Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    155

    God, Evolution, Science

    A few thoughts on the relationship between God and Evolution.

    As a disciple of Jesus Christ i only have one problem with Evolution and the science behind it. It is all contained in that 6-letter word random. I definitely don't think that theory of Evolution proves or disproves the existence of a Creator. In fact usually the more i learn about science the more i am convinced that there is some force pushing it. Even the evolutionist claim that a Random Mutation in an given environment produces such complex systems and organisms is hard for me to swallow.... adaptation is easy to understand and proven fact as a process. I very much Evolution WILL ever be able to prove that mutations are Random. How do you prove Random? How do you disprove Random? There are really no proofs for these concepts, but merely a best guess based on observed data.

    The concept of Devolution i have come across in other threads is a misnomer... in the sense that it is Random. There is no Right or Wrong way to evolve... but merely what is. In the sense that Evolution can result in less complex organisms could be consider Devolution, but really it is still evolution. Randomness is a fascinating topic to be sure..... And it is actually fairly difficult to produce it.... Even Random number generators can fall in to patterns and seem to suffer from some strange form or "Synchronicity." Even throwing some dice is not Random at all... it is bound by Laws of Physics... and the creation of the Die. It is Actually easier for me to believe that randomness does not exist more that observations suggest that it does.

    Is that not the real debate in evolution??? IT is not about the process of Evolution but rather the source for it. Some of us believe in an intelligent designer and some in random chance to explain the diverse and complex life that we see. Truly though the existence of God OR Randomness will ever be PROVEN or Disproved unless by an direct act of God or Randomness.

    As far as i know we have Proven that ionizing radiation or a highly charged particle will scramble DNA Code in an highly accelerated and Massive Evolution that could represent millions of years of slower random evolution, TO the best of my knowledge no person ever subjected to ionizing radiation has ever produced offspring that Showed millions of years of increased complexity, on the contrary is seems to only produce Chaos. Is there some reason that this fact does not support the idea that Random mutations CAN produce beneficial complexity for a given environment? I only ask this because i realize this assumption may not hold water upon further inspection.

    As you all know i Choose to Define God as Absolute and Objective Truth.......; therefore, I also believe that any Science will only make that Truth more evident. It would seem that just like language, or the Bible, Science must be properly interpreted in order to reach the Truth. Its kind of Ironic if you think about it. This is also why there are several interpretations of the Bible are not supported by Modern Science and many that are.

    1. I don't see that the Earth is 6000 years old.....
    2. I don''t see that humanity is 6000 years old....
    3. I don't see that there was a Worldwide Flood..... More than likely it was the Whole World of the teller of the Story....

    I don't believe that God gave us the Bible as a Scientific Document..... I believe the Bible is much more important than some Physical Treatise of an observable world. No the Bible rather is meant to show us things that we cannot naturally see..... IT is the underlying meaning and POINT of the Bible that is important.


    I digress.... my whole main point is this.... Is it easier to believe in Randomness or Intelligence.... What does the evidence support??

    For example when an evolutionist might assert that Common Descent is a fact I am fine with that.... If they want to claim that it was all Random then i would respectfully disagree...... To me Randomness is just an illusion.... everything happens for a reason even if we cannot see that reason.


    Just as the silly discussion of trying to PROVE or DISPROVE GOD..... I also submit that it is silly to try and PROVE or DISPROVE Randomness.

    That does Not mean that we can't make educated Guesses.... or see that the observable Data supports one viewpoint or the other. To me this is a much more interesting discussion than arguing about the "process" of science... or the "process" of evolution. This is also why i don't want to Argue about those things but rather want to learn AS MUCH AS possible about them, it is actually quite liberating. I see ALOT of truth in evolution and science and ALOT of blind faith also.... and that's okay..... it is impossible to discover anything New until you come to believe in the possibility that it may be true. IT is also True that if you Believe that something is impossible then YOU are always right. ;-). I have never done anything in my life that i Certain that i could not do it, but i commonly achieve things that I imagined were possible.

    I do see many similarities between a fanatically supported Dogma's in both the realms of Religion and Science that keep humans from thinking objectively. Truly anything that is a HUMAN endeavor is going to have Human qualities of absurdity.

