patrick.net

leoj707 says

No it is not the same argument. The analogy fails; you are comparing apples to oranges -- or rather apples to bronze castings of an orange.
Fixed atomic numbers are not the same as DNA which has been shown to have variation in a species and change with time. The DNA of viruses has been shown to "evolve" over time into new novel viruses very different from an ancestor (see the link I posed above to the radio show). Scientists use this knowledge extensively, and effectively, when researching disease.
Bap33 says

Just being close and having commonality does not mean X came from Y.
Right, but evaluation of the evidence can lead to a reasonable conclusion that X came from Y. Especially when the conclusion that X came from Y is accurately used to predict future results of other experiments.

Leo, that would be fine if the base DNA host was no longer walking around. Since the DNA host that you point to is still walking around, in the exact same time and environments as the new improved DNA host, then there is a little problem with your assumption. Change does not happen just for no reason. And that time line needed by evolutionists keeps changing and, worse yet, has a HUGE varience. In my opinion.

Bap33 says

Leo, that would be fine if the base DNA host was no longer walking around. Since the DNA host that you point to is still walking around, in the exact same time and environments as the new improved DNA host, then there is a little problem with your assumption.

I am not sure what example you are citing here, but evolution has no conflict with two populations, one with "original" DNA and another with an "evolved" DNA, existing at the same time. In fact it probably happens that way more often that an entire population evolving all at once.

Bap33 says

Change does not happen just for no reason.

No it does not, I think uomo summed it up nicely:
uomo_senza_nome says

There is NOTHING magical about non-random survival of randomly varying genes through geological time.

Bap33 says

And that time line needed by evolutionists keeps changing...

Sure, that is the way science works. As additional data comes in viewpoints are changed to accept the new data. Yes, new data over the years has revised the way evolution is viewed, but new data has only strengthened the underlying assumptions of evolution. If new data were to disprove it, evolution as a theory would be abandon.

Intelligent design -- not being a science -- holds to its views regardless of new data coming in. That is fine if people want to believe in it, but it makes it not science.

Also, intelligent design would be much more believable to me if the design was... well... more intelligent. Humans -- you see -- are rather poorly designed. If the iPhone 5 has the same level of design flaws as humans there would be an outcry, a recall, and probably destroy the company.

Well... maybe not destroy the company... there would still be a fanatical loyal following claiming that there are no "real" problems with the phone and insisting that it was intelligently designed.

leoj707 says

I am not sure what example you are citing here, but evolution has no conflict with two populations, one with "original" DNA and another with an "evolved" DNA, existing at the same time. In fact it probably happens that way more often that an entire population evolving all at once.

it sure does have a conflict. The reason for the mutation and it's survival stand in contrast to the original host continuing unchanged while shareing the exact same habitat. The fused DNA would only happen with cause. That cause requires the host, with the unfused DNA, to be placed on the endangered list. Right?

The old earth stuff is bogus. There is just as much chance that the new fused DNA came out perfect and all new lifes that were born to Fused DNA came out with the fused DNA of the lone parent. There is no proof that the mutation required any more than two generations to split away completely from the host.

intel design: Your body carries the same percentage of basic elements as the entire universe. Same percentage of carbon, ect ect. Dr. ND Tyson showed me that. Pretty cool huh?

leoj707 says

If new data were to disprove it, evolution as a theory would be abandon.

maybe. But, after watching what happened with man-made global warming, I just don't think science works like you suggest.

The creationist writings in this thread are a perfect example of why children should not be exposed to religion. Notice how creationists simply discard all facts and replace them with false conjectures rather than even attempting to offer counter-evidence?

Creationists continually discard all knowledge that contradicts their mythology while still treating the Bible as an accurate historical record even the downright silly parts like a flaming sword guarding the garden of Eden or Adam living a thousand years and his kids having incestual relationships to produce our whole species.

This utter insistence to force a delusional view of history onto the world is a form of insanity no different than believing oneself to be Napoleon. And as such, it should be considered a form of mental retardation and those who are so delusional should not be allowed to vote.

liv4ever says

You got it goin' on, Adolph ...

Adolph was a Christian.

And in the United States, people with delusions and other mental illnesses cannot vote on the basis that they are not mentally capable of understanding what they are voting on. That's the law. If you don't like it, get the politicians to change it.

I don't see why we should violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution by discriminating against some delusions and discriminating for others. The content of the delusion shouldn't matter. The fact that the person has no grasp on reality should.

But believing in equality under law and in particular the equal protection clause makes me equivalent to Hitler, a person who committed genocide for religious reasons and said that in doing so he was "fighting for the Lord's work". Yep, Hitler and I, an atheist, are essentially the same person. Good analysis.

liv4ever says

Some of these are the study of astronomy and the magnificent precision that permeates the heavens, such as the fact that galaxies are in orbit and not haphazardly strewn across the universe.

Exhibit 1:

Hubble Ultra Deep Field Image: The deepest known image of the universe, looking back at billyuns and billyuns of years (as Carl Sagan would say).

Does that look perfectly strewn or haphazard? :)

liv4ever says

Or how about the internal harmony of the Bible. How about Bible prophecy, historical accuracy and the fact that it dovetails with archaeological endeavors.

Those are very vague statements trying to assert something, but really just dispersing random thoughts.

I'm not really sure (and so are others here who are arguing against religion) how such statements really advance our knowledge of the world.

History shows that blind belief in anything takes us backward or keeps us stuck.

Here's Galileo (one of my favorite scientists):

My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth.

liv4ever says

perfectly haphazard, Blondie

uomo_senza_nome showed a picture of the distribution of galaxies in the universe. Your picture is of a single galaxy. A galaxy is, by definition, a collection of stars gravitationally bound and as such those stars will always follow elliptical orbits in accordance to Kepler's laws. The structure of a galaxy is explained by the Theory of Gravity, not a god.

After two months, pretty much everything has been said on this thread. The intelligent, rational people have shown extensive evidence that explains why we know the Earth is old and our species is descendant from apes, monkeys, and other small mammals. Meanwhile, the creationists have resorted to quoting their nonsense Bible. Time for this thread to die.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/x56O4G8VsiA

Dan8267 says

Adolph was a Christian.

nope. Adolph did not follow Christ's teachings. Plus, he did not follow God's teachings. 0 for 2.

Bap33 says

Adolph did not follow Christ's teachings. Plus, he did not follow God's teachings. 0 for 2.

What "Christian" does?

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

Adolph was a Christian.

nope. Adolph did not follow Christ's teachings. Plus, he did not follow God's teachings. 0 for 2.

Bap! We had this discussion a while back. If you remember correctly you were unable to come-up with any actions taken by Hitler that were incompatible with god's law.

If I get more time today I will look for the thread and post a link for your reference.

While everything Hitler did was justifiable through god's law, and the teachings of christ, I think we agreed that he was probably not actually a believing christian. He was a big supporter of christianity and endorsed it -- hell, he even encouraged (required?) his followers to go to christian churches. Remember that picture I posed of a catholic mass filled entirely by Hitler's brown-shirts?

catholic is not christian ... for the ten billionth time.

Dan8267 says

What "Christian" does?

That's a judgement for God to make. The plan for us living folks is to be Christian enough to be convicted of it in court - for example.

liv4ever says

thunderlips11 says

Liv, I'm glad you're accepting that the Firmament is from the noun form...

You make a good point about why people got these wrong ideas . Reason should always triumph over dogmatism, on both sides of the aisle.

Yes, reason should triumph, and that is the problem you are having. Your religious faith -- any religious belief -- is unreasonable yet you keep trying to use reason to understand it.

You keep "adding epicycles" in order to justify your beliefs, then when faced with ridiculous levels of irrefutable evidence -- thank god you are not a flat earther -- all the suddenly things become metaphor.

Having faith/belief/spirituality is fine and an large part of the human condition, but don't be fooled into thinking that any 100+ year old religious text is going to be a good guide for understanding the natural world.

I understand the need for reason and see that you are by nature a reasonable person. That need for reason is driving you to add all those epicycles, but forcing your religion to try and conform with reason makes you look unreasonable, and... well.. silly...

