I have since found these thoughts from Lewis rather interesting about whether there is meaning behind our universe, like this flower pot. It has more meaning than just flowers in a flower pot.
He illustrates:
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies.
Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." (Mere Christianity)
I have heard one person make a point that the complexity of what we have today in our universe is like getting a thousand monkeys on type writers hoping to draft a thesis.
1. So, what are the likely hoods of our universe accidentally producing creatures with the ability to understand the concept of meaning?
2. Is it more likely that it was an accident or objectively caused?
3. Would the concept of meaning arise out of no meaning? Just as, would the concept of dark ever hit us if there were no light?
Many, many questions really, we need to be honest with ourselves.
I believe that God has made us to understand meaning, in order to understand God as our Maker. We are designed to think and understand meaning, unlike animals.
We have two cows on our little piece of land. Should they walk through our garden, I am sure they would have no idea that they are trespassing and have no idea that it is ordered for a reason/meaning :) To them it is just food. But when a person sees it, they wonder why it is ordered and conclude with the best option that it must have had someone who ordered it with a meaning/purpose in mind.
Hey Dan,
ReplyDeleteI thought I'd make a triumphant return to your blog (seeing as you posted a couple of comments on my humble blog).
1. I do not think it is possible to calculate probabilities of anything happening unless you know all the factors that are in play. We do not know nearly enough about universe formation/inception/origins or the frequency of (intelligent) life within said universe to make an informed assessment of the probability of us being here.
2. You neglect to mention 'other' options for the universe coming into existence. Once again, we do not know enough to make even an educated guess about this sort of thing
3. Meaning, as a concept, is irrelevant. It's the ability to form concepts at all that is the remarkable thing. Of course, lots of other animals frame their world with 'concepts' so we're nothing special there and it makes sense for increasingly complex organisms to develop systems for more effectively describing the world around them in order to survive. Sentience/cognizance is a necessary by-product of this.
Your cow example is silly and serves no purpose other than to say that some animals operate differently to other animals.
I'm interested to see where this discussion leads....
Cheers,
Hey EPM,
ReplyDeleteGood to have ya back :)
(I actually don't have time to answer you right now so I'll get back sometime.)
Dan
Word salad. No substance. Cannot be tested or falsified.
ReplyDeleteFail.
Ok,
ReplyDeleteSo the answers given are more "we don't know anything therefore we cannot make a judgment."
Yet you obviously think it is more probable that there is no God or else you wouldn't be placing your faith (living) in the non existence of God.
We all have philosophy and I want to know which one is the best answer as far as we know.
You inference macro-evolution from fossils. But that is all they are. Inferences of faith with some evidence.
Your philosophical world view is based on it. Mine is based on where there is design it is probably most likely there is a designer. Even Dawkins admits that it is tempting to consider a designer in our universe (Dawkins Lennox debate). And WHY would he say something like that? Unless there is REASON to think that. Yet it is fobbed as illusion. INFERENCE is what we do. Take the best option.
"It's the ability to form concepts at all that is the remarkable thing"
Exactly, does it make sense that we should accidentally get concepts?
Word salad. No substance. Cannot be tested or falsified.
Fail.
Froggie, cum on. You can do better than that.
It's no better than me just saying "Your comment is a scarce-word salad substance with no depth."
So what I said has no substance? So do you not believe in "meaning"?
"Inner significance" - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/meaning
You obviously do. Or else you wouldn't be reading and comprehending these lines/sticks/circles I am typing at the moment.
cannot be tested
It cannot be tested that the belief - "Only those things which can empirically verified have any meaning" ...is true, so it is not falsifiable.
This belief/statement has meaning but the belief/statement can't be scientifically tested.
What does it smell like?
taste?,look?, feel,? sound?
It can't be scientifically tested that there is a God but evidence(design) it's meaning can point toward Him.
Just as it cannot be scientifically tested that primitive ancient people carved out a stone cave thousands of years ago. But we can test the evidence (design) and it's meaning pointing toward them carving the cave. (Example)
Inference...take the best answer.
Thinking, thinking, thinking, thinking.
Does anyone like to think?
Dan
Sorry,
ReplyDeleteThat turned out to be a long comment :)
Dan,
ReplyDelete"You inference macro-evolution from fossils. But that is all they are. Inferences of faith with some evidence."