    I have alot to learn about alot of stuff including God and Science both.... and i don't want my biases to slow me down....

    On other threads i have asked Alot of Questions about God. Here are a few questions i have about evolution.... in another thread i will post some questions i have about the Big Bang. I would love to know the answers to these questions for their own sake so if you have a good answer then please lay it on me......

    1. Which evolved first RNA or DNA? What are the odds that they would Randomly mutate at the same time? Does this support Design?
    2. Why is it that we Had ALOT more evolution during the relatively small period of time of the Cambrian Explosion, then we did in other time periods?
    Does Oxygen rich environment realistic support that much Evolution? Does this support Randomness or Design?
    3. I realize that in the event of mutation that is not supported by the environment that mutation will die out quickly, but shouldn't i be able to see more totally wacky Random mutations of things that were not beneficial? This seems to suggest that something is Driving the mutations that do happen?
    4. It is also hard for me to understand "How extremely complex systems could randomly evolve that would require millions of mutations in which they are only advantageous when they are ALL present? THis is especially evident in terms of Biochemical systems. This seems to suggest that SOMETHING is driving the mutations.

    Truly all of these things are WAY more miraculous than most of the miracles in the bible. Pardon me but i must say if I see something miraculous I am much more inclined to believe that it had a direct Cause more than just random chance. It would be like believing all the miracles in the bible really happened but that they were not caused by God... that just in the course of Billions of years it was bound to happen that way eventually. So sure maybe there are have been A million other Moses on a Million other worlds that called for God to Part the Red Sea and it didn't happen because "GOD doesn't exist" and on our world was just the exception and due to natural phenomena that just happen to occur by probability.


    With Utter devotion to Truth and Love,
    Matthjar.
    Last edited by Matthjar; 08-19-2014 at 06:36 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    A few thoughts on the relationship between God and Evolution.

    As a disciple of Jesus Christ i only have one problem with Evolution and the science behind it. It is all contained in that 6-letter word random. I definitely don't think that theory of Evolution proves or disproves the existence of a Creator. In fact usually the more i learn about science the more i am convinced that there is some force pushing it.
    Hey there Matthjar,

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this complex topic.

    It's impossible for evolution to "disprove" the existence of a creator, but it can make the creator unnecessary as an explanation of the origin of species and the appearance of design in living organisms. That's why believers find it such a threat. They traditionally have used the appearance of design as proof of a designer. The validity of evolution refutes their argument.

    I don't understand what you mean by "some force pushing" science. That's exactly the opposite of how I see it. That sounds like a very primitive conception, like the idea that angels pushed the planets through the sky before Newton discovered gravity. The fact that we can write mathematically precise equations that determine exactly what will happen removes any sense of any intelligence "pushing" anything. It's all natural law obeying deterministic equations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    Even the evolutionist claim that a Random Mutation in an given environment produces such complex systems and organisms is hard for me to swallow.... adaptation is easy to understand and proven fact as a process. I very much Evolution WILL ever be able to prove that mutations are Random. How do you prove Random? How do you disprove Random? There are really no proofs for these concepts, but merely a best guess based on observed data.
    I agree that there probably is no way to "prove random" but what is the alternative? Are you suggesting that God caused all the mutations? Would that not imply that he designed the mutations that cause cancer, Down's syndrome, color blindness, and thousands of other genetic diseases? I get the impression you have not really thought this through.

    The concept of random mutation makes a lot more sense than thinking an intelligence designed all those diseases on purpose. And the mutation rates can be measured. Remember, we are talking about science. The "randomness" only has to do with the DNA. Natural selection filters the results according to fitness, and that process is not random at all.

    I think the main problem is that you do not understand how the theory actually works. Evolution is inevitable, like a rock rolling down a hill. It is driven by "chance" in the same way that the second law of thermodynamics is driven by chance. It is like a lake that necessarily explores every nook and cranny of its coastline. Here is a post I wrote last year with an excellent video that explains evolution. It's from a thread called How Beliefs Resist Change - Christianity and Cognitive Science. Note that I was responding to the common creationist strawan that likens evolution to an "explosion in a junkyard" that produces a 747.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    If there is an explosion in a junk yard, and after the smoke cleared, there stood a Boeing 747, would you sail the friendly skies in it?
    This is one of the most common of the many creationist fallacies.

