Doomstead Diner Menu => Spirituality & Mysticism => Topic started by: g on December 17, 2013, 05:15:30 AM

Title: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: g on December 17, 2013, 05:15:30 AM
I neither endorse or disagree with this article. Quite frankly there is much in it not understood by me. :icon_scratch:

The topics have come up often and I post it in the hope of generating some thoughtful educational comments from our Diner's well studied in this area.

7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
What science can tell us about our not-so-scientific minds.

By Chris Mooney | Tue Nov. 26, 2013 8:31 AM GMT
Social Title:
7 reasons why it's easier for humans to believe in God than evolution

Late last week, the Texas Board of Education failed to approve a leading high school biology textbook—whose authors include the Roman Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown University [1]—because of its treatment of evolution. According to [2]The New York Times, critiques from a textbook reviewer identified as a "Darwin Skeptic" were a principal cause.

Yet even as creationists keep trying to undermine modern science, modern science is beginning to explain creationism scientifically. And it looks like evolution—the scientifically uncontested explanation [3] for the diversity and interrelatedness of life on Earth, emphatically including human life—will be a major part of the story. Our brains are a stunning product of evolution; and yet ironically, they may naturally pre-dispose us against its acceptance.

                                                             
446px Editorial cartoon depicting Charles Darwin as an ape (1871) 0
446px Editorial cartoon depicting Charles Darwin as an ape (1871) 0
1871 satirical image depicting Charles Darwin as an ape.
1871 satirical image depicting Charles Darwin as an ape. The Hornet [4]/Wikimedia Commons
                                                                   
"I don't think there's any question that a variety of our mental dispositions are ones that discourage us from taking evolutionary theory as seriously as it should be taken," explains Robert N. McCauley, director of the Center for Mind, Brain, and Culture at Emory University and author of the book Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not [5].

So what can science tell us about our not-so-scientific minds? Here's a list of cognitive traits, thinking styles, and psychological factors identified in recent research that seem to thwart evolution acceptance:

Biological Essentialism. First, we seem to have a deep tendency to think about biology in a way that is "essentialist"—in other words, assuming that each separate kind of animal species has a fundamental, unique nature that unites all members of that species, and that is inviolate. Fish have gills, birds have wings, fish make more fish, birds make more birds, and that's how it all works. Essentialist thinking has been demonstrated in young children [6]. "Little kids as young as my 2 and a half year old granddaughter are quite clear that puppies don't have ponies for mommies and daddies," explains McCauley.

If essentialism is a default style of thinking [7], as much research suggests, then that puts evolution at a major disadvantage. Charles Darwin and his many scientific disciples have shown that essentialism is just plain wrong: Given enough time, biological kinds are not fixed but actually change. Species are connected through intermediate types to other species—and all are ultimately related to one another. :icon_scratch:

Teleological Thinking. Essentialism is just one basic cognitive trait, observed in young children, that seems to hinder evolutionary thinking. Another is "teleology," or the tendency to ascribe purposes to things and objects so as to assume they exist to serve some goal.

Recent research [8] suggests that 4 and 5 year old children are highly teleological in their thinking, tending to opine, for instance, that clouds are "for raining" and that the purpose of lions is "to go in the zoo." The same tendency has been observed in 7 and 8 year olds who, when asked why "prehistoric rocks are pointy," offered answers like "so that animals could scratch on them when they got itchy" and "so that animals wouldn't sit on them and smash them."
                                                             
                                                            (http://www.motherjones.com/files/333px-William_Paley_Natural_Theology_or_Evidences_of_the_Existence_and_Attributes_of_the_Deity_Title_Page_1802_0.jpg)


Title page of the Reverend William Paley's 1802 work Natural Theology, which famously propounded an argument for God's existence based on the appearance of design in nature.
Title page of the Reverend William Paley's 1802 work Natural Theology, which famously propounded an argument for God's existence based on the appearance of design in nature. Wikimedia Commons [9]

Why do children think like this? One study [8] speculates that this teleological disposition may be a "side [effect] of a socially intelligent mind that is naturally inclined to privilege intentional explanation." In other words, our brains developed for thinking about what people are thinking, and people have intentions and goals. If that's right, the playing field may be naturally tilted toward anti-evolutionist doctrines like "intelligent design," which postulates an intelligent agent (God) as the cause of the diversity of life on Earth, and seeks  to uncover evidence of purposeful design in biological organisms.

Overactive Agency Detection. But how do you know the designer is "God"? That too may be the result of a default brain setting.

Another trait, closely related to teleological thinking, is our tendency to treat any number of inanimate objects as if they have minds and intentions. Examples of faulty agency detection, explains University of British Columbia origins of religion scholar Ara Norenzayan, range from seeing "faces in the clouds" to "getting really angry at your computer when it starts to malfunction." People engage in such "anthropomorphizing" all the time; it seems to come naturally. And it's a short step to religion: "When people anthropomorphize gods, they are inferring mental states," says Norenzayan.