Fossils are only one of dozens of evidences that show evolution.
We have the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms, the geographic distribution of related species. The recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations, Nested Hierarchies, and ERVs are much more convincing evidence than fossils alone.
There is no reason to abandon logic and reason to be a Christian.
As Karl Giberson from Eastern Nazarene College (Boston) states:
"Belief in a supernatural creator always leaves open the possibility that human beings are a fully-intended part of creation. If the Creator chooses to interact with creation, he could very well influence the evolutionary process to ensure the arrival of his intended result . . . . Furthermore, an omniscient creator could easily create the universe in such a way that physical and natural laws would result in human evolution . . . ."
Froggie,
ReplyDeleteI have to keep slapping you in the face with reality, but let's look at some definitions.
Evidence. (from merriam-webster.com)
Something that furnishes proof : testimony; SPECIFICALLY : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the TRUTH (not assumptions) of a matter
Proof(from merriam-webster.com)
The cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a TRUTH or a FACT b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning (NOT ASSUMPTIONS)
Assumption
A fact or statement taken for granted, not proved.
With that said,
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION, JUST ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON SPECULATIONS.
In the same way we have no evidence of G-d, you don't have any for evolution. We both have belief systems. At least we rcognize it for what it is. You have a blind faith, faith that you possess the truth that is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. My friend that is your religion whether you accept it or not.
Shalom,
ND
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou know not whereof you speak.
Tell me why ERVs are not evidence of evolution.
When you debunk that, we'll move on.
Dale
Dan,
ReplyDeletePlease ignore my last request. It is obvious that you have no education in science so asking that question is like going into battle with an unarmed opponent; no value in it.
You proudly state you were raised in a "staunchly religious" home/ family. Thus you feel superior in some way, except you were sheltered from critical thinking. I'm sure you will eke out a living and have a nice future but I'm suspending communications here.
There is no way to have a rational argumet with anybody that merely tries to refute with irrational statements and vague circumlocutions; someone who has no clue about the science he is refuting actually works and why.
Thank you for the hospitality and I wish all the best for you!
Respectfully submitted,
Dale
No Doubt,
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that you missed off the first part of that definition.
"an outward sign : indication"
Any reason for that?
So you don't think that there are any outward signs or indications that a change in the frequency of inheritable traits in populations of organisms over time occurs?
(That is what evolution is, you know.)
Because that would mean that even micro-evolution doesn't happen and I'm pretty sure even most creationists accept that. (In fact, they have to in order to generate modern levels of biodiversity from single pairs of animals on the Ark)
Of, course there are a lot of 'outward signs and indications' that support the theory of evolution, from a wide variety of fields and agreed upon by people, both theists and non-believer alike.
But it's nice that you admit there's no evidence for your God though, although I think Da Bomb might disagree with you on that...
Hey Ex Pat,
ReplyDelete"'outward signs and indications' " is not proof...exactly my point. That's the difference in a blind faith and an educated faith.
"(That is what evolution is, you know.)"
Actually, No I don't know. If I had a dollar for everytime the theory of evolution has changed over the past century, I would definately be very well off. Everytime someone proves a part wrong, it changes to the point that evolutionists change or absorb other theories to boost their theory.
A great example is adaptation. Adaption has been accepted by the entire scientific community, Christian and non-Christian, for hundreds of years, but has been hijacked by evolutionists as exclsively their own.
Again, that is the difference between you guys and us. We accept anything that is proven as fact, everything else is speculation. However, it appears that you guys swallow everything that comes down the pike, especially if it's anti-theistic. I'll freely accept evolution once proven. Until then, it is a belief system based on an anti-theistic faith.
To be fair, so is our belief in G-d. We have a belief system that is obviously based on theistic faith. Neither can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. It all comes down to faith.
ND
EX Pat,
ReplyDelete"I find it interesting that you missed off the first part of that definition."
You are correct. I blew it. I'm still getting used to cutting and pasting and I missed that part. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until last week until Stan showed Gozreht and me how to italicize. Thanks Stan.
Also, please note that I reference who I borrow from, unlike some who cut and paste and claim as their own. I don't mean you. Those who do know who they are.