    Evolution is NOTHING like an "explosion in a junk yard." The fact that creationists use this argument merely exposes their inexcusable ignorance.

    Evolution is driven by "chance" just like thermodynamics. Evolution explores the "phase space" of all possible genetic patterns. The environment at time t naturally selects the forms most fit for that environment. Nothing could be more natural or expected. Evolution is just the operation of natural law.

    Here is a debate where Dr. Rainbow gives very valuable explanation of what the actual science of evolution says.



    The good stuff starts @32 minutes in. He made a graphic that shows how the "evolution machine" which runs 24/7/365 while exploring the "evolutionary phase space."

    If you understand his explanation you will understand why the validity of evolution is as certain as the second law of thermodynamics.
    I think it would be great if you wanted to discuss the explanation Dr. Rainbow gave in that video. It is very profound.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    The concept of Devolution i have come across in other threads is a misnomer... in the sense that it is Random. There is no Right or Wrong way to evolve... but merely what is. In the sense that Evolution can result in less complex organisms could be cfonsider Devolution, but really it is still evolution. Randomness is a fascinating topic to be sure..... And it is actually fairly difficult to produce it.... Even Random number generators can fall in to patterns and seem to suffer from some strange form or "Synchronicity." Even throwing some dice is not Random at all... it is bound by Laws of Physics... and the creation of the Die. It is Actually easier for me to believe that randomness does not exist more that observations suggest that it does.
    I think you misunderstood the concept of devolution that was discussed in the Genetic Entropy thread. The idea is not that it is "right or wrong" evolution, or that it results in organisms that are "less complex." The assertion is that random mutations degrade the genome and make the organisms "less fit" for survival. The error is two-fold. First, mutations are not intrinsically "good" or "bad" but rather "adaptive" or "maladaptive" given a specific environment. A given mutation that may be beneficial in one environment may be harmful in another. Second, the assertion ignores how natural selection maintains the genome. This is easy to understand. Random mutations happen all the time. If there is no selective pressure giving a higher survival rate, then the genome will indeed degenerate. We have many examples of this, such as animals that lose their eyes after living in dark caves for many generations. This is strong evidence that natural selection maintains the fitness of the genome.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    Is that not the real debate in evolution??? IT is not about the process of Evolution but rather the source for it. Some of us believe in an intelligent designer and some in random chance to explain the diverse and complex life that we see. Truly though the existence of God OR Randomness will ever be PROVEN or Disproved unless by an direct act of God or Randomness.
    We see "randomness" all around us. The concept it proven by its fruit. For example, one of the most successful areas of physics is known as statistical mechanics which assumes a random distribution of the states of all the particles in a gas. The equations predict things like the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Ideal Gas Law PV = nRT. These equations are tested in the lab and confirm the theory of statistical mechanics which is based on the concept of randomness.

    I don't understand your distinction between the "process" vs. the "source" of evolution. Evolution is the process.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    As far as i know we have Proven that ionizing radiation or a highly charged particle will scramble DNA Code in an highly accelerated and Massive Evolution that could represent millions of years of slower random evolution, TO the best of my knowledge no person ever subjected to ionizing radiation has ever produced offspring that Showed millions of years of increased complexity, on the contrary is seems to only produce Chaos. Is there some reason that this fact does not support the idea that Random mutations CAN produce beneficial complexity for a given environment? I only ask this because i realize this assumption may not hold water upon further inspection.
    Your question indicates a profound misunderstanding of evolution. It never happens in a single generation. A change representing "millions of years of evolution" must necessarily progress through tens of thousands of generations. Ionizing radiation will produce random mutations at a higher than normal rate. If a single individual is subjected to such radiation, there would be a huge random change in their genome which almost certainly would be fatal. That's not anything like how evolution works. You cannot induce "millions of years of increased complexity" in a single generation no matter how much randomness you introduce into the genome.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    As you all know i Choose to Define God as Absolute and Objective Truth.......; therefore, I also believe that any Science will only make that Truth more evident. It would seem that just like language, or the Bible, Science must be properly interpreted in order to reach the Truth. Its kind of Ironic if you think about it. This is also why there are several interpretations of the Bible are not supported by Modern Science and many that are.

