to bridge the gap, and now forevermore, these two otters are separated. Speciation has occured.

Mind you this is a simplification, but hopefully it helps with your understanding of the process.

What I don't like is the idea that people show me "proofs" and then expect me to give up my beliefs when there's no reason to do so. It's not hurting anyone even if I viewed Genesis as a creationist does rather than my "liberal" interpretation.

No one expects you to stop believing in God, especially in this thread - believe me. But, it would be nice if you could acknowledge facts and not dismiss Science Just Cause (2).

 

[jdogmoney]

That's silly. You're saying that if it isn't observable, then it isn't science.

Pretty much, yeah.

Again, I couldn't care less what science as a field does, but you do not have the ability to say that I can't believe in god and like science. How stupid is that to even say?

Remember when we were talking about what constitutes a strawman argument? This would be a mild example.

I didn't say that. I said God is not scientific. Of course God isn't scientific! He's God! By definition, he exists outside the realm of human comprehension.

You can believe in God, that's fine. No one is going to try to dissuade you from that. But! "God did it" isn't a valid scientific hypothesis. You can believe "God did it", but there's no way to test for that, and so we try to figure out the particulars. Even if "God did it", we want to try to figure out exactly how.

God is many things, but scientific is not one of them.

~~~

Say, that Holy Wars trailer looks interesting, don't it?

(YouTube link.)

Might just be because I'm a fan of any Irish accent...shame I live nowhere near LA or NY...

 

[gerg]

That's silly. You're saying that if it isn't observable, then it isn't science.

It's not silly - it's part of what the definition of "science" is. Science is about the study of empirically verifiable matters. Discussion of religion and the concept of God is general is "theology", because the existence of a deity that exists outside of space and time is by definition outside our empirical access. Specific claims of God's interaction with the empirical world may be the subject of more targeted specific enquiry, but even then it is debatable about how those claims would interact with the scientific method.

There have been plenty of things science hasn't observed. Are you saying it becomes science only when science acknowledge it?

You're conflating "science" with "truth". Of course, plenty of things, such as theology, are certainly worth discussing and taking seriously. But being against defining some things as "science" and some other matters as "not science" (such as philosophy, or theology) is like being annoyed when people distinguish between a "table" and a "chair".

Again, I couldn't care less what science as a field does, but you do not have the ability to say that I can't believe in god and like science. How stupid is that to even say?

Well, it depends on what you think is essential to the definition of study. Lots of people can explore the world via the scientific method; whether or not an element of naturalism is necessary to that definition is debatable.

 

[JGS]

It's not silly - it's part of what the definition of "science" is. Science is about the study of empirically verifiable matters. Discussion of religion and the concept of God is general is "theology", because the existence of a deity that exists outside of space and time is by definition outside our empirical access. Specific claims of God's interaction with the empirical world may be the subject of more targeted specific enquiry, but even then it is debatable about how those claims would interact with the scientific method.

But wouldn't that mean that science didn't exist until scientists did correct? I'm trying to wrap my head around this.

You're conflating "science" with "truth".

Got it. So the fact that I think God is truth even if he is not science shouldn't have any conflict correct?

Well, it depends on what you think is essential to the definition of study. Lots of people can explore the world via the scientific method; whether or not an element of naturalism is necessary to that definition is debatable.

All I'm saying is that I like science, I like truth, and I like God and it is not nearly as much an oil and water mix as is being painted. I see it as more peas and carrots.

 

[JGS]

Pretty much, yeah.

Per Gerg, I get the science part now.

However, just because it isn't science doesn't mean it isn't truth. Phew!

 

[Blergmeister]

When I say God is ommitted, I'm saying that not only is he not be considered (I get that he can't be), but he is dismissed as something to even believe in. I'm saying that whether Genesis is a fine explanation of how life got here or if it's allegory, or if Gaea was the one who created everything (Creation transcends a religion), it is not reasonable or rational to expect people to not fall to the concept that creation is a viable option even if it's bigger than what the science field can study/observe.