Also, I gave you the reference because the truth is very important to us. If I miss something, I expect you to call me on it, no hidden agenda here. It one thing to disagree, but to out and out lie is just wrong.
Shalom,
ND
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Keith,
ReplyDelete(Don't take this in a bad way)
I believe that there is evidence for God...but no proof scientifically. God reveals Himself personally to those who seek and through creation.
There is no proof of evolution although there may be evidence for it.
E.G. A dirty empty dinner plate in front of a person at a dinner table is evidence that he ate from that plate. Although it is no proof that he ate from the plate. (we do not know all the particulars)
We can be confident that our faith is based on evidence not just faith.
I think that atheism bases it's belief on a lot less evidence (or less convincing evidence) than theism.
Evidence is not proof. I think according to John Lennox that mathematics is the only field of which one can speak of proof...interesting. The rest is living by faith and taking the best conclusions.
Blessings my brother,
Dan
Dale,
ReplyDeleteI am unconvinced of macro-evolution happening but I believe the Bible leaves room for it should it be established conclusively...in animals (The Bible seems to put man separately as a creation..."Let Us make").
In Genesis it is interesting the wording God uses like "let the earth bring forth"....food for thought.
Dan
Hey ya Dale,
ReplyDeleteFroggie said...
Dan,
Please ignore my last request. It is obvious that you have no education in science so asking that question is like going into battle with an unarmed opponent; no value in it.
You proudly state you were raised in a "staunchly religious" home/ family. Thus you feel superior in some way, except you were sheltered from critical thinking. I'm sure you will eke out a living and have a nice future but I'm suspending communications here.
There is no way to have a rational argumet with anybody that merely tries to refute with irrational statements and vague circumlocutions; someone who has no clue about the science he is refuting actually works and why.
Thank you for the hospitality and I wish all the best for you!
Respectfully submitted,
Dale
I think this is the second time you have said your not going to continue communications?
NE way, you are right that I do not have an education in science specifically. I just know what I have picked up. I even quote people with Phds and yet you still get mad...oh well.
To let you know, I do not think that I am superior to you by any means by saying that I come from a staunch christian family. I just mean that my family is not half-hearted in their belief nor are they ashamed, we believe and know why we believe.
So I am irrational? That does no good just stating that. It does no good me saying, atheism is irrational and stupid... even though I may think that :) and you may think the same of me.
You wish me well? Many thanks,
I wish you well also!
Do let me know should you ever come to know our Maker!
Thanks for the discussions,
Dan
P.S. So what are ERVs exactly? How does it show that macro-evolution happened? If it shows that it can by some far fetched means, it does not necessarily mean that it did.
No Doubt,
ReplyDeleteRepeated in the hope of an answer (my apologies if it appeared rhetorical);
"So you don't think that there are any outward signs or indications that a change in the frequency of inheritable traits in populations of organisms over time occurs?"
And yes, that is what evolution is (and has been for quite some time now).
As has been explained (roughly 12 billion times) scientific theories are never 'proven' in the sense you are talking about (beyond a shadow of a doubt). They merely accumulate so much supporting evidence (and yes, that means outward signs; indications) that they are correct, that the possibility of them being shown to be wrong is very low.
For instance it would take something pretty monumental to show Germ Theory to be incorrect, but that doesn't mean we should call it 'The Law of Germs' or 'Germ Fact' or whatever; science, by its nature, is tentative.
You also keep beating this 'evolution is anti-theistic' drum as if it has any merit. There are a huge number of working scientists who are both theists and accept evolution - if there was some evil atheist conspiracy* don't you think one of these theists would have noticed something untoward going on?
Just out of interest, could you explain what your understanding of biological adaptation is?
Thanks,
* There is no Evil Atheist Conspiracy...
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteI'll offer my (lay) understanding of what ERVs are, but you have to let go of this idea of macro- and micro-evolution as separate things.
A brief analogy;
LIFE
LIFT
RIFT
RAFT
RANT
In each line I've only changed one letter and you can consider the change between lines as micro-evolution. And, of course, at each step there were many other four-letter words that emerged as the result of a single changed letter but we'll ignore those for now.
With me so far?
Macro-evolution is that LIFE has changed to RANT (two words without any of the same letters - totally different words/species!) via the process of micro-evolution. Nobody is suggesting that LIFE-->RANT in one, big macro-evolutionary step. It took four, small micro-evolutionary changes to affect the larger change.