    1. I don't see that the Earth is 6000 years old.....
    2. I don''t see that humanity is 6000 years old....
    3. I don't see that there was a Worldwide Flood..... More than likely it was the Whole World of the teller of the Story....

    I don't believe that God gave us the Bible as a Scientific Document..... I believe the Bible is much more important than some Physical Treatise of an observable world. No the Bible rather is meant to show us things that we cannot naturally see..... IT is the underlying meaning and POINT of the Bible that is important.
    Thanks for letting me know where you stand on those issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    I digress.... my whole main point is this.... Is it easier to believe in Randomness or Intelligence.... What does the evidence support??

    For example when an evolutionist might assert that Common Descent is a fact I am fine with that.... If they want to claim that it was all Random then i would respectfully disagree...... To me Randomness is just an illusion.... everything happens for a reason even if we cannot see that reason.
    What makes you think everything happens for a reason? Are you saying that God specifically chose to allow each and every sin in the world for his own "mysterious reasons?" I think "random" makes a LOT more sense out of the events we see in the world. All the pain and suffering and meaningless deaths. Why would anyone think that God planned to kill the baby of my cousin who is totally devoted to him? She was devastated. And now realizes that she can't actually TRUST God for anything, since every apparently random event like cancer and the death of her baby was actually planned by him in advance and that her prayers were vain because he already made up his mind to kill her child.

    Random makes a lot more sense out of what we actually see in the world than the idea that there is some inscrutable and capricious God who tells us to trust him even as he kills our children with disease, destroys our homes with hurricanes and floods, etc., etc., etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    Just as the silly discussion of trying to PROVE or DISPROVE GOD..... I also submit that it is silly to try and PROVE or DISPROVE Randomness.
    I agree that you cannot "PROVE" (all caps) most things. It's usually a matter of probability.

    I don't think you understand what "random" means. You can measure it statistically. Take an hour and flip a coin. How many heads? How many tails? I would be willing to bet a thousand dollars that the result will be 50/50 to within two standard deviations. How can I have such confidence? Because I know the laws of nature and the laws of statistics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    That does Not mean that we can't make educated Guesses.... or see that the observable Data supports one viewpoint or the other. To me this is a much more interesting discussion than arguing about the "process" of science... or the "process" of evolution. This is also why i don't want to Argue about those things but rather want to learn AS MUCH AS possible about them, it is actually quite liberating. I see ALOT of truth in evolution and science and ALOT of blind faith also.... and that's okay..... it is impossible to discover anything New until you come to believe in the possibility that it may be true. IT is also True that if you Believe that something is impossible then YOU are always right. ;-). I have never done anything in my life that i Certain that i could not do it, but i commonly achieve things that I imagined were possible.
    I like your attitude. An open mind is a necessary prerequisite to learning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    I do see many similarities between a fanatically supported Dogma's in both the realms of Religion and Science that keep humans from thinking objectively. Truly anything that is a HUMAN endeavor is going to have Human qualities of absurdity.
    I don't see anyone "fanatically supporting Dogma's" in science. That's a false equivalence. Science is defined by skeptical inquiry of reality based on empirical evidence, whereas blind belief in unjustified dogmas (often contrary to fact) is essential to religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthjar View Post
    On other threads i have asked Alot of Questions about God. Here are a few questions i have about evolution.... in another thread i will post some questions i have about the Big Bang. I would love to know the answers to these questions for their own sake so if you have a good answer then please lay it on me......