1st Bold: Science isn't the one that is dismissing God here. People are dismissing God and are pointing to scientific claims as to why they think God should be dismissed, or at least dismissed from causing what the scientific claim... claims.

I know you don't believe in all of evolution but, for kicks, lets say that it was proven 100% true for your standards. You would then point to evolution as a reason that God was not involved in creating the animals as is (not getting into guiding hand and stuff, just using an example over a recent topic.) People then try to further extrapolate from there that God doesn't exist, but that would be putting words in a lot of peoples mouths. Point is that people are dismissing God.

2nd Bold: What I find unreasonable is that people find creationism as a reasonable scientific alternative to evolution because it is not. It does not fit the criteria for a scientific theory and therefore shouldn't be considered as such.

Think of scientific theory as a chili and a chili contest. Then someone brings in egg salad (creationism), tries to enter it, and then gets rejected. The egg salad guy says he should be allowed in because egg salad fills up your belly too, and the chili contestants respond by saying I know that it does but it is still not a chili. But then the egg salad guy pays the chili officials and they let him in, and now the chili contestants are worried that he might win because he paid the officials. Also, the officials are politicians. That is why people are fighting so hard against creationism in science classes.

Well, I didn't expect to come to all of that when I started typing... what point was I trying to make again?

So science will often take the approach of "If this happened in this case then it could happen in this other case and thus it probably did happen in all cases" which I don't adhere to. Honestly I don't have to until all the other cases are proven. However, it still would not change my belief in God one iota, nor should it.

One of the main tennants of being a scientific theory is that it can be used to predict things. Then people will use that theory to predict whatever they can using it, until it is shown that it is predicting incorrectly. Then that theory is thrown out and replaced with a new one (that in most cases ends up being a very similar theory with the addition of what it couldn't predict correctly, why, and how to predict that.)

Also, you might want to reconsider your last sentance. It contradicts what you were posting earlier about basing your beliefs off of evidence and will change accordingly.

What I don't like is the idea that people show me "proofs" and then expect me to give up my beliefs when there's no reason to do so. It's not hurting anyone even if I viewed Genesis as a creationist does rather than my "liberal" interpretation.

Fine with me as long as you don't start calling the currennt science explanation wrong and expecting scient to change to yours without forming a scientific formula (that fits all criteria as such) that explains the begining of the Earth, cosmos, etc.

 

[gerg]

But wouldn't that mean that science didn't exist until scientists did correct? I'm trying to wrap my head around this.

Welcome to philosophy.

One argument says that, no, the concept of "science" (such as other concepts, like "beauty", and so on) wouldn't exist without a human mind that also exists to appreciate and understand it.

Another argument would be that these concepts would always exist, irrespective of whether or not there is someone around to be aware of them.

Got it. So the fact that I think God is truth even if he is not science shouldn't have any conflict correct?

See below.

All I'm saying is that I like science, I like truth, and I like God and it is not nearly as much an oil and water mix as is being painted. I see it as more peas and carrots.

It depends on how far your claims go. In general, a good rule of thumb would probably be that the more deist you are the more your scientific and theological claims can co-exist. There are certainly limits to scientific enquiry, and these lie with areas of investigation which (by definition) cannot be done empirically: a good example of this is the creation of the universe (that which came before the Big Bang), and, for now at least, abiogenesis. (No matter how much science may and most likely will prove that abiogenesis is possible it isn't able to prove that it happened in the Earth's history.)

When people argue with your claims regarding evolution, it is probably from both a scientific and a philosophical perspective. Some of it seems to relate to your understanding of the theory in general, and whether or not you think it adequately explains the origin of man. Some of it relates to other areas of your argument - although I admit that I have not been following the discussion closely enough to pinpoint those specific areas - and would probably lie closer with philosophy: these would include any claims as to "the purpose" of man's existence (and whether or not such purpose exists) and whether or not God's existence is necessary to explain man's origins. If it is not, then there is little compelling reason to believe in it.

