What About The Little People

[ajs510 122]

Headache?Check.

[Balloon guy 158]

"i can't understand it so god must have done it"

'i don't want to believe in God so I'll place my faith in random chance regadless of it's improbabilty"

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah, but you're not arguing with geneticists here. If you understand the very basics of natural selection, random mutation, and a few other simple concepts, you should be able to fully understand how evolution occurs on both a micro and macro level.As long as you understand that you're no different from ancient civilizations that couldn't understand the sun rising and decided that a god must be driving it across the sky in a chariot, I'm fine with this.edit: Also, you may not be fully realizing the concept of just how long a process we're talking about here. To go from primordial (sp) ooze to functioning CPUs took an amount of time almost incomprehensible to most humans. I include myself in that group.

You are saying with simple understanding of highly complex unobservable actions you can understand evolution. I don't have dificulty understanding what evolution teaches, I have a hard time with it's ease with which it throws out concepts with more of a results based thinking than recreatable science.We should start a new thread on the philosophy of evolution.

[Balloon guy 158]

Didn't we decide that if there's a god he is most likely nothing more than a really complex and impressive (but physical nonetheless) alien?

uhh cattle mutations?

[Loismustdie 0]

Didn't we decide that if there's a god he is most likely nothing more than a really complex and impressive (but physical nonetheless) alien?

I believe that was an option, and a very cool one I might add. So, then, God could be an Autobot?

[Loismustdie 0]

You are saying with simple understanding of highly complex unobservable actions you can understand evolution. I don't have dificulty understanding what evolution teaches, I have a hard time with it's ease with which it throws out concepts with more of a results based thinking than recreatable science.We should start a new thread on the philosophy of evolution.

That was said really well. I like that alot.

[KramitDaToad 0]

You are saying with simple understanding of highly complex unobservable actions you can understand evolution. I don't have dificulty understanding what evolution teaches, I have a hard time with it's ease with which it throws out concepts with more of a results based thinking than recreatable science.We should start a new thread on the philosophy of evolution.

What on earth makes you think its unobservable? Observed evolution has occured both in nature and in experimental environments countless times. You've already thrown in that tired old fallacy of random chance, why not chuck in 'Evolution can't make predictions' as well for the complete box set.What you are arguing against isn't evolution, it's the moronic straw man that is trotted out endlessly in the hope that it was forgotten since the last time it reared it's ignorant head.It's akin to saying Christianity is falsifiable because we are made in God's image and God is a 6-armed being named Sheeba

I don't have dificulty understanding what evolution teaches

How on earth would you know. You've obviously never made the slightest attempt. I don't know BG, it's apparent you've got a good brain in your head and are a very smart fellow. Why do you resort to lazy weak-minded cop outs?

[speedz99 145]

You are saying with simple understanding of highly complex unobservable actions you can understand evolution. I don't have dificulty understanding what evolution teaches, I have a hard time with it's ease with which it throws out concepts with more of a results based thinking than recreatable science.

Here's the thing...it's obvious you that have a hard time understanding it because you aren't really trying. I'm not saying that to be an asshole, I'm saying that because you really do seem smart and possibly open minded enough to understand it. Kramit made a few good points that I'm not going to bother repeating. You said something before that I liked...I forget exactly what it was, but it was basically admitting that your belief in god wasn't necessarily logical but you were ok with that. Do you think you'll ever be able to say that evolution does occur on micro levels (which has been observed many times over so I don't know how you could argue against it) and possibly on macro levels even if you don't understand it, but you think that when god created all living creatures he did so in a way that would facilitate these phenomena? I guess he would have had to "trick" us by creating so many genetic links between animals when he conjured us up out of thin air, but maybe you can come up with something more concrete than that.I dunno, I can understand the faith in god in some form...but not the complete aversion to recognizing when science teaches us how the world is working around us. Again, it's just a complicated version of Apollo driving the sun across the sky.

We should start a new thread on the philosophy of evolution.

Just because you treat it as a philosophy doesn't make it one.

I believe that was an option, and a very cool one I might add. So, then, God could be an Autobot?

Possibly.

[crowTrobot 2]

'i don't want to believe in God so I'll place my faith in random chance regadless of it's improbabilty"

trust me i would much prefer it if there were a benevolent intervening creator and an afterlife. just not enough to choose to ignore mountains of objective evidence to the contrary. no faith involved.and (to borrow from dawkins) using your philosophical line of reasoning, even if the universe is improbable a universal creator would necessarily have to be even more complex and improbable than the universe itself. invoking god doesn't solve the problem or explain anything - it just pushes the mystery back another level.