    1. Which evolved first RNA or DNA? What are the odds that they would Randomly mutate at the same time? Does this support Design?
    2. Why is it that we Had ALOT more evolution during the relatively small period of time of the Cambrian Explosion, then we did in other time periods?
    Does Oxygen rich environment realistic support that much Evolution? Does this support Randomness or Design?
    3. I realize that in the event of mutation that is not supported by the environment that mutation will die out quickly, but shouldn't i be able to see more totally wacky Random mutations of things that were not beneficial? This seems to suggest that something is Driving the mutations that do happen?
    4. It is also hard for me to understand "How extremely complex systems could randomly evolve that would require millions of mutations in which they are only advantageous when they are ALL present? THis is especially evident in terms of Biochemical systems. This seems to suggest that SOMETHING is driving the mutations.
    Good questions:

    1. No one knows, but there is a lot of interest in the idea that RNA came first. It makes no sense to ask if they "mutate at the same time." Does what support Design?

    2a. The Cambrian Explosion is an active area of research. The best explanation I've seen has to do with Hox genes (and related genes) that "have been implicated as controllers of body plan characters, and the differences between phyla have been been attributed to variation in the number and expression of Hox-like genes. Furthermore, the Cambrian explosion has been interpreted as the point at which Hox clusters formed, and were subsequently canalized so that no new body plans formed after that time" (source).

    2b. Oxygen rich environments are a problem only for abiogenesis, not the subsequent evolution.

    3. You want totally wacky mutations? Here you go: 8 Weird Human Mutations.

    4. It sounds like you are talking about Behe's generally debunked "irreducible complexity" argument. You will have to give a specific example if you want a more specific answer.

    Great chatting!

    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    155
    Thanks for the reply Richard......

    Before i even get started in addressing your whole post i must say the Video about the Evolutionary Phase Space was fascinating..... I really liked the demeanor of Dr. Rainbow also...... That other Fellow Hovin..... embarrasses me... it was so funny how he would throw out blanket assertion after blanket assertion with little facts to support them. I was still glad i watched the video though. ;-).

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I think you misunderstood the concept of devolution that was discussed in the Genetic Entropy thread. The idea is not that it is "right or wrong" evolution, or that it results in organisms that are "less complex." The assertion is that random mutations degrade the genome and make the organisms "less fit" for survival. The error is two-fold. First, mutations are not intrinsically "good" or "bad" but rather "adaptive" or "maladaptive" given a specific environment. A given mutation that may be beneficial in one environment may be harmful in another. Second, the assertion ignores how natural selection maintains the genome. This is easy to understand. Random mutations happen all the time. If there is no selective pressure giving a higher survival rate, then the genome will indeed degenerate. We have many examples of this, such as animals that lose their eyes after living in dark caves for many generations. This is strong evidence that natural selection maintains the fitness of the genome.
    Yes i think we are totally in agreement here..... was just saying that devolution is slightly misleading term... since it is all Evolution or change..... we can't Un-evolve. I also get the part about adaptive and maladaptive..... and the importance of Selection. The Selection part is very fascinating to explore also!!!!
    If we see the environment as the DRIVER for the process of evolution than as Man obtains more and more control over the natural environment he also influences the very process of evolution itself. The ramifications can be quite staggering..... and is part of the reason i am not a big fan of GMO's and monoculture agriculture supported by chemicals and pesticides . It also makes me wonder what are the ramifications of State run support system that can artificially sustain life.... It definitely removes quite a bit of selective pressure. At many times i get the Intuition that we mess with finely balanced systems without understanding the full ramifications of our actions......


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    We see "randomness" all around us. The concept it proven by its fruit. For example, one of the most successful areas of physics is known as statistical mechanics which assumes a random distribution of the states of all the particles in a gas. The equations predict things like the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Ideal Gas Law PV = nRT. These equations are tested in the lab and confirm the theory of statistical mechanics which is based on the concept of randomness.
    Yes i definitely need to research that some more when i get a chance...... I am fascinated about the idea that we can predict the outcome of randomness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I don't understand your distinction between the "process" vs. the "source" of evolution. Evolution is the process.
    Yeah i need to start another thread for this.... mostly though i would like to explore the idea that something else is driving the mutations.... maybe the answer will be found in Quantum Mechanics....

