penia

You don't *believe* evolution because....oh, that's right...you don't know why.

I know why I don't believe it. I have reasons...
- I think the universe is way to complex to have to come from single cell organisms.
- And how did the single cell organisms come about? Walter L Bradley, an authority on the origins of life said that the probability of linking just one hundred amino acids to form one protein molecule by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand somewhere in the sahara desert - and doing so not once, but three times
But still with my limited knowledge I'm not going to try to disprove evolution, but I do have reasons sufficient enough for me to not believe it.


How could you possibly believe the bible is inerrant? You say you've studied it...and you haven't found anything ah...odd, strange, etc? I find it hard to believe that somebody could actually read AND study the bible, and maintain that it is inerrant.

I must conclude that you've read the bible (Genesis at least), but you didn't actually think about it.

Please don't insult me and tell me that I haven't thought about it. I have and I believe it to be inerrant. And if one studies it with a firm atheistic perspective it will look like nonsense because one God is mentioned in the Bible. Many people have studied and researched the Bible and believe it to be inerrant.

penia

I can assure you that you do not understand gravity either, although I'm sure you *believe* in it.

Gravity has made itself very evident in my life. There's no way that I can explain around it. Its a fact. Evolution is... a theory. It cannot be empirically proven and neither can God. Both take faith but gravity takes none. don't confuse the two.

rmadison

Admittedly, based in ignorance of the subject.


You may think it's too complex, but then again, you've already admitted that you don't know what you're talking about, so I'm sure you'll understand why I don't take your criticisms seriously at all.


How could you possibly know you have sufficient evidence to disbelieve it, when you don't know anything about it?

You don't even know what you don't know...and you think you've got "sufficient" evidence.

How would you know which evidence was "sufficient", and which was not, since you don't - by your own admission - know anything about it?

It's not meant to be an insult. It's simply my conclusion.

How many people are required to believe something, in order to make it true?

Because I'm rich ya' know. And now that everybody knows that I'm rich, and they believe I'm rich...



Hey...which one of you guys out there isn't contributing. I AM rich dammit. You MUST believe me!

Yahzi

1. Given that you have not studied evolution, and given that means you cannot make claims about it (by your own assertion), how is it that you can claim it cannot be empirically proven?

In any case, a) evolution has been proven, b) you probably mean abiognesis (the origin of life), which has nothing to do with evolution, and c) wherever the first cell came from, it's clear that we have all descended from it (common descent is as objectively proven as you can get short of reproducing it in the lab).

2. Evolution has made itself very evident in your life. Unless you've never been to a hospital or read a newspaper article about how the new infections are resistant to the old anto-biotics. Indeed, I don't think anybody even uses pencillin anymore, because it doesn't actually kill anything anymore.

Also, the American South now has a much larger proportion of rattlesnakes that either rattle quietly or not at all, thanks to 100+ years of actively hunting them by the sound of their rattles.

The evidence for evolution is all around you, if only you would chose to see.

rmadison

Why are you trying to teach me the difference between fact and theory?

Unlike you, I actually HAVE studied science, and I do know the difference between fact and theory.

And obviously, since you haven't studied the subject, you don't understand it. You've admitted as much.

If I thought you'd (1) read it or (2) understand it, I'd explain the difference to you. Maybe somebody more patient will?

Vorkosigan

Penia,

evolution is TWO things...

First, it is a FACT. It is a fact, recognized since the end of the 17th century, that the living organisms on earth have changed over time. By the middle of the 18th century, when Linnaeus was writing his work on classification, recognition of this change was a serious problem for the naturalists of the time. "Evolution" was first used to describe this change in 1826, or 30 years before Darwin published.

What Darwin did was explain this FACT by positing a THEORY of evolution -- a scientific model of how this change takes place. In doing this he solved a problem that had vexed thinking men and women for two centuries. For this, he is justly famous. This theory called for natural selection to act as the driving force of change. Married to genetic science, this theory has produced the most powerful, wide-ranging, and deep understanding of nature that humans have. It is in fact the best-proved model in the scientific domain, observed in the field and in the lab, in fossils, and used today by industrial concerns to develop new products in fields from bio-technology to electronics.

The term "THEORY" does not mean the same thing in science that it does in ordinary speech, penia. A Scientific Theory is a model that provides solutions to problems, suggests new routes for research, and provides a framework to think about reality. It does not mean, as it does in ordinary speech, a suggestion or hypothesis not yet proven. When scientists speak of the Theory of Evolution, they mean a model of reality, not a guess about how reality works. Big Difference.

