Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Danmark]

.

I confess I don't have the slightest clue what your basis for your statement on quine computing is.

It is claimed that the secret sauce in Darwinian evolution is...

• mutation
  migration
  genetic drift
  natural selection

If this were true, then this formula should produce evolution on a computer that is programed with those ingredients. I am willing to give it a try but the Darwinists themselves are convinced that their secret sauce is not all that is needed for evolution to occur.

I guess I don't really follow this line of thinking. I don't see how repeating a line of computer code millions of times would lead to mutation, migration' genetic drift, or natural selection. Perhaps I flatter myself, but these processes do make sense to me in regard to the DNA/RNA process where we can actually see changes to the genetic code over time for a variety of reasons. Remember, when we are talking about a code that replicates organic, living matter, we are addressing staggering amounts of information.

The human brain alone consists of 86 to 100 billion separate neurons, some of those neurons having as many as 10,000 interconnections each. The worlds most powerful computer does not begin to approach connections of this magnitude, tho' scientists are working on it.
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-08-j ... brain.html

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 2784:

...
You cannot use the techniques of religious beliefs to discover an inhabited universe.

Best I can tell, ya can't use it for much more'n discovering one's incredulity.

You cannot use the techniques of scientific inquiry to discover a god.

Kinda hard to discover something that ain't there to get it discovered.

There is common ground here and you rightly mention speculation as one of them. These two metaphysical pursuits have often shared their appetite for knowledge in the past and they might do this again. To repeatedly seek difference and to reject the shared speculative nature of both is to deny that past and to look for a polarity of separation that ultimately does not exist.
...

I see little common ground in the religious approach to discovery, and the scientific approach. I find religious "discovery" to most often involve inserting a god where an absence of any other explanation is available. Science will place such a lack into the "beats me, but let's keep a-lookin'" category.

With respect, I find yours a faulty line of reasoning. It is, with no nefarity, an effort to equate the religious with the scientific.

You cannot use the techniques of religious beliefs to discover an inhabited universe. You cannot use the techniques of scientific inquiry to discover a god. There is common ground here and you rightly mention speculation as one of them. These two metaphysical pursuits have often shared their appetite for knowledge in the past and they might do this again. To repeatedly seek difference and to reject the shared speculative nature of both is to deny that past and to look for a polarity of separation that ultimately does not exist. That is what is being attempted constantly on this thread.

I include the entire paragraph to ensure folks have complete data here. Your last sentence is what I wanna get at, and by that I mean I don't guess I disagree. I would say that "shared their appetite for knowledge in the past" should not lead us to conclude "it's in the Bible, so there" is any form of scientific argument.

[olavisjo]

.

I guess I don't really follow this line of thinking.

The idea is to create virtual cells that reproduce, then introduce a small amount of variation to the reproduction. If Darwinian evolution is true then these cells will become more fit for survival and reproduction as they will compete with each other for computer time and space. There should be no limit to how sophisticated these cyber cells can become.

[Star]

I have suggested that this thread attempts to create a fictitious division between two metaphysical approaches to understanding our existence.

There's nothing 'fictitious' about the staggering gulf between science and superstition, between astronomy and astrology, between mathematics and malarkey. You might just as well claim the divide between cosmology and cosmetology is fictitious.

The bolded part made me LOL.

Good points.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 2792:

The idea is to create virtual cells that reproduce, then introduce a small amount of variation to the reproduction.

Yessir.

If Darwinian evolution is true then these cells will become more fit for survival and reproduction as they will compete with each other for computer time and space.

Not necessarily. Mutations can be considered, simplistically here, to have three outcomes - detriment, dismissal, and dang sure glad.

On detriment, the mutation will negatively impact the long-term survival.

On dismissal, the mutation will have no impact.

On dang sure glad, everybody's happy and mirth and merriment spread across the land.

There should be no limit to how sophisticated these cyber cells can become.

"Sophisticated" is a subjective term, and a faulty way to go. Do you really expect these "cyber cells" to become a living, breathing entity?

Computer simulations of evolutionary notions are merely one tool among many. They inform our understanding, but do not provide a foundation. The foundation is the observation that mutations occur, these mutations have an impact, and that through time we can see that speciation occurs.

We can look at various closely-related species and come to a much better understanding than any computer simulation may ever offer.

Your line of reasoning is, I contend, faulty. I base my conclusion on your use of analogy - with its inherent problems, an incomplete set of data, and erroneous conclusions derived therefrom.

Computer simulations of evolution fail?

We conclude computers can't do them no good evolutin'.

We don't toss out the very foundation of our understanding of observed, testable, and confirmed biological processes.

[Danmark]

.

I guess I don't really follow this line of thinking.

The idea is to create virtual cells that reproduce, then introduce a small amount of variation to the reproduction. If Darwinian evolution is true then these cells will become more fit for survival and reproduction as they will compete with each other for computer time and space. There should be no limit to how sophisticated these cyber cells can become.

As I have alluded to the problem may be one of scale as well as more variables on the biological side. My understanding is that most mutations take place in the 'junk DNA' and have no appreciable effect. Also most mutations that make a significant difference are harmful and the organism dies without reproduction. When there is a non harmful mutation, if it gives the organism an advantage over competing organisms it survives.

We don't have to debate whether or not evolution is a reality whether by natural selection, mutation, or other process since we can and have seen it. Man has been breeding animals and plants for particular traits successfully for Centuries. There are many examples of macroevolution. Manatees are but one example.