[hblask 1]

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolprob.html[

I picked a link at random inside the above link, and found the following:

A new study compared the speed of enamel formation in teeth from over 100 Neandertal fossils compared to upper Paleolithic-Mesolithic Homo sapiens (ancient modern humans) and Homo antecessor and Homo heidelbergensis. The upper Paleolithic-Mesolithic H. sapiens exhibited identical dental development compared with modern humans. However, both Homo antecessor and Homo heidelbergensis developed much faster than modern humans while Neandertals developed even faster than their "ancestors." This study provides even more evidence that Neandertals were not ancestral to modern humans.

I'm assuming this demonstrates the typical depth of knowledge for the remainder of the site(s).First off, the notion that faster dental development indicates a more "advanced" form of growth is silly. There is no reason, a priori, to believe that the rate of dental growth would either speed up or slow down over time. So already we are seeing a lack of understanding of what "evolution" even is about.But more importantly, most scientists do not consider Neandertals ancestors to humans. The current line of thinking is that there may have been some cross-breeding with the ancestors of modern humans, but even that is controversial. Scientists generally agree that Neandertals were a genetic dead-end. So why would a statement that agrees with modern notions of evolution be used as evidence against evolution?OK, just for fun I picked another:

Recent completion of genome sequencing for many diverse vertebrates has revealed long sequences (at least 200 bp) of non-coding DNA that are identical or nearly identical. Between humans and mice, 481 of these sequences are 100% identical. Between humans and dogs, the sequences are 99% identical. Even between humans and chickens, the sequences are 95% identical. These sequences are found on all humans chromosomes except 21 and Y. The probability is less than one chance in 1022 of finding even one such sequence in 2.9 billion bases under a simple model of neutral evolution with independent substitutions at each site. Among numerous human individuals, there is almost no sequence variation (only 6 out of over 100,000 bases). The highly unlikely existence of these identical sequences indicate that they must absolutely required for survival, since the natural mutation rate in humans would have been expected to produce at least 20 times more variation than what is observed.

At this point I'm skeptical of *anything* they write, since their lack of understanding is so glaring. But let's accept this statement at face value. Is this evidence against evolution? I don't see how -- in fact, it seems to reinforce it: genes that are basic to life are carried forward. If they existed in a very early life-form, and have some as-yet-unknown function, we would expect them to be found in many species. In fact, I looked at a few more, and further articles provided make these exact points -- that so-called "junk DNA" has a function.In fact, it's sort of hilarious that discussions of genetic mutations is *any* part of an attempt to disprove evolution.Enough for now....

[Balloon guy 158]

Can matter be created or destroyed?Then where did matter come from?I know it's hard,but if you want to play in the sandbox, then please leave the degrading little snipes in OT gen, you guys have an arrogance that gets annoying, and I will take my marbles and go home and you guys can sit in here all alone and tell each other how smart you are and how dumb we are to your hearts content. I'm sure while I'm in heaven I will think of why I am being too sensative, but I have enough problems in life to not need to be treated like a child by people that couldn't stop me from driving the lane and making an easy layup with either hand for the win on any given day. And yes, that is the ultimate comparison I use for all people, that and whistling skills.

[Balloon guy 158]

and (to borrow from dawkins) using your philosophical line of reasoning, even if the universe is improbable a universal creator would necessarily have to be even more complex and improbable than the universe itself. invoking god doesn't solve the problem or explain anything - it just pushes the mystery back another level.

I've heard the who made God arguement before, and the best answer I can give you is:It doesn't exclude us from being responsible to the God that created us. We can pretend we get to go higher up the chain and skip God, but there is no basis for your supposed right to this avenue.

[crowTrobot 2]

Can matter be created or destroyed?

actually there is evidence that it can, through quantum mechanical processes.

[crowTrobot 2]

I've heard the who made God arguement before, and the best answer I can give you is:It doesn't exclude us from being responsible to the God that created us. We can pretend we get to go higher up the chain and skip God, but there is no basis for your supposed right to this avenue.

you're not understanding it. the "who made god" thing is meant to show that the argument that a creator is required to explain complexity only leads to an infinite regression of higher and higher levels of complexity that require similar explanation - with each level becoming more and more improbable. in other words adding god to an improbable universe would only make it MORE improbable, not less.and if (as most christians are) you are willing to accept that god does not require an explanation that man can instinctively conceptualize, on what grounds do you decide that the universe itself necessarily requires one? why do you think you (or any human) should be inherently able to understand the universe?