---

The problem I would have with your specific reading of Genesis is that, by making the interpretations that you have done, it seems to actually undermine the text itself as the first source of knowledge about how, specifically, the universe was created. If the use of "days" cannot be understood to exist in a chronological order (which would suggest that the stars were created after plants were created, a statement with which you would disagree), why is it that we need to accept that man was created last? Could it not be that Adam was God's first creation? If the order presented in the text is to be ignored, then how is that order to be decided?

 

[JGS]

You'll have to forgive people, it seems like you don't understand certain parts of the Science we are talking about, or don't believe rather - so the geeks we are, we just want to find out what needs to happen for you to understand/believe.

I never said I understood it all. You (Not you personally) then assumed that I did even though I was willingly acknowledging exceptions without acknowledging the whole which is what I'm still doing

A good Scientist talking about something like... Evolution wouldn't even bring up God - he himself might believe or not believe, but it wouldn't matter in the discussion. It's not that God is omitted because the Scientist doesn't want people believing in God, it's because it has nothing to do with the subject. People are allowed to believe whatever they want, and sure there will be people who make fun of/laugh/laud people because of it - but that's not really in anyones power to change. To clarify though, I understand what you are trying to say (that religious people who believe shouldn't just stop believing because Science can't verify their beliefs) and I don't think any good Scientist is going to argue that.

I get that and I'm not requiring him to. I'm saying that anything I view, whether discussing literature, morals, history, whatever really involves God in it because that is a part of my beliefs. Science more and more is simply being segmented into a particular area of study. If it can't explain it all, then why argue it against religious belief or creation for that matter?

At most, you might need to come to grips with the idea that the Science you thought was there that supported your claims probably isn't. That the Science you thought didn't exist that contradicted your claims fully exists. Maybe Science isn't as compatible with your belief system as you think it is. And maybe you need to start admitting that to yourself, either come to grips with the Science and change your beliefs so it aligns or continue to dismiss the Science not because of it's merits (or lack there of) but because you really just don't want it to be true.

From what ones are saying, it doesn't need to be supported for my claims to be true does it? Science is still very compatible with my belief system and further science may be incompatible with some of it's observances still. That hasbn't changed. This is really just about clarity and nothing you said has anything to do with God not existing or even Genesis being out of harmony with observance.

Even when the definition of science was explained better to me, it only helped solidify the possibility of creation being true if not scientific. I call that being back to square one which I'm fine with.

I am a bit worried you still don't understand Speciation - it's not a single mutation that happens simultaneously among an entire population. Let me write a quick example:

There is a small mammal, let's say otter-like, lives near fresh water areas and eats plants. A magical hand grabs 10 thousand of them and puts them on an ocean beach, with a small stream/river pouring out - cliffs around the area prevent these little animals moving back to any sort of habitat that is better suited for them, or rejoin their brethren - in other words, they're stuck here.

Well now these otter things are going to struggle to survive, the fresh water plants that they normally eat aren't plentiful, and the salt water - while manageable, is very uncomfortable for them.

I won't go into the entire evolution fairy tale story, but maybe just one of these otters gains the ability to survive off of the seaweed that washes up on the beach, this guy is going to have it easy in life, and can invest a lot more time into banging chicks. He has a lot of babies and lets say half of them carry on this trait. Happy ending, his line is safe and doesn't die off (like a lot of the otters already have). Later on another non-seaweed eating otter starts to have less problems with saltwater - this is helpful because now he can move further out into the sea and eat some of the smaller fish and other plants that live there. He sexes up lots of ladies and half his brood can do the same. Another dude evolves feet better suited for running across sand, and now other animals have a lot more difficult time catching and eating him, he survives and gets to bang a lot as well. Eventually all that is left are these three evolved otters, and they bang amongst themselves and now we have otters than can run great on sand, eat sea weed and swim in salt water.