You are just going to have to let that go, and embrace your faith on a different level. If you need evidence to justify your faith, well then your faith is weak. Faith by definition exists in the absence of proof. Once something can be proven faith is no longer required.

Bap33 says

catholic is not christian ... for the ten billionth time.

Has it been ten billion already? Hmmm.. OK...

I am not sure if the Vatican has gotten the news yet though. When they get the news can they alter their dogma then petition you to become officially approved christians?

Anyway, catholicism was not the only christian based belief system endorsed by Hitler.

leoj707 says

Once something can be proven faith is no longer required.

+1. Well said.

Don't get me wrong: but the problem with liv4ever's posts are that they are large and extremely digressive. They don't end up making any point and are rather vague, tiring.

Just copying some biblical ramblings and trying to 'fit the prose to science' is a stupid approach to prove religion works. If that's the best a religion can come up with, then the religion is a waste of time

The purpose of the whole thread was to show that there's beauty in science that is unmatched by any faith whatsoever. I highly doubt that this purpose is achieved at all after these tedious nonsensical posts.

proof? Who's proof? Proof is in the eyes of the beholder. That's why OJ got off the first time.

liv4ever says

wrong... blind faith is credulity.

I think that this is something that you and Dan can agree on.

liv4ever says

Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. Hebrews 11:1 NWT

Ohhhkaaayyy...

Faith is what assures and demonstrates "things hoped for" and "realities though not beheld" i.e. things/realities that have no evidence, faith does not have proof i.e. actually independently verifiable evidence.

I don't see how the passage changes anything I said related to faith and its relationship to verifiable evidence.

Gather every religion in the world and have them present their "evidence" -- and I use the word lightly here -- to an unbiased person, someone incapable of feeling true spiritual belief (yes, just as there are those able to feel profound belief, there are those than are unable to feel any spirituality what-so-ever i.e. probably like Dan). There is yet to be a religion that can present any proof more valid that any other religion's proof.

Perhaps your faith is blind and requires you to attempt to justify it with physical evidence. Perhaps you do not have that faith of a true believer, one who can feel god(s)/spirits with the core of there being and know they exist. One who as they pray/chant/meditate feels the power of the spirit world envelop them. These feelings can never be "proven" to another, but they create the faith that supports things hoped for and belief in a reality not beheld.

Belief without this internal knowledge is truly blind faith.

I wish you luck in your struggle.

Justify your belief with faith from within... Let go of your expectations of external "proof"... And of course don't worry so much about what others think.

uomo_senza_nome says

The purpose of the whole thread was to show that there's beauty in science that is unmatched by any faith whatsoever. I highly doubt that this purpose is achieved at all after these tedious nonsensical posts.

Ugg... yes tedious for sure...

What I find beautiful about science is that it is truth for all, regardless of religion. In that way it certainly is unmatched by any faith.

Religion and science do not have to be incompatible. Only certain dogmas make themselves incompatible with science.

I don't think we will ever "get rid of religion". It is too ingrained within our psyche. We must learn how to live with that part of who we are as humans. As our scientific knowledge grows -- and it will -- more and more literal interpretations of religion will become metaphor. We are probably generations away from it, but one day religions will cease in their attempts to explain our physical world and will become purely internal pursuits, without needing to try and justify its self to the rest of the world.

leoj707 says

Ugg... yes tedious for sure...

LOL, I did not mean all posts are nonsensical. Some of them really are, I can't even read them.

leoj707 says

Religion and science do not have to be incompatible. Only certain dogmas make themselves incompatible with science.

Depends on how much you are affected by your religion. You see, some religions are *only* dogmas. And there are numerous examples Dan has shown that these religions have had a direct harmful impact on mankind.

leoj707 says

I don't think we will ever "get rid of religion". It is too ingrained within our psyche.

I disagree. That's like saying you need faith to survive. No you don't. Science doesn't ask for your faith, it asks for your curiosity.
Imagine how many brighter minds we could have if everyone was curious and were not satisfied with fairies in the sky!

leoj707 says

We must learn how to live with that part of who we are as humans.