[Balloon guy 158]

actually there is evidence that it can, through quantum mechanical processes.

Can what? Be created or destroyed?

[Balloon guy 158]

you're not understanding it. the "who made god" thing is meant to show that the argument that a creator is required to explain complexity only leads to an infinite regression of higher and higher levels of complexity that require similar explanation - with each level becoming more and more improbable. in other words adding god to an improbable universe would only make it MORE improbable, not less.and if (as most christians are) you are willing to accept that god does not require an explanation that man can instinctively conceptualize, on what grounds do you decide that the universe itself necessarily requires one? why do you think you (or any human) should be inherently able to understand the universe?

I do not hold that anyone does understand the universe, only that the 'design means a designer' debate is valid. The thought is not a far reach, we have amazing laws and forces that maintain a balance in the universe. Random occurance is less likely the author than an Intelligent Designer. IMOWe also have a gap as to the origin of matter, and the cause of this origin. You are just as comfortable to ignore this gap and assume we will find an answer as I am to ignore many tenets of evolution because I believe in creationism. The difference is I don't often call you degrading names to imply you are a sheep when I speak of this trust you hold. Although you once again surprise me crow because sometimes you are so rude, and other times very cordial. I think it was the trip to Hawaii this time.

[crowTrobot 2]

Can what? Be created or destroyed?

created spontaneously.

[crowTrobot 2]

I do not hold that anyone does understand the universe, only that the 'design means a designer' debate is valid.

unless what you think looks designed really isn't, in which case you're just fooling yourself. the main thing i'm trying to get across is that human intuition about what must necessarily be designed is faulty. natural selection (and many other things in science) have taught us that. when it comes to determining what is objective reality philosophy based on human intuition is useless.

The thought is not a far reach, we have amazing laws and forces that maintain a balance in the universe.

not comprehending something such as the balance of the universe is not evidence for god. it just means you/we don't understand - that is all. the many forms of life were amazing and incomprehensible before darwin. there may be a scientific discovery (brane theory combined with the anthropic principal for example) around the corner that explains the balance.

We also have a gap as to the origin of matter, and the cause of this origin. You are just as comfortable to ignore this gap and assume we will find an answer as I am to ignore many tenets of evolution because I believe in creationism.

i'm not ignoring anything. the historical pattern of explanation by science leads me to believe it is most likely we WILL find a (creator-free) explanation. that's all. i'd be the first to admit it if actual evidence for a creator were ever found. again though, lack of evidence is not evidence for a creator. that's the god-of-the-gaps falacy.

The difference is I don't often call you degrading names to imply you are a sheep when I speak of this trust you hold.

err.. i think you have me confused with someone else. at least in this thread : )

[Balloon guy 158]

created spontaneously.

So why are you being so coy with this info? Spill it! How is matter created spontaneously? Remember I never went to a high school so dumb it down.

[crowTrobot 2]

So why are you being so coy with this info? Spill it! How is matter created spontaneously? Remember I never went to a high school so dumb it down.

i don't fully understand it, and it's kind of hard to put in simple terms if you don't know the basics of QM. this is outdated but might help:http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mar...tic/vacuum.htmlalso i think york gave a good explanation of it here some time ago. might be worth a search.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Can matter be created or destroyed?Then where did matter come from?

So you've put the evolution straw man to bed for a while now then?

I know it's hard,but if you want to play in the sandbox, then please leave the degrading little snipes in OT gen

I'm assuming your including me in that talking down. There are no 'little snipes' there and if you feel that way then I'm sorry because I've come off not as I wanted too. What you are seeing is the frustration of answering the same misinformed questions over and over ad nauseum.How can a random process create order?It's not random.Yes, but if it's random not even 4.5 billion years is enough time. Ask any mathematicianIt's not random.You can tell there is a design. A random process wouldn't look designed. <Wait 2 weeks and return to the start>No-one has ever seen evolution.Evolution is observed daily both in nature and in the lab.Those studying it have as much faith as theists because you can't prove it.You can see it happening. Right there. In front of your eyes.You're just basing your conclusions on the end results <Wait 2 weeks and return to the start>

You guys have an arrogance that gets annoying

It doesn't exclude us from being responsible to the God that created us.