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your question indicates a profound misunderstanding of evolution. It never happens in a single generation. A change representing "millions of years of evolution" must necessarily progress through tens of thousands of generations. Ionizing radiation will produce random mutations at a higher than normal rate. If a single individual is subjected to such radiation, there would be a huge random change in their genome which almost certainly would be fatal. That's not anything like how evolution works. You cannot induce "millions of years of increased complexity" in a single generation no matter how much randomness you introduce into the genome.
    Yes i am not more than a layman in my knowledge of evolution ;-). I do understand the multiple generations required for changes specially big changes.... I am still not sold on the idea of one species randomly changing to another species even over millions of years of generations...... It would be easier to see in lifeforms that are very simple and mature and reproduce quickly.... like with bacteria, harder to imagine with very complex life. Yeah i was just exploring the idea of radiation as an evolution accelerator.... of course if the radiation kills the organism then it would not apply, but even one instance of a adaptive evolution due to radiation exposure would be enticing...maybe i watched too much incredible hulk growing up....LOL. HMMM... maybe that could explain the Cambrian explosion.... maybe the earths atmosphere was different then (Less Ozone) which allowed more ionizing radiation from the Sun which made things evolve faster??? Most theories i have saw though claim the environment was more oxygen rich then....hmmm... i wonder... i will have to get back to this idea after i look some more stuff up....


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    What makes you think everything happens for a reason? Are you saying that God specifically chose to allow each and every sin in the world for his own "mysterious reasons?" I think "random" makes a LOT more sense out of the events we see in the world. All the pain and suffering and meaningless deaths. Why would anyone think that God planned to kill the baby of my cousin who is totally devoted to him? She was devastated. And now realizes that she can't actually TRUST God for anything, since every apparently random event like cancer and the death of her baby was actually planned by him in advance and that her prayers were vain because he already made up his mind to kill her child.

    Random makes a lot more sense out of what we actually see in the world than the idea that there is some inscrutable and capricious God who tells us to trust him even as he kills our children with disease, destroys our homes with hurricanes and floods, etc., etc., etc.
    I can definitely understand your viewpoint Richard..... In my own (delusional? LOL) mind I think this all hinges on believing in eternity..... for if our lives on earth are the end all and be all then yes you are absolutely correct.... on the other hand if our lives here are just a blink of an eye, meant to accomplish something else then it is much less important in the grand scheme of things.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I don't think you understand what "random" means. You can measure it statistically. Take an hour and flip a coin. How many heads? How many tails? I would be willing to bet a thousand dollars that the result will be 50/50 to within two standard deviations. How can I have such confidence? Because I know the laws of nature and the laws of statistics.
    I hear you Richard..... but even that very fact of a 50/50 is not so much random... the deviations are random (yes) but also expressed mathematically... but yes I may need to revisit my ideas of randomness and probability..... but yes when we can predict the randomness expressed in deviance then it is not so much random.... maybe it is just showing us that there is coherence in randomness and not so much any random in randomness.....LOL... We should explore this further.....

    Albert Einstein famously remarked in a letter to Max Born: "I am convinced that God does not play dice".

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I like your attitude. An open mind is a necessary prerequisite to learning.
    Thanks!!!! Yes IMHO its the only way to fly..... because if we explore all ideas we are most likely to find the best ones.... ;-).

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I don't see anyone "fanatically supporting Dogma's" in science. That's a false equivalence. Science is defined by skeptical inquiry of reality based on empirical evidence, whereas blind belief in unjustified dogmas (often contrary to fact) is essential to religion.
    I will try to find some specific cases that we can analyze together.... I am convinced though that Humans are able to make Gods out of anything (science included) they want to...... and that they are able to engage in fanatic behavior in pursuit of such devotion to those ideals. Another topic to flesh out.... ;-)



    Great chatting!
    ... Thanks for the info to my questions Richard it is much appreciated.... going to check out the Hox Genes...... and review abiogenesis i have heard the word but cant recall it......... Yeah I really liked Darwin's Black Box and i did not realize that irreducible complexity has been debunked.... I will review that for sure also.....

    I really appreciate you taking the time in communicating some of your knowledge..... i definitely think we would all be better off if we could discuss more and argue less....... of course that requires that i suspend judgment on the veracity of the new information rather than automatically dismissing it if it doesn't line up with my current world view..... but necessary if i want to find out the truth.....

    With Utter devotion to Love and Truth,
    Matthjar
    Last edited by Matthjar; 08-20-2014 at 03:09 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •