Why do GOP candidates keep stumbling on evolution? By Byron York

[Luis Gonzalez]

No it doesn't.  Not in the slightest.

I can know many things.  (Like it's really cold outside and there is snow on the ground).  But I cannot "know" exactly how God created the universe.  I have the general idea based on the beginning of Genesis, but I don't know the details, just as scientists cannot know the details of the beginnings of the earth based on what they study in a lab.

If they could, their facts wouldn't change so drastically so often.

So you don't know that God created the Universe?

[musiclady]

So you don't know that God created the Universe?

Your question is intended to mislead, Luis, and missing the point of what I was discussing as "knowing" and "believing."

Any future on-topic question, I will gladly entertain (including anything related to the many points I've made in above posts), but I'm not going to be trapped in your game.

What, as you well know, I was referring to is the knowledge vs. belief in the details of how the earth came to be, neither of which can be known, but both of which can be believed.

I can go deeper into the theology of what can be known about God, but it's not the subject of the thread now, is it?

[musiclady]

For interesting reading for anyone interested in God' perspective on humans trying to presume what He has or has not done, read Job 38 and 39.  It is God, at His most sarcastic, dressing Job down for his "words without knowledge."

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?"  (just the beginning....... read the whole thing.  It's fantastic!)


Tends to keep us humans humble about what we think we "know."  ^-^

[Luis Gonzalez]

Your question is intended to mislead, Luis, and missing the point of what I was discussing as "knowing" and "believing."

Any future on-topic question, I will gladly entertain (including anything related to the many points I've made in above posts), but I'm not going to be trapped in your game.

What, as you well know, I was referring to is the knowledge vs. belief in the details of how the earth came to be, neither of which can be known, but both of which can be believed.

I can go deeper into the theology of what can be known about God, but it's not the subject of the thread now, is it?

It's not at all intended to mislead. Your response however intends to deflect the focus of the debate by saying things like "I'm not going to be trapped in your game."

It's not a game, it's a debate.

In the first first sentence in the post in question you say that there is a difference between knowing and believing, but in your very next sentence, you unequivocally stated that "God created the universe", which leads anyone who reads that to believe that you know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the Universe was created by God.

There isn't a thing wrong with that, that's called "faith".

I know that evolution is real because I have seen the visible proof and the visible proof supports my belief.

It's not that it takes more faith to believe in evolution and "know" that the available facts support the theory, but it is that it takes less work to believe in a straight up Creationist view of the Universe.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Most people don't understand the idea behind evolution.  What is mocked by the "Godders" is, as is per typical, a misrepresentation. 
Linear evolution is incorrect.  Radial evolution would be more practical and correct.
Any "Godder" who misrepresents evolution should have their mouths sewn shut using sharpened sticks place in their lips.

[musiclady]

It's not at all intended to mislead. Your response however intends to deflect the focus of the debate by saying things like "I'm not going to be trapped in your game."

It's not a game, it's a debate.

In the first first sentence in the post in question you say that there is a difference between knowing and believing, but in your very next sentence, you unequivocally stated that "God created the universe", which leads anyone who reads that to believe that you know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the Universe was created by God.

There isn't a thing wrong with that, that's called "faith".

I know that evolution is real because I have seen the visible proof and the visible proof supports my belief.

It's not that it takes more faith to believe in evolution and "know" that the available facts support the theory, but it is that it takes less work to believe in a straight up Creationist view of the Universe.

Au contraire, Luis.  I believe that it takes far more work to understand Scripture than to believe in evolution.  The template is that Creationists are simple minded and stupid, but the theology of really understanding who God is, and what He has done is far more complex than anything science deals with.

I said it earlier, but I'll repeat it here.  The reason understanding God is far more complex is that scientific knowledge is only an infinitesimal part of who God is.  There is no science outside of God's creation.  Scientists are only seeking to find out what God already knows because He made it happen......... whether or not they believe in Him.

My point remains.  Neither the evolutionist, the Creationist, nor the in-betweeners who try to make them mesh can KNOW what happened.  The entire spectrum depends on belief based on partial knowledge.

(And I happen to think it's simpler to go with the flow than to swim upstream, and right now the flow happens to be faith in evolution.  ^-^ )

[musiclady]

btw, I could go much deeper theologically into what can be 'known' versus what is 'believed' (since there are Christians who debate that very issue, and have for 2 millennia), but I think I'd better keep my mouth shut, lest olde north church come to my house and sew it shut with sharp sticks.  :dx1:

[truth_seeker]

Christians know. Muslims know. Atheists know. Hindus know. Buddhists know.

They all know that they alone truly know, and the others do not.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Most people don't understand the idea behind evolution.  What is mocked by the "Godders" is, as is per typical, a misrepresentation. 
Linear evolution is incorrect.  Radial evolution would be more practical and correct.
Any "Godder" who misrepresents evolution should have their mouths sewn shut using sharpened sticks place in their lips.

Absolutely.

I tried to explain it once to a friend by asking him to imagine a relay race made up of an infinite number of runners where no one runner know where the finish line laid.

After an infinite number of baton hand offs, a limited number of racers would cross the finish line by sheer weight of coincidence, and the remaining unknown number of racers would either quit, die or disappear along the way. 

An examination of the race run by those who crossed the finish line, from that point backwards to the starting point, would appear as a linear path. Some would try to explain the linear nature of that path by applying an external, unknown source of knowledge guiding the runners.

God.

The whole linear nature of evolution thing dies at the moment that one realizes that amino acids becoming single-celled organisms formed the basis for the entirety of life in the world. Going back to that relay race then, runners who either were lost or quit along the way eventually became birds, sea cucumbers, dragonflies, parrots etc, and the ones that crossed that finish line became man.

Man is the living personification of the Chaos Theory.

[Lando Lincoln]

Man is the living personification of the Chaos Theory.

He's in the Oval Office (or, some golf course).

[Luis Gonzalez]

Christians know. Muslims know. Atheists know. Hindus know. Buddhists know.

They all know that they alone truly know, and the others do not.

There's a reason why religious belief is almost universally called "faith". Believers are supposed to believe sans any tangible proof.

There's a circular nature to debates like these. Believers start supporting their beliefs with Biblical quotations.

IOW... The Bible is the supporting body of proof behind Biblical concepts.

I believe in what The Bible says because it says so in The Bible.

[Luis Gonzalez]

He's in the Oval Office (or, some golf course).

 

[musiclady]

He's in the Oval Office (or, some golf course).

hehe..............

[Luis Gonzalez]

hehe..............

Gotta jet.

Later.

 

[GourmetDan]

I know that evolution is real because I have seen the visible proof and the visible proof supports my belief.

What you see is not proof of evolution.   You must engage in the fallacy of affirming the consequent for that to 'support' your belief.

[musiclady]

Gotta jet.

Later.

 

Good to have real conversations with you, Luis.

Take care!   

[olde north church]

 

[aligncare]

Opinions are good to have. Informed opinions are even better.

It's apparent in this discussion that some lacked familiarity with the subject, and that's okay. Many people have business degrees or law degrees and perhaps never took science classes. But, it helps to be familiar with a subject if one is interested in pursuing debate in that area.

[GourmetDan]

 
The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code

Abstract:

"It has been repeatedly proposed to expand the scope for SETI, and one of the suggested alternatives to radio is the biological media. Genomic DNA is already used on Earth to store non-biological information. Though smaller in capacity, but stronger in noise immunity is the genetic code. The code is a flexible mapping between codons and amino acids, and this flexibility allows modifying the code artificially. But once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it is the most durable construct known. Therefore it represents an exceptionally reliable storage for an intelligent signature, if that conforms to biological and thermodynamic requirements. As the actual scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled, the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out. A statistically strong intelligent-like “signal” in the genetic code is then a testable consequence of such scenario. Here we show that the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10–13). The patterns are profound to the extent that the code mapping itself is uniquely deduced from their algebraic representation. The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin. Plausible ways of embedding the signal into the code and possible interpretation of its content are discussed. Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to pass non-biological information."

[truth_seeker]

There's a reason why religious belief is almost universally called "faith". Believers are supposed to believe sans any tangible proof.

There's a circular nature to debates like these. Believers start supporting their beliefs with Biblical quotations.

IOW... The Bible is the supporting body of proof behind Biblical concepts.

I believe in what The Bible says because it says so in The Bible.

Mankind through the ages has observed the planet and its species in wonderment, deduced or concluded there must be some form of Higher Power, and formalized that deduction, conclusion or belief in the form of "religions."

Hence many disparate religions agree on a Creator/Higher Power. They raise up prophets, write epic great books, around which the religion gathers, and from which many humans both gain power over others, and which give humans hope and solace.

Therefore much of what religion contributes is good. But when it encourages, justifies and is the basis for wars and murders, it is no longer a good force, and when it replaces sound science with archaic folktales, it contributes to an environment easily exploited by opportunists. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Mankind through the ages has observed the planet and its species in wonderment, deduced or concluded there must be some form of Higher Power, and formalized that deduction, conclusion or belief in the form of "religions."

Hence many disparate religions agree on a Creator/Higher Power. They raise up prophets, write epic great books, around which the religion gathers, and from which many humans both gain power over others, and which give humans hope and solace.

Therefore much of what religion contributes is good. But when it encourages, justifies and is the basis for wars and murders, it is no longer a good force, and when it replaces sound science with archaic folktales, it contributes to an environment easily exploited by opportunists.

[musiclady]

Opinions are good to have. Informed opinions are even better.

It's apparent in this discussion that some lacked familiarity with the subject, and that's okay. Many people have business degrees or law degrees and perhaps never took science classes. But, it helps to be familiar with a subject if one is interested in pursuing debate in that area.

Not that you're saying otherwise, aligncare, but that means that those dismissing Creation should also be more familiar with theology than those dismissing it are, and not just those who are Creationists' not being familiar enough with the science of evolution.

I, however disagree with your suggesting that a deep understanding of either side of the debate is required in order to pursue that debate.  Most people are neither evolutionary scientists, nor theological scholars, but a debate on the subject is, IMO, still a good thing.

In addition, the fact is that the subject has been brought up because of the political left, and their need to paint conservatives as ignorant Bible-thumpers who dismiss science.   Of course their template is absurd, but it's not going to go away, so I think conservative politicians should have prepared answers to the inanity of the leftist propaganda they continue to be pummeled with.

[Carling]

Man is the living personification of the Chaos Theory.

That's a belief.  Now replicate it in a scientific setting, and the debate will be over.  Since you can't, it seem rather condescending to hold firm on your belief while belittling the belief of others, just because they think differently.

You can't prove your theory, so saying you know anything about how evolution works is 100% based on your own faith.  It's much like the Global Warming crowd, IMO.

[Carling]

[Carling]

Opinions are good to have. Informed opinions are even better.

It's apparent in this discussion that some lacked familiarity with the subject, and that's okay. Many people have business degrees or law degrees and perhaps never took science classes. But, it helps to be familiar with a subject if one is interested in pursuing debate in that area.

Why don't you enlighten us with your thoughts on evolution.  My position is that obviously it exists, but there are questions.

First question.  Have you been able to witness evolution in a controlled scientific setting?