I hope you will take the time to read one of the many wonderful books on evolution. I suggest starting with Bowler's excellent and accessible Evolution: The History of an Idea.

Finally, there is nothing in evolution that contradicts Christianity. All the mainstream Churches accept it. Most educated people have no trouble accepting evolution and believing in some religion.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

[QUOTEMight I suggest that while it must be possible to use positively a text in translation, to debunk it must certainly involve knowledge of the language that it is written in? After all, no-one is responsible for what a translator may do to his work!
[/QUOTE]

But Roger, this is a double-edged sword. If the critic cannot interact with this text for the reasons you name; neither can the believer. All must stand mute before it.

I take Carr's more sensible position that it is possible to do meaningful work with texts in another language. Much "Bible" criticism consists of points that are not language-related, such as the PoE, a problem no matter what language you work in. Others are simple -- John and the Synoptics disagree on the Passion in many places, and these differences are not due to subtleties of translation. Finally, speaking as a professional translator of Chinese to English, if you can't render the meaning properly, you shouldn't be doing translation work.

Vorkosigan

Tod

originally posted by penia
I think the universe is way to complex to have to come from single cell organisms.

I have to say that I find that notion ridiculous as well, and I'm an atheist. BTW, what model states that the universe came from single-celled organisms?

I've heard of the Big Bang and steady-state models, but this whole universe-springing-from-single-celled-organisms idea is foreign to me. Sounds like the hypothesis of a real crackpot.

Roger Pearse

I'm not sure I see why. How the believer uses his book is not something we can determine. If it does not bother him, it can hardly be our business.

But more generally, I'm not sure I agree with the overall point. Will not debunking a text always require interaction with the original language? You see, I think about it like this.

Using the text for what it says, however, you may get away with a translation simply because you're putting less weight on individual words. I'm not saying this very well, I know, but there is a distinct difference, just as a libel lawyer will point out the difference between unwarranted flattery and unwarranted defamation. It's not a very good parallel, but it suggests something is lurking there.

It is certainly possible to use a text in translation, I think, or to use the text for many purposes, although I wouldn't try doing that in a doctoral dissertation or published work! But I doubt that 'fault-finding' can legitimately be done on translations.

Would you think much of someone who attacked you for something you said, if they only knew your work in someone else's translation? I think you would rightly be somewhat contemptuous -- I would be in that situation, anyway.

But if someone used a translation of my work for some positive purpose, and got it slightly wrong, well I rather think it would be unlikely to be catastrophic; and if it was, well, I think that I'd be less worried about the consequences.

I certainly don't believe that translation is impossible, or that translations are valueless -- on the contrary.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Vinnie

Well, I'm one of those wacky prejudicial folks who accepts the constancy of the laws of physics until demonstrated otherwise. I will lack belief in floating axeheads and talking asses until such things are demonstrated in a controlled enviroment or there is good reason to accept their factuality.

Well of course. If you change the presuppositions it makes more sense. It is "possible" but the intervening God of supernatural theism is the most problematic out there. You are trading in one absurdity by defending it with another. Not a great leap forward in my book. That is why I posted that in response to Haran. Critique that if you are up for the challenge.

Why was God so interested in making Balam's ass talk? Why should I believe he made it talk? In fact, if we are speculating this hypothetical God could have done anything. Maybe he fabricated the testimonium flavianum as well. I'm interested in evidence.

I use common sense to argue that the intervening God of the literal Bible is incompetant, incoherent and arbitrary to the point of being so disconnected to human thought as to be meaningless.

When did I presume there was no a God? Presuming other people are arguing things they aren't surely must be bad manners?

And being so charitable to fanciful claims from ancient texts might score you some browny points with the choir but-- bad manners or not--it will only invoke mockery from those like myself. I'm not charitable to the "factuality" of any other myths. Why should I be to this one? Maybe I should not be so quick to dismiss the creation myth of the Carabaulo people of Timor, in eastern Indonesia. I mean, after all. I wasn't there and an omnipotent God could have falsified scientific history or science could be wrong! I mean, maybe the first humans did climb out of a huge vagina in the ground as the story goes. But aty any rate, yeah, I'll be open about the possibility that this talking ass really started talking

So how is my position which lacks belief in talking asses and floating axeheads not reasonable? You don't share it? Do you believe asses can talk? Have you ever see none?

Vinnie