We can be metaphorical, explore arts and music as much as we explore science without any religion. The universe is wondrous by itself.

leoj707 says

religions will cease in their attempts to explain our physical world and will become purely internal pursuits, without needing to try and justify its self to the rest of the world.

Internal pursuits can be done without attributing to religion. You don't need to be religious to be introspective. I don't see a need for it at all.

liv4ever says

Dan8267 says

Unicorns ? (in the drawing) Numbers 23:22

not so, fast Dan the Man ...

And that is what you got out from the cartoon? The point is that the so called Christian was willing to accept the most ridiculous things in the Bible as the literal truth except the one important thing: giving up all of your possessions and giving all your money to the poor. You know, stuff that would actually be a sacrifice.

liv4ever says

By the way, no one is asking to give up your stuff to the poor, most of us are getting poorer by the day, as the American standard of living continues to rapidly decline. These comments were directed at "a rich young ruler".

You forget, I know this shit. The comment about giving up your worldly possessions to follow god is repeated many times in the Bible and by Jesus. It is directed towards everyone. That's why Christian philosophy is incompatible with capitalism. You can't follow Jesus and Gordon Gecko at the same time, but that is exactly what the Christian right thinks you should do.

liv4ever says

chapter and verse please?

Liv,

You've never seen those passages??? Do you ever consider reading the Gospels rather than trying to make predictions based on the Old Testament?

uomo_senza_nome says

Depends on how much you are affected by your religion. You see, some religions are *only* dogmas. And there are numerous examples Dan has shown that these religions have had a direct harmful impact on mankind.

You get no disagreement with me there.

uomo_senza_nome says

I disagree. That's like saying you need faith to survive. No you don't. Science doesn't ask for your faith, it asks for your curiosity.
Imagine how many brighter minds we could have if everyone was curious and were not satisfied with fairies in the sky!

Hmm... let me clarify a bit...

Yes, individuals don't need faith to survive. However, as a species a majority of us seem compelled by a feeling of the supernatural. I don't think that all the reason in the world will make this go away.

Even people who can feel the faeries existence can be compelled by other curiosities, but some seem to have a great difficulty reconciling science with their religion. I think that as dogmas evolve this cognitive dissonance will be reduced and the harmful effects of religions (yes, today they are significant) will be mitigated.

uomo_senza_nome says

We can be metaphorical, explore arts and music as much as we explore science without any religion. The universe is wondrous by itself.

I totally agree... but... when I say "who we are as humans" I mean everybody. Those that have "true faith" will always be around, and if not in a majority probably close. While I understand that the universe in itself can be wondrous without the need for anything supernatural, what is to be done all those people who know in their bones that the supernatural world exists?

uomo_senza_nome says

I don't see a need for it at all.

Right, you don't see a need, but for others it is not a matter of need or not need. They feel the spiritual.

Dan8267 says

You can't follow Jesus and Gordon Gecko at the same time

Agree, but is the Christian Right really enamored with Capitalism? I thought they voted Republican primarily because of social issues, not because of economic ones. Indeed, there's a major rift in the Republican party between the Social Conservatives and the Money-Libertarian-Ayn Rand Conservatives. They are united only by their dislike of Democrats. It's a coalition that's breaking up as we speak, I think.

leoj707 says

However, as a species a majority of us seem compelled by a feeling of the supernatural. I don't think that all the reason in the world will make this go away.

My point is -- there is NOTHING supernatural.

You see, atheists see the problem with this "compulsive feeling" of the supernatural. How compulsive is this feeling? Depending on the nature and extent of this compulsion, the individual can be inclined to bind others into these compulsions as well.

Religions grow stronger because people who are inclined to believe in "compulsive feelings" tend to flock in groups. When societies start acting dangerously (say killing other people), then we have a problem because this compulsive feeling is a dangerous delusion. Not all religions go about killing other people, but you see -- these religious sects are based in nature, not the supernatural. E.g, Buddhism.