All of a sudden, one of the cliff walls collapse and there is now a path back to the lakes and the rivers, some of these otters are reintroduced to their long lost brethren. Problem is - they can't mate anymore. See, these trifecta evolved otters have too many genetic differences, the eggs wont take. Had the otters been reintroduced earlier, it would have been okay - if it was the otters that could JUST run across sand easier, or JUST digest sea weed, they would be similar enough to breed - those only were a few genetic differences. But all three at once just made it impossible to bridge the gap, and now forevermore, these two otters are separated. Speciation has occured.

Mind you this is a simplification, but hopefully it helps with your understanding of the process.

I undrstand it it's just that you are framing a particular species and applying that to all that has happened over millions of years (maybe). I'm saying there is no way that science can verify it all and it hasn't.

Your example is about one species accomplishing an unlikely survival scenario. You now have to multiply that by millions of scenarios plus explain why the things they evolved from did not survive the trip when they were perfectly capable to do so. This in turn creates more fairy tale scenarios.

No one expects you to stop believing in God, especially in this thread - believe me. But, it would be nice if you could acknowledge facts and not dismiss Science Just Cause (2).

This is a difference of perspective which is why it's best to just talking stopping about it. I'm not denying science at all much less with the reason just cuz.

I have not dismissed science. I'm sick of hearing that. The only reason I am accused of dismissing science is because I believe creation. I will admit to a misunderstanding of science's purpose, but again that has little to do with what my beliefs are and in now way disrepects scientific thought.

The whole thread started on the basis of believing the Genesis account not me dismissing science. I've made it very clear my reason for accepting genesis' account. I then get that I'm wrong in my view of it and even then I'm wrong based on facts not proven. So, yeah, I do think it's all tied to my belief.

 

[Blergmeister]

Even when the definition of science was explained better to me, it only helped solidify the possibility of creation being true if not scientific. I call that being back to square one which I'm fine with.

Could you elaborate further on this point. Specifically I'm asking for you to give the definition of science as you understand it and how having that better refined reinforced your belief. I would guess how you realized that science didn't cover somthing or another that you thought it did and that made you realize where it is perfectly fine for faith to come in? I'm asking because I find this idea interesting and would like to hear more about it.

 

[Kinitari]

I undrstand it it's just that you are framing a particular species' and applying that to all that has happened over millions of years (maybe). I'm saying there is no way that science can verify it all and it hasn't.

So the only way you'd believe it is if Science verified every single species evolutionary trail? That is entirely unreasonable, it's like you're asking for something impossible for no reason.

1. I can give you examples of Speciation that has occurred during our time period, we have documented evidence - and you seem to acknowledge this.

2. I can show you through fossil evidence how the same process we see with our own two eyes has occurred in the past, you can see it in DNA evidence as well. You can see it in fetal-formation! But this is not good enough because we can't see it right now (even after that awesome bird example I gave you). The irony of this is astounding, you obviously hold Science at a higher standard than Religion.

3. Are you saying that if we show you right now that when you drop rocks off cliffs, they'll fall at a formulated speed - you'd believe us. But if we told you that rocks/meteors would have fallen at similar speeds 50million years ago, and show you this through crater evidence, you would not believe me? Because this is pretty much the exact same thing that's happening right now.

Your example is about one species accomplishing an unlikely survival scenario. You now have to multiply that by millions of scenarios plus explain why the things they evolved from did not survive the trip when they were perfectly capable to do so. This in turn creates more fairy tale scenarios.

To touch on your first bold - do you know how many of all species of animals are currently alive on this planet? As far as I remember, it's something like 1%. 99% of all species have gone extinct - it is unlikely, but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen - that would be impossible.