Does that make sense?
Ok, this is how ERVs work (kind of);
LIFE LIFE
LIF*T LIF*T
RIF*T LIS*T
RAF*T LAS*T
RAN*T PAS*T
REN*T PAS*S
So we start of with LIFE, which micro-evolves into LIFT, again. Only, this time, the words contracted a viral infection '*' that inscribed itself in the genome of the word LIFT, making it LIF*T.
Now, the two columns of words represent two branches of the evolutionary tree and they diverge from the word LIFT until they are totally different words (RENT and PASS), you would never know that they came from the same ancestral word (LIFT), except for the addition of the '*' between the third and fourth letters.
If you know how *s insert themselves into words and how they behave then you can deduce that at some point in the past, before the two columns diverged, the * was inserted and then the columns split but retained this marker that shows how they come from the same base.
So that's pretty much what ERVs are, they're genetic markers stick in the genome at specific points, even if a population splits and groups branch off from the parent species.
Hope that helps,
Sweet,
ReplyDeleteThanks EPM. So according to this if it is as true as you claim, evolution is possible? that is "change"...
What I would like to know is, how on earth (literally) :) would a snail accidentally without guidence develop arms with tendons and bones, teeth etc...all by accident? (I don't care how long it takes, time is not design)
There must be a mind behind it? Can you not see that it takes more faith to believe that it is an accident than design?
If I left my room alone and let it run by itself it would get more chaotic, would it not? Unless design was applied to make it ordered so that everything in it served a purpose (arms and legs).
So evidence of possible ability to change is not necessarily evidence of everything changing from a single ancestor.
There you go Dale :) I am thinking critically. Or wait? Do you only consider critical thought "good" so long as it is not against your view?
Thanks again for your guys time!
Dan
Dan,
ReplyDeleteSnails didn't evolve into anything with arms, tendons, bones, teeth, etc.
You appear to be under the mistaken belief that modern, complex life came from modern, less-complex life. This is not the case. Modern snails are just as modern and just as evolved as every other species alive today - they've lasted just as long and have earned their place in their particular niche.
Referring back to my example, what you're asking is; how did RENT become PASS? Nobody thinks it did.
That aside, you are forgetting the non-random nature of selection. The four-letter word thing seems effective, so I'll use that again.
LIFE
LIFT LIFT LIFT
RIFT LIST LEFT LEFT
RAFF LAST DEFT LENT LENT
LASS DENT BENT LEST LEST LEST
DENN BEND LESS LUST LENT
BOND RUST LINT
HINT
So, we have LIFE- that's our base organism and it doesn't matter what species it is. It produces three sub-species (LIFT) that are almost identical to the base species but are separated somehow into isolated groups so different environmental pressures are applied to them.
The first two LIFTs eventually evolve into RIFT and LIST respectively and these two sister species are very similar but could no longer mate with each other. These two lineages continue to evolve...but we're going to introduce a selective pressure that any words with double letters (TT, SS, OO) go extinct for some reason - you can see how that prunes the rapidly growing family tree.
The third LIFT produces two different sub-species and these species start to diverge and the family gets bigger and bigger but they're all still related somehow to that base species.
Natural Selection prunes off all the double-lettered words and the process carries on.
If you wanted to show how complicated it really is then you'd have to allow words with any number of letters and changes could occur by deletion, addition, replication or alteration - but I don;t know how to go about writing that!
[I hope this is making sense!]
Anyhow, it's the selective pressure that determines what mutations are beneficial and which are not. Now, if you want to claim 'design' because all this seems too fantastic to happen without a guiding hand, then fine.
There's no evidence for it and there's no evidence to suggest that evolution has a goal in mind, but if you see design in this process then be a Theistic Evolutionist and call evolution God's Masterpiece because, let's face it, it is a beautiful and elegant system and if it was set up by a grand designer then that is really impressive work!
If anything's unclear, let me know and I'll try and clarify.
Regards,
Sorry! The formatting did not work at all like I hoped with the four-letter words. To make any sense of that you're going to have to add a bunch of spaces.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know how to code for spaces? Do you have to add .... everywhere?
Stupid technology...
It should look something more like this;
ReplyDeleteLIFE
LIFT LIFT LIFT
RIFT .LIST LEFT LEFT
RAFF LAST DEFT LENT LENT
.........LASS DENT BENT LEST LEST LEST
..................DENN BEND LESS LUST LENT
..................BOND..................RUST LINT
..................BONN.......................HINT
Apologies once again!
Why is this so HARD!
ReplyDeleteBOND and BONN should be directly under BEND.
Ok, I admit it, evolution's a lie. If it were true, this would be easier.
[goes off to sulk and learn how to use computers properly]
Hey Matt,
ReplyDelete"Ok, I admit it, evolution's a lie. If it were true, this would be easier."
LOL, Truth is not necessarily easy. Even though I disagree with evolution.
"Referring back to my example, what you're asking is; how did RENT become PASS? Nobody thinks it did."
No, I am still asking how complex useful LIFE became complex useful PASS.
I'll use an example that may be more accurate. Is it true that evolutionists still believe that birds came from Dinosaurs?
How did a dinosaur accidentally mutate in to gaining for the purpose of flying...big flaps of skin?
Not only big flaps of skin for gliding but how/why did it accidentally develop feathers for the use of improved flying? Or the eagle's sharp eyed vision? Everything seems to interlock and every creature has a purpose...a complex purpose.
I do understand what you are saying though, I see the principles you are bringing across.
"There's no evidence for it and there's no evidence to suggest that evolution has a goal in mind, but if you see design in this process then be a Theistic Evolutionist and call evolution God's Masterpiece because, let's face it, it is a beautiful and elegant system and if it was set up by a grand designer then that is really impressive work!"
Complex interacting is good evidence of God as designer but not proof. I would be a theistic evolutionist (with animals) should I be convinced. The Bible's language seems to indicate that it could be like that.
I'll aim to do a post talking about all that sometime.
Many thanks EPM,
Dan
Dan,
ReplyDelete"I believe that there is evidence for God...but no proof scientifically. God reveals Himself personally to those who seek and through creation."
Well said. But I don't remember saying anything to the contrary. The evidence which EX PAT and I were talking about is concrete evidence.
Evidence that either side has no other option than to arrive at the same conclusion when said concrete evidence is presented. Unfortunately, we have none. However, G-d does reveal himslef to us more and more the closer we get to him. That is our evidence and proof.
"(Don't take this in a bad way)"
I never do. I know your heart. We are brothers in the Messiah.
Shalom my dear friend.
Keith
Dan,
ReplyDeleteLet's take flying as an example.
Ever seen a squirrel?
Ever seen a flying squirrel? (yes, I know they only glide, but that's a pretty neat adaptation, eh?)
Ever seen a bat?
Now, I'm not saying that bats came from squirrels; I don't know the exact lineages off by heart, though I could check...
Ok, squirrels and bats are both Eutheria
(Placental Mammals), but squirrels are Rodentia and bats are Chiroptera. So bats are more related to lemurs and monkeys, and squirrels are more related to mice, rabbits and shrews but they all share a common ancestor.
Can you get your head around that, that all those species are fairly closely related and that one lineage became flying squirrels and one became bats? Pretty trippy, eh? But there are species that are very closely related to both (both in morphology and genetically) that cannot fly (or glide) despite how closely related they are.
You should check out this website;
http://tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1
It's a compilation of our current understanding of the tree of life. Just play around with it for a while and get a feel for what is being proposed. You'll see how little difference there is between closely related species, but how much difference that produces once a lineage has branched-off a couple of times.
If the mechanisms and results of evolution are so impressive, why not attribute it to God? You do that with everything else (I'm thinking of your fine-tuning post that you saw as good evidence for a designer), and you're leaning towards an old earth anyway.
/ramble
Cheers,
Thanks again EPM,
ReplyDelete"why not attribute it to God?"
Hmmmm. Why don't you consider attributing it to God if you think it is so impressive?
Dan
Because I don't believe there is a God.
ReplyDeleteBut if I did, I would hold up evolution as being His Masterpiece for sure!
I would probably take the tack that science uncovers how God's Creation works, but God wouldn't be so crass as to leave giant autographs all over his work, He'd be more subtle than that; requiring faith.
Anyway, moving on to your latest post...