"Science can explain the Universe without the need for a creator" - Stephen Hawking.

leoj707 says

what is to be done all those people who know in their bones that the supernatural world exists?

LOL, that is my point. Those are delusions and Science can eliminate them with reason.

leoj707 says

They feel the spiritual.

Spiritual doesn't have to be supernatural, that is all.

Liv,

Dan was talking about those passages where Christ says to give up all worldly possessions. Are you on drugs?

You make the case for atheism with your every post.

uomo_senza_nome says

My point is -- there is NOTHING supernatural.

There is indeed no independently verifiable evidence that anything supernatural exists.

uomo_senza_nome says

"Science can explain the Universe without the need for a creator" - Stephen Hawking.

I agree, there is no explanation including a creator that is more convincing than science.

uomo_senza_nome says

LOL, that is my point. Those are delusions and Science can eliminate them with reason.

With some -- perhaps but for a large percentage of the population no amount of reason can convince them otherwise. Perhaps as science gains more knowledge and religion is forced farther away from explanations of the physical world some more will be convinced through reason. However, that innate "sense" of god(s) existence is very unlikely to go away.

uomo_senza_nome says

Spiritual doesn't have to be supernatural, that is all.

Hmmm.. Huummm.. let's not get too bogged down in semantics. When I say spiritual I am using it as a synonym to supernatural. Yes, you can have spirituality with out god(s), but I think it usually indicates something incorporeal/unsubstantial, i.e. something not measurable by science.

uomo_senza_nome says

Religions grow stronger because people who are inclined to believe in "compulsive feelings" tend to flock in groups. When societies start acting dangerously (say killing other people), then we have a problem because this compulsive feeling is a dangerous delusion. Not all religions go about killing other people, but you see -- these religious sects are based in nature, not the supernatural. E.g, Buddhism.

Yes, the religious compulsion can be very dangerous. I hope that more benign religions evolve in the future. Buddhism however can be very supernatural, and it is not benign by nature. I have however known those that practice Buddhism in a very "secular" fashion.

leoj707 says

uomo_senza_nome says

My point is -- there is NOTHING supernatural.

There is indeed no independently verifiable evidence that anything supernatural exists.

By definition, there can be no evidence for anything supernatural. By the laws of physics, there can be no interaction between the supernatural and the natural for such an interaction would by definition be natural and subject to all the laws of physics. As such, it could be verified and measured simply by its physical properties.

For example, if a ghost pushes a cue ball, then the kinetic energy imparted on the ball could be measured and traced back to its source. The conversion of some form of energy into kinetic energy would be observable and would obey the laws of physics.

Another example, if someone actually saw a ghost, the photons would also be subject to the laws of physics. The bottom line is that any interaction between so-called supernatural entities and natural entities would in effect drag those supernatural entities into the natural world and subject them to scientific verification and measurement. As this does not happen, all interactions with the supernatural is bullshit. As all interactions with the supernatural is bullshit, there is no reason to think that such entities even exist.

Physics leaves no room for the supernatural.

leoj707 says

However, that innate "sense" of god(s) existence is very unlikely to go away.

Probably not, but Science is humanity's best shot at progress.

"All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed, Second it is violently opposed, Third it is accepted as being self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

leoj707 says

When I say spiritual I am using it as a synonym to supernatural.

Okay, then the word spiritual is also BS.

leoj707 says

I hope that more benign religions evolve in the future.

I hope that more and more people realize that religion as an idea has caused irreparable damage to humanity. Then they'll start using their brains more to understand natural and physical laws. This would mean that they would become free thinkers.

leoj707 says

Buddhism however can be very supernatural, and it is not benign by nature.

I don't see Buddhism as a violent philosophy. Why would you say it is not benign by nature? Religion by its very definition can take faith as proof, so for that matter - no religion that I know of is entirely based on natural laws.

They all vary to the degree of supernatural explanations, but some of the key Buddhist practices have been studied by neuroscience and are known to help humans. (specifically conditions like depression)

uomo_senza_nome says

Science is humanity's best shot at progress.

Best? Only.