I am not sure what you mean by the second bold, I assume you mean that the ancestors that lived in the lakes? Sometimes they do survive the trip, and they go through their own changes - sometimes they don't. This is when branching off happens in Evolution. If you mean the original group of otters that went to the sea that didn't evolve awesome traits - sure some survived off of the little stream - but their inferior genes were quickly upscaled by breeding with the mutated otters.

This is a difference of perspective which is why it's best to just talking stopping about it. I'm not denying science at all much less with the reason just cuz.

I have not dismissed science. I'm sick of hearing that. The only reason I am accused of dismissing science is because I believe creation. I will admit to a misunderstanding of science's purpose, but again that has little to do with what my beliefs are and in now way disrepects scientific thought.

The whole thread started on the basis of believing the Genesis account not me dismissing science. I've made it very clear my reason for accepting genesis' account. I then get that I'm wrong in my view of it and even then I'm wrong based on facts not proven. So, yeah, I do think it's all tied to my belief.

1st bold - The reason I am accusing you of dismissing Science is because of your irrational dismissal of speciation - we've shown you a plethora of evidence, a lot lot of evidence. There is absolutely no reason to believe it doesn't happen, in fact everything we observe today aligns very nicely with the idea of speciation. Heck you even acknowledge that evolution happens, but you use made up non-scientific terms like "macro" and "micro" evolution. In essence, yes you are dismissing science, and you are using creationist fud to refute it. It's very very frustrating.

2nd bold - if I told you that today, water boils at 100' celcius and freezes at 0' - would you believe me? Now if I told you water did the same thing 100,000 years ago - would you believe me?

 

[Mario]

The thread has seen a bunch of activity since my last post, so I'll just respond to this

But wouldn't that mean that science didn't exist until scientists did correct? I'm trying to wrap my head around this.

Modern science uses what is called the "scientific method" which is a process for hypothesis, investigation, and verification that has developed over time.

The development of this process can be seen at this link

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


You'll note that while observations, experiements and logic have been in use for thousands of years, it wasn't until around the 1600s when additional aspects such as formal experimental evidence, repeatability, peer review/independent verification, and hypothesis/prediction were layered into the process.

So, "science", investigation, and discovery have been around for thousands of years. But it is only in the last few hundred years that a robust and more rigorous process has been established - the "scientific method" which "modern science" is based on.


Reading the scientific method Wiki page might help clarify what science is and is not. That page also briefly covers "truth vs belief" which is also relevant to the discussion.

 

[Chaplain]

I want some thoughts on a statement Jenova Chen (creative director, Thatgamecompany) made in the new Gamepro (page 27). I will quote part of the article in its context:

One of Chen's earliest influences for imbuing Journey with a sense of "smallness" was a chance meeting with decorated marine veteran and deputy NASA administrator Charles Bolden Jr. Over lunch the two discussed Bolden's journey into space, and the transformation astronauts sometimes go through while on missions into the great unknown.

"Bolden traveled into orbit four times, and he told me a story about the mission specialists he's traveled with who've stepped out onto the moon," Chen explains, "All these specialists are scientists, and most scientists are atheists, but he noticed that after they came back they became very spiritual or religious."

 

[Kinitari]

I want some thoughts on a statement Jenova Chen (creative director, Thatgamecompany) made in the new Gamepro (page 27). I will quote part of the article in its context:

First I will acknowledge it does happen, Scientists can be religious. And yeah sometimes when faced with something as... tremendous as walking on the moon, people fall back onto spirituality and God. I also think it's kind of silly, but I've never been in their position so I can't really tell you what I'd do.

 

[AlteredBeast]

I think people in many extreme situations will fall back to religion and faith, even proclaimed athiests.

 

[JGS]

Welcome to philosophy.

One argument says that, no, the concept of "science" (such as other concepts, like "beauty", and so on) wouldn't exist without a human mind that also exists to appreciate and understand it.

Another argument would be that these concepts would always exist, irrespective of whether or not there is someone around to be aware of them.