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning

[checkymcfold 0]

So why are you being so coy with this info? Spill it! How is matter created spontaneously? Remember I never went to a high school so dumb it down.

to be entirely correct, it's not matter that's conserved, but rather energy, which can take multiple forms. one of these is mass energy, which we call matter in the sense you're using the term. there are lots of examples of matter appearing and disappearing, but the overall energy of a reaction remains the same. one example of this (probably the best for answering your question) is the annihilation of a matter/antimatter pair. antimatter is just like matter, except the thingies that go around the nucleus have a positive charge (positrons) and the thingies in the nucleus have a negative charge (antiproton). yes, these silly things can be found in nature (when high-energy cosmic rays hit stuff, antimatter is produced sometimes), and yes we can also produce them synthetically (i did this in college a couple times). when an antimatter particle comes into contact with its "regular matter" counterpart, both simply disappear, and a whole bunch of energy is produced in the form of photons (light) which have no mass, but have energy in that they function also as waves (i also did this in college a couple times. it's kinda cool, and i must say, entirely "believable" or whatever you like). thus, matter is not conserved in proton/antiproton annihilation, but energy is.as for the quantum mechanics thing, it's hard to explain, but i'll try. the way i have to explain it to someone who hasn't seen QM experiments kind of misstates the basic theory behind QM, but it's close enough and a WHOLE lot easier to understand when explained this way. (so physicists, don't fuss at what i'm about to say)basically, quantum mechanics says that everything you used to think about objects "being" places is not quite right--indeed, for all intents and purposes, stuff is where it appears to be, but as you look at smaller and smaller things, you realize this just ain't the case. instead, you can only talk about the probability of something being in one place or another (it's just that for big stuff, it's like 99.9999999999% where you "see it" normally, so all sorts of QM equations basically reduce to their newtonian "F=ma" or whatever counterparts when we're living our day to day lives. kinda.). this is a real revolution when it comes to how we understand the world scientifically, but it doesn't bother us in our normal lives because all of that fancy probability shit really reduces functionally to the same "apple falls from tree, hits newton on head" stuff when we're not dealing with pretty small stuff. the probabilities are still there with apples falling from trees, but they're pretty condensed around the places that we "see" the apple. (that part's confusing, i know, and i'm not explaining it quite right. someone else who knows physics can help if they want--the important thing is that there are more validating experiments to prove the QM revolution than there ever were to prove that apples fall out of trees. not joking)anyway...now, there are all sorts of consequences to this sort of revolution, one of which is that when you're dealing with really small shit, like, say, electrons or something, you can't know everything about them at once. i don't mean that you can't tell what color it is and what its name is, but things that physics cares about: you can't know the precise location AND precise speed of a really small thing. just impossible. the more you know about an electron's location, the less you know about its momentum (which is mass x velocity). this uncertainty can be quantified, and is in the big ****ing deal equation of the heisenberg uncertainty principle. now doing some other simple calculations, you can mess with both sides of the HUP and make it into a new uncertainty principle that says that the more precisely you measure an energy (in the form of matter or photons or whatever), the less you can know about (this isn't quite the proper wording, sorry) how long it's been around as that size of energy (or how long it's been around as a massive bit of matter, etc.). that last formulation of the HUP means something pretty wicked: that, without violating any laws of physics, matter can appear and disappear at random, so long as it doesn't stick around for too long. and we've seen it happen in the laboratory. promise (this one i haven't done in college, though). physics doesn't say anything about who or what makes this happen, but just provides a governing rule as to how it must occur.i know that's more than a bit longwinded, but i hope it answered your question regarding matter. the cliffs notes version is basically that "matter" is just a form of "energy" which is what you're really talking about being conserved. a little note about evolution: it's not a "philosophy" so much as a "theory," or "law," which is the same classification that we give things like gravity.as for what consequences you might find here for god, etc., we're not really any further along than we started. any little kindergartener can go up to stephen hawking and keep asking him "why?" and he'll eventually have to say "i don't know" or "i don't have an answer for you yet" at some point. and that's fine. if you want to eventually answer that question with "god," go right ahead, i don't really care one way or the other. personally, i like to embrace the question rather than any specific answer, which is neither better nor worse. it's just different. as for evolution, it's kinda a similar story to the one laid out above. scientists have done experiments to show that beings evolve from one species to another. they simply have done this. to argue otherwise is to argue against the scientific method itself. but that doesn't mean that there isn't a place for god in there somewhere, and you're welcome to hold (as a number of scientists do) that god has a hand in the evolutionary process. there is still a lot of wiggle room in terms of the specifics of evolution that need to be worked out, but as a general theory, yes, its verified. unequivocally. but even that shouldn't seem to be an affront to any sort of god.when i taught a class on science and religion a couple years ago, i'd put it this way on occasion: understanding more about the way the world works doesn't have to push god into the shadows--it can merely be a way of shedding light on god's works that allows those who follow that god to appreciate god all the more (yes, i intentionally avoided the use of pronouns in there). aside: it's probably worth noting that judaic and islamic traditions both have language similar to this worked into their central scriptures and culture, but christianity in most of its forms does not. now, if you want to argue that the genesis account of creation is literally true, then i'd straight up disagree with you. if you want to get into that debate, you pretty much have to throw the whole scientific method (and thus your television, your car, your cigars, etc.--all brought to you by science) out the window as well if you're going to be consistent. and i suppose you could, but you'd have to stop talking to me on teh internets.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm assuming your including me in that talking down. There are no 'little snipes' there and if you feel that way then I'm sorry because I've come off not as I wanted too. What you are seeing is the frustration of answering the same misinformed questions over and over ad nauseum.How can a random process create order?It's not random.Yes, but if it's random not even 4.5 billion years is enough time. Ask any mathematicianIt's not random.You can tell there is a design. A random process wouldn't look designed. <Wait 2 weeks and return to the start>No-one has ever seen evolution.Evolution is observed daily both in nature and in the lab.Those studying it have as much faith as theists because you can't prove it.You can see it happening. Right there. In front of your eyes.You're just basing your conclusions on the end results <Wait 2 weeks and return to the start>I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning

Well coming from the guy that has the most threads started on page one of the religion section, second only to Crow. I would say that you're being a bit disingenuos that you are tired of this debate. Either leave, or wait till you are asked. But don't try to set up Christians, then whine like a girl that you are tired of explaining things over and over again. I'll give you a newsflash, there is not going to be anything new in the debate in the religion section for the next few years, just like there hasn't been that much new in the last few centuries. You know why I don't get frustrated over explaining to UFO people why I think they are wrong? Cause I don't spend most of my time on their BB trying to make them look bad. And I used to believe in UFOs, but it's not my job in life to explain to them why they are wrong.And yes, I agree: I smell hypocrisy.

[checkymcfold 0]

Well coming from the guy that has the most threads started on page one of the religion section, second only to Crow. I would say that you're being a bit disingenuos that you are tired of this debate. Either leave, or wait till you are asked. But don't try to set up Christians, then whine like a girl that you are tired of explaining things over and over again. I'll give you a newsflash, there is not going to be anything new in the debate in the religion section for the next few years, just like there hasn't been that much new in the last few centuries. You know why I don't get frustrated over explaining to UFO people why I think they are wrong? Cause I don't spend most of my time on their BB trying to make them look bad. And I used to believe in UFOs, but it's not my job in life to explain to them why they are wrong.And yes, I agree: I smell hypocrisy.

this is kinda pessimistic for my tastes. i'd like to think that people can get better at trying to learn more about the other side of things, and on that score, i'd put equal amounts of blame on the devout and godless alike. the scientists ought to teach the anti-scientists about science, and their words should fall on welcoming ears. same goes for the religious and anti-religious.

[Balloon guy 158]

to be entirely correct, it's not matter that's conserved, but rather energy, which can take multiple forms. one of these is mass energy, which we call matter in the sense you're using the term. there are lots of examples of matter appearing and disappearing, but the overall energy of a reaction remains the same. one example of this (probably the best for answering your question) is the annihilation of a matter/antimatter pair. antimatter is just like matter, except the thingies that go around the nucleus have a positive charge (positrons) and the thingies in the nucleus have a negative charge (antiproton). yes, these silly things can be found in nature (when high-energy cosmic rays hit stuff, antimatter is produced sometimes), and yes we can also produce them synthetically (i did this in college a couple times). when an antimatter particle comes into contact with its "regular matter" counterpart, both simply disappear, and a whole bunch of energy is produced in the form of photons (light) which have no mass, but have energy in that they function also as waves (i also did this in college a couple times. it's kinda cool, and i must say, entirely "believable" or whatever you like). thus, matter is not conserved in proton/antiproton annihilation, but energy is.

Matter anti matter energy. I ,mostly didn't get, that and would probably, say I am not sure, what you, meant. Making up for possible missed commas later in threadBut from what I did follow, matter/energy can maybe be destroyed, although we're not sure it's actually destroyed, by interaction with a differetn form of energy?So if there was no energy, then there would be no interaction, hence no matter created or destroyed?Back to where did energy/matter come from?QM stuff you totally lost me, I think we will need to skip this section of the argument, or get someone to tag me out on my side and take over.