It is good to keep in mind that in someways 'survival of the fittest' is at best misleading. An organism with a significant mutation does not have to be the 'most fit' to survive. It merely has to be fit enough to survive long enough to produce offspring that carry the new genetic information.

BTW, I do not understand why there is such an antipathy to either evolution or the fact of the Earth being billions of years old. I grew up in a college church community in the 1950's and 60's that accepted both science and faith in the classic view of the trinity and the Apostle's Creed [or similar orthodox creeds]. Evolution certainly provides a theory for the variation of the species independent of a divine creator, but it does not insist that such a divinity did not employ evolution as the mechanism of 'creation.' Most well educated, Bible believing, 'born again' Christians I have known have no trouble reconciling their belief in God with their appreciation of science.

[zeromeansnothing]

re JoeyKnothead Post2791--I see little common ground in the religious approach to discovery, and the scientific approach. I find religious "discovery" to most often involve inserting a god where an absence of any other explanation is available. Science will place such a lack into the "beats me, but let's keep a-lookin'" category.


I like your straightforward approach to this question and I respect your opinion.
I am sure that many people with religious beliefs would not like to describe their strongly held beliefs as metaphysics. That is why I consider it the middle ground between science and religion. You attempt to create a difference here. It goes like this.

I find religious "discovery" to most often involve inserting a god where an absence of any other explanation is available

Science will place such a lack into the "beats me, but let's keep a-lookin'" category

The only difference here is one calling it God and the other putting it in the things to do pile, if you pardon my humour. Sir Hamilton suggested commonality between science and religion and he was ridiculed for it. Science talks about discovery and paths and processes towards greater understanding and religious people talk about moving towards a proper awareness of reality. These two human pursuits are more same than different. They are speculative, cognitive and on going and each uses techniques that are peculiar to themselves. Thank You for your response here.

re olavisjo Post2789 reply to Danmark

Yes, for true faith and true science.
No, for false faith and false science.

I agree with this. It is too easy to attack the underbelly of your opponent and it is also a waste of time in a debate like this. We need to consider the best of both but this is much more difficult to undertake because of the levels of development and expertise and indeed knowledge that is out there in both science and religion.

[olavisjo]

.

We don't have to debate whether or not evolution is a reality whether by natural selection, mutation, or other process since we can and have seen it.

There is an old folk tale about a "soup stone". It is about some travelers that have a magic stone that will turn an ordinary pot of hot water into a nutritious soup. And sure enough every time they do it, the stone always produces a wonderful pot of soup. But as the story goes "The villager hands them a little bit of seasoning to help them out. More and more villagers walk by, each adding another ingredient".
It is the same with evolution, we see it and we attribute it to reproduction, mutation and natural selection. But if reproduction, mutation and natural selection are responsible for evolution we should be able to isolate those factors in a controlled environment and still see evolution. Just like we should be able to isolate the soup stone into a controlled environment and still have the stone produce a pot of soup. But, in both cases they don't work.
So to get a computer program to evolve we are going to need to 'fine tune' the framework where the programs are going to live, and then we should have evolution. If it still does not work, then that tells us that there is more magic involved in atoms than we as intelligent humans are incapable of reproducing. And we will just have to admit that we don't understand evolution at all.

[zeromeansnothing]

Is this a productive interchange of opinions?

Sir Hamilton Post2749--I was putting into perspective how much more abysmally small the group of humans are who are atheist compared to those who are theist. You dismiss about 98 percent of the population of the world in favor of your 2 percent. Then you use the same logic by pointing out 93 percent of "scientists" don't believe in a personal god as a valid reason to not believe the 7 percent that do. You appeal to the authority of scientists that support the beliefs of atheism, abiogenesis, and evolution of man. You haven't made any of these so called discoveries or witnessed any of these discoveries...you just believe them because they claim to be an expert. My whole point is we all appeal to authority and it is amusing that you hate to admit that simple fact.

reply

re Danmark Post2751--The point you miss by a thousand miles is that we are talking about a question of science when it comes to the age of the Earth and evolution.
Your argument is like asking the opinion of of a bunch of fast food workers about what should be done about a dentistry problem or more to the point, how to conduct neurosurgery on the brain.
We don't have a popular vote about how to launch a rocket into space, and we don't ask your average 8th grader about questions of cosmology, geology or evolutionary biology.

[FarWanderer]

re Far Wanderer Post2761--I mean, what information does prayer make available about reality? That God exists? Anything else?

This is just another add on to an already crowed debate space. If I give you one, as I did with prayer will you ask me about that too.

If I don't find the answer satisfying.

The above is a thread in itself for another day. Prayer helps you understand about yourself.

Understanding oneself does not require prayer. I mean, it certainly can be employed in the process, but in terms of it's function in understanding oneself, how is it any different from secular introspection?

My point is that apparently the only thing that can be "discovered" through a religion's "techniques" alone is it's very own focal point: its "God". In other words region has to be assumed in order to "discover" its own foundation. But since the conclusion is already assumed from the start, the process itself is meaningless as it can provide no new information.

This is why religious "techniques" of discovery, aren't.

Scientific inquiry of course has a speculative aspect to it, but the difference is that there exists a way to confirm or refute scientific speculation: the scientific method. Speculating and testing it has the potential to provide new meaningful information.