So it's the whole tree making a noise when no ones around thing.


See below.

It depends on how far your claims go. In general, a good rule of thumb would probably be that the more deist you are the more your scientific and theological claims can co-exist. There are certainly limits to scientific enquiry, and these lie with areas of investigation which (by definition) cannot be done empirically: a good example of this is the creation of the universe (that which came before the Big Bang), and, for now at least, abiogenesis. (No matter how much science may and most likely will prove that abiogenesis is possible it won't be able to prove that it happened in the Earth's history.)

When people argue with your claims regarding evolution, it is probably from both a scientific and a philosophical perspective. Some of it seems to relate to your understanding of the theory in general, and whether or not you think it adequately explains the origin of man. Some of it relates to other areas of your argument - although I admit that I have not been following the discussion closely enough to pinpoint those specific areas - and would probably lie closer with philosophy: these would include any claims as to "the purpose" of man's existence (and whether or not such purpose exists) and whether or not God's existence is necessary to explain man's origins. If it is not, then there is little compelling reason to believe in it.

---

The problem I would have with your specific reading of Genesis is that, by making the interpretations that you have done, it seems to actually undermine the text itself as the first source of knowledge about how, specifically, the universe was created.

Nothing I've said indicates a dismissal of science although I question the hypothesis which I'm assuming I'm allowed to.

Havin a deist mentality would be a minimum for belief in creation but the Bible is not disproven by what science knows. However, it's not good enough for one seeking truth in worship, not just science. The Bible fits best for me and by extension genesis is perfectly acceptable considering the time and purpose of the explanations. In fact, it's amazing considering what the creation myths of the time were how close it does get things.

So my interpretation of Genesis does nothing to undermine stuff. I'm fine with you not agreeing with it, but it's not nearly as unusual an interpretation as one would think. The majority of the world including the western world thinks that life started by creation and the majority of those do not believe it occurred in a literal 7 days (I should say earth days I guess). I simply made the mistake of reconciling those and doing in a way that is not out of harmony with Scripture. I'll stick with it.

If the use of "days" cannot be understood to exist in a chronological order (which would suggest that the stars were created after plants were created, a statement with which you would disagree), why is it that we need to accept that man was created last? Could it not be that Adam was God's first creation? If the order presented in the text is to be ignored, then how is that order to be decided?

Even if you do it in chronological order, the stars are not created after plants unless you dissect that verse from the rest of the first chapter and I think I did a pretty good job of explaining that so I'll just requote:

Genesis 1:1 tells the order and it is not a part of the creative days meaning no timetable was ever placed on the universe or earth's creation.

The creatives days are used to explain the earth getting ready for life and ultimately man.

The creative days don't necessarily need to be in a consecutive order, but could be concurrent or overlapping. It seems pretty clear from the verses that the days are lumped together by function and particular groups. The days intentionally don't mix up the various groups.

Therefore, one day is discussing atmosphere and the sun and moon becoming visible (Not coming into existence as it can be assumed they are a part of the heavens and by their age this can be verified as well).

The creative days could have been
1. Consecutive
2. Concurrent
3. Overlapping with one period of creation starting on the tail end of another one.

I never made any factual statement regarding how the days were alligned as the Scriptures don't say. What I did say is that nothing contradicted how science plays it out. In other words, we weren't burped out of a giant tortoise or something. It simply explains that God created us rather than nothing.

Now regarding Adam, the elements of nature man needs to survive would need to be in place before his creation - air to breath, sun, vegetation, plus his home of Eden would be in existence as well, placing him toward the end of God's creations especially since he would be the most complex creation on brain function alone. God could then focus his attention on him and Adam could focus his attention on the earth.

From a literary viewpoint, it would make sense for the writer of Genesis to carry things out in this order with man being the finality of it. Like all good non-fiction & fiction books outside of the textbook world, narrative is important and the writer was talking to his audience, not to you and the way he explained things was fine for them. Actually it's fine for the majority of people not seeking a biology lesson. Even from a God inspired viewpoint, the focus God would have is on the idea of him being the creator of all life which Genesis explains quite nicely imo.

 

[Dever]

The way I see JGS arguing against evolution:

Yes, evolution does occur - but that doesn't prove that the ancestors of whales lived on land.
Yes, speciation can occur - but that doesn't prove that the ancestors of whales lived on land.
Yes, we have fossils that show the gradual change from a land dwelling creature into a water dwelling creature - but that doesn't prove that the ancestors of whales lived on land(They're just drawings).
Yes, genetic evidence shows a whale's DNA is very similiar to that of a hippo - but that doesn't prove that the ancestors of whales lived on land.

JGS, you're never going to get 'proof' that evolution is true. Science only deals with evidence, not proof. If you're comfortable accepting all the above facts but not concluding that the reason why hippos and whales seem genetically related is because they ARE related, I don't know what else to say.

Look, imagine for a second you've never heard of the Bible or God. Considering the evidence that all life is related, you conclude all life probably is related. Then someone tells you that all the evidence you've got doesn't conclusively prove that there isn't a supernatural being that made everything in nature appear as if it could've evolved from a common ancestor. Yes, it could be true but there's no point to pondering it anymore than there's a point in pondering whether the world was created five minutes ago with all our memories implanted in us.

 

[Dever]

Also, one more thing about Genesis... I won't do the sun/stars thing so you can't fall back to the "Well, that only tells us when the sun and the stars were revealed from the point of view of someone on Earth" excuse.

Instead, birds. I want you to acknowledge this. Genesis can't be an accurate description of this world's creation and be false at the same time. According to science, birds came much later than creatures in the sea. According to the Bible they appeared at pretty much the same time. This means that it is absolutely inescapable that one account is wrong. So which is it? You claim you don't dismiss science, but something like the appearance of birds after fish is as basic as it gets. If you say Genesis might've gotten it wrong, why would this be the case if the creator himself inspired the text? How many mistakes should we expect from a perfect being? What else did He get wrong? It frustrates me that you can just dismiss a clear mistake in Genesis and then go on about how amazingly close it gets. It might be close, but it's still wrong. I really want you to answer this for me. Why do Genesis and science differ on this matter, and if Genesis is wrong, why?

Say some guy comes to you and tells you he's God, and that he is omniscient. So to see if what he's saying is true, you ask him what the speed of light is. He tells you it's 300 000 000 m/s. Pretty close! But wouldn't an omniscient being know that it is actually 299 792 458 m/s? Is perfection too much to ask from someone who claims to be perfect?

 

[JGS]

The way I see JGS arguing against evolution:

Yes, evolution does occur - but that doesn't prove the ancestors of whales lived on land.
Yes, speciation can occur - but that doesn't prove the ancestors of whales lived on land.
Yes, we have fossils that show the gradual change from a land dwelling creature into a water dwelling creature - but that doesn't prove the ancestors of whales lived on land(They're just drawings).
Yes, genetic evidence shows a whale's DNA is very similiar to that of a hippo - but that doesn't prove the ancestors of whales lived on land.

JGS, you're never going to get 'proof' that evolution is true. Science only deals with evidence, not proof. If you're comfortable accepting all the above facts but not concluding that the reason why hippos and whales seem genetically related is because they ARE related, I don't know what else to say.

Look, imagine for a second you've never heard of the Bible or God. Considering the evidence that all life is related, you conclude all life probably is related. Then someone tells you that all the evidence you've got doesn't conclusively prove that there isn't a supernatural being that made everything in nature appear as if it could've evolved from a common ancestor. Yes, it could be true but there's no point to pondering it anymore than there's a point in pondering whether the world was created five minutes ago with all our memories implanted in us.