All social and political progress has been preceded by scientific or technological advancement from the abolition of the church (printing press), to the abolition of kings (enlightenment), to the abolition of slavery (railroads and newspapers), to the woman's suffrage movement (radio), to the civil rights movement (tv) and the anti-war movement (tv), to the Arab spring (Internet).

Scientific and technological progress promotes social and political progress.

uomo_senza_nome says

leoj707 says

When I say spiritual I am using it as a synonym to supernatural.

Okay, then the word spiritual is also BS.

I find that when people use the word spiritual, they really mean "emotional and important".

Claim: I had a spiritual experience.
Translation: I had an emotional and important experience.

uomo_senza_nome says

leoj707 says

I hope that more benign religions evolve in the future.

I hope that more and more people realize that religion as an idea has caused irreparable damage to humanity. Then they'll start using their brains more to understand natural and physical laws. This would mean that they would become free thinkers.

Yes, why do we need religion at all? Can't we have philosophy without it? Can't we discuss morality without the chains of irrationality? Wouldn't such a discussion be better and more productive?

You don't need myths, gods, magic, an afterlife, and false history to create a socially just system of morality. In fact, all those things hamper the ability to get this job done. I wouldn't build a bridge based on myths, why would I build morality based on myths? Morality, ethics, software, bridges, nuclear reactors, and space craft should all be designed the same way: with perfect reason, accurate facts and measurements, and the complete absence of error.

God does not exist because we haven't created it yet!

Dan,
I do not think morality existed until God showed man that Right and Wrong existed, and created morality. And immorality.

"Afterlife" is all about your life-force (soul). And the energy that is your soul came from the universe (God) and will never stop being. Ever.

Dan,

Are you saying it's possible to construct morality with physics? If so, why hasn't anyone figured it out yet? Why haven't you figured it out yet since you're so much smarter than the rest of us?

Physics can design a handgun, it can't say whether it's "right" or "wrong" to use it to blow someone's head off.

All morality is subjective/opinion/emotion based.

Of course you say that YOUR morality is the correct one. Just like everybody else says THEIR morality is the correct one.

leoj707 says

I don't think we will ever "get rid of religion". It is too ingrained within our psyche. We must learn how to live with that part of who we are as humans. As our scientific knowledge grows -- and it will -- more and more literal interpretations of religion will become metaphor. We are probably generations away from it, but one day religions will cease in their attempts to explain our physical world and will become purely internal pursuits, without needing to try and justify its self to the rest of the world.

uomo_senza_nome says

I disagree. That's like saying you need faith to survive. No you don't. Science doesn't ask for your faith, it asks for your curiosity.
Imagine how many brighter minds we could have if everyone was curious and were not satisfied with fairies in the sky!

leoj707 says

We must learn how to live with that part of who we are as humans.

We can be metaphorical, explore arts and music as much as we explore science without any religion. The universe is wondrous by itself.

I agree with Leo here, but you both make good points.

About Buddhism,
leoj707 says

Buddhism however can be very supernatural, and it is not benign by nature. I have however known those that practice Buddhism in a very "secular" fashion.

I think this last comment represents many millions of Buddhists, including the branch of Zen Buddhists where it's mostly about meditation. And the Buddha is seen as a human who figured out the path.

This guy is interesting,

http://www.youtube.com/embed/eRutmoPEWaQ

I enjoyed this talk. He has an interesting definition of God, although I think I lean a bit more toward the supernatural (not the right term though) than he. I think.

His definition of God is nearly Atheistic, although he seems to believe that there are beings out there, but not a supernatural all powerful God.

marcus says

he seems to believe that there are beings out there,

Actually, listening to it again, I don't think he's saying that, but rather that it's what the ancient sutras say. ( i know, some will say, therefore he must believe that.) I'm not so sure.

Bap33 says

I do not think morality existed until God showed man that Right and Wrong existed, and created morality.

If god created evil then god is evil and therefore not a god in anything but power. Certainly not a god whose moral judgement you could trust.

So, if god didn't say murder was bad, it would be morally ok to kill babies? Sorry, but by any reasonable worldview, morality, not god must be a priori.