Did I disagree about a whale and a hippo genetically being related? If they are obvious comparisons, they should go by more than a deduction or hunch based on the observed data. If they are a deduction or hunch, why do I need to make the leap right now? What's the rush? What's the big deal?

Also, major misunderstanding regarding transistional fossils. Transitional fossils are fossils of critters that existed. They could have been on their way to becoming the animals we know and love but they were their own critters as well that existed over thousands or millions of years. I find more interest in the fossil than what it transitions to.

I'm not really pondering it at all & I'm not expecting my beliefs to be held at the same high level of respect of a man's idea. Truthfully, creation is one of the least interesting aspects of religion to me as the focus should be on how it can make us a better person. With that said, I just don't see a need to dismiss it.

I'm not saying I agree with the whale ancestor stuff, but overall you probably pegged it as well as anyone I guess. Again, I'm not asking for proof. I'm saying I would need more proof to no longer believe as I do which really boils down to believing in God. So unless the goal is to change my beliefs then it should be all good right?

 

[JGS]

Also, one more thing about Genesis... I won't do the sun/stars thing so you can't fall back to the "Well, that only tells us when the sun and the stars were revealed from the point of view of someone on Earth" excuse.

It's not an excuse. It's what's written but...

Instead, birds. I want you to acknowledge this. Genesis can't be an accurate description of this world's creation and be false at the same time. According to science, birds came much later than creatures in the sea. According to the Bible they appeared at pretty much the same time. This means that it is absolutely inescapable that one account is wrong. So which is it? You claim you don't dismiss science, but something like the appearance of birds after fish is as basic as it gets. If you say Genesis might've gotten it wrong, why would this be the case if the creator himself inspired the text? How many mistakes should we expect from a perfect being? What else did He get wrong? It frustrates me that you can just dismiss a clear mistake in Genesis and then go on about how amazingly close it gets. It might be close, but it's still wrong. I really want you to answer this for me. Why do Genesis and science differ on this matter, and if Genesis is wrong, why?

Accurate from what viewpoint? Science? This is another Genesis 1-3 is a science book argument?

Say some guy comes to you and tells you he's God, and that he is omniscient. So to see if what he's saying is true, you ask him what the speed of light is. He tells you it's 300 000 000 m/s. Pretty close! But wouldn't an omniscient being know that it is actually 299 792 458 m/s? Is perfection too much to ask from someone who claims to be perfect?

The writer of Genesis wouldn't know this and there was no reason for God to explain it in such detail. There was no indication in all of scripture that writers wrote beyond what they knew. There was no reason for them to considering the bible's overall theme which they understood perfectly. Genesis is not in error, it just doesn not look at things from the eyes of scientific observance.

The writer was a man and the focus of the Bible was not scientific observation. He was not there to begin with. God would be fine with people understanding something very basic and very accurate- he created everything.

Dang it! I have to go but I'll try to edit or reply to what your reply is later.

 

[frankthurk]

From a literary viewpoint, it would make sense for the writer of Genesis to carry things out in this order with man being the finality of it. Like all good non-fiction & fiction books outside of the textbook world, narrative is important and the writer was talking to his audience, not to you and the way he explained things was fine for them. Actually it's fine for the majority of people not seeking a biology lesson. Even from a God inspired viewpoint, the focus God would have is on the idea of him being the creator of all life which Genesis explains quite nicely imo.

For non-fiction. the fact that it be not fiction would/should probably trump narrative. But for fiction your point stands quite well.

I can only see 2 possible valid points of view. Genesis is either a complete fiction, or it's a mostly fictitious parable that just tries to get across that God made everything. I don't see any logical way you can think any of what it says about the order or stuff or how long it took or much of anything other than 'God made everything' could possibly be true. It's not even internally consistent. Chapter one says God made animals and then man last and Chapter two says God made animals after man because man was lonely.

It's just a bunch of stories that doesn't really say anything about how the universe was created other than 'God did it'. So yeah it doesn't conflict with science as I see it because it doesn't really say anything.