There has been much speculation about the evolutionary origin of our anthropomorphizing tendency. One idea is that our brains developed to rapidly assume that objects in the world are alive and may pose a threat, simply because while wrongly mistaking a rustle of leaves for a bear won't get you killed, failing to detect a bear early (when the leaves rustle) most certainly will. "Supernatural agents are readily conjured up because natural selection has trip-wired cognitive schema for agency detection in the face of uncertainty," write Norenzayan and fellow origin of religion scholar Scott Atran [10].

                                                                 
485px Descartes mind and body 0
485px Descartes mind and body 0
Illustration by Rene Descartes of the pineal gland, which he believed to be the location of the soul within the brain.
Illustration by Rene Descartes of the pineal gland, which he believed to be the location of the soul within the brain. Wikimedia Commons [11]

Dualism. Yet another apparent feature of our cognitive architecture is the tendency to think that minds (or the "self" and the "soul") are somehow separate from brains. Once again, this inclination has been found in young children, suggesting that it emerges early in human development. "Preschool children will claim that the brain is responsible for some aspects of mental life, typically those involving deliberative mental work, such as solving math problems," write Yale psychologists Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg [12]. "But preschoolers will also claim that the brain is not involved in a host of other activities, such as pretending to be a kangaroo, loving one's brother, or brushing one's teeth."

Dualistic thinking is closely related to belief in phenomena like spirits and ghosts. But in a recent study [13], it was also the cognitive factor most strongly associated with believing in God. As for evolutionary science? Dualism is pretty clearly implicated in resistance to the idea that human beings could have developed from purely natural processes—for if they did, how could there ever be a soul or self beyond the body, to say nothing of an afterlife?

Inability to Comprehend Vast Time Scales
. According to Norenzayan, there's one more basic cognitive factor that prevents us from easily understanding evolution. Evolution occurred due to the accumulation of many small changes over vast time periods—which means that it is unlike anything we've experienced. So even thinking about it isn't very easy. "The only way you can appreciate the process of evolution is in an abstract way," says Norenzayan. "Over millions of years, small changes accumulate, but it's not intuitive. There's nothing in our brain that says that's true. We have to override our incredulity."

Group Morality and Tribalism. All of these cognitive factors seem to make evolution hard to grasp, even as they render religion (or creationist ideas) simpler and more natural to us. But beyond these cognitive factors, there are also emotional reasons why a lot of people don't want to believe in evolution. When we see resistance to its teaching, after all, it is usually because a religious community fears that this body of science will undermine a belief system—in the US, usually fundamentalist Christianity—deemed to serve as the foundation for shared values and understanding. In other words, evolution is resisted because it is perceived as a threat to the group.

So how appropriate that one current scientific theory about religion is that it exists (and, maybe, that it evolved) to bind groups together and keep them cohesive. In his recent book The Righteous Mind [14], moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues that religions provide a shared set of beliefs and practices that, in effect, serve as social glue. "Gods and religions," writes Haidt, "are group-level adaptations for producing cohesiveness and trust." The upside is unity; the downside, Haidt continues, is "groupishness, tribalism, and nationalism." Ideas and beliefs that threaten the group or the beliefs that hold it together—ideas like evolution—are bound to fare badly in this context.
Everett Collection [15]/Shutterstock

Fear and the Need for Certainty. Finally, there appears to be something about fear and doubt that impels religiosity and dispels acceptance of evolution. "People seem to take more comfort from a stance that says, someone designed the world with good intentions, instead of that the world is just an intention-less, random place," says Norenzayan. "This is especially true when we feel a sense of threat, or a feeling of not being in control."

Indeed, in one amazing study [16], New Zealanders who had just suffered through a severe earthquake showed stronger religiosity, but only if they had been directly affected by the quake. Other research suggests that making people think about death [17] increases their religiosity and also decreases evolution [18] acceptance. It's not just death: It's also randomness, disorder. In one telling study [19], research participants who were asked to think of a situation in which they had lacked control and then to "provide three reasons supporting the notion that the future is (un-) controllable," showed a marked decline in their acceptance of evolution, opting instead for an intelligent design-style explanation. (Another study [20] found that anti-evolutionists displayed higher fear sensitivity and a trait called the "need for cognitive closure," which describes a psychological need to find an answer that can resolve uncertainty and dispel doubt.)

Such is the research, and it's important to point out a few caveats. First, this doesn't mean science and religion are fundamentally incompatible. The conflict may run very deep indeed, but nevertheless, some individuals can and do find a way to retain their religious beliefs and also accept evolution—including the aforementioned biology textbook author Kenneth Miller of Brown University, a Catholic.

Second, while there are many reasons to think that the traits above comprise a core part of who we are, it doesn't automatically follow that religion is the direct result of evolution by natural selection. It is also possible that religion arises as a byproduct of more basic traits that were, in turn, selected for because they conferred greater fitness (such as agency detection). This "byproduct" view is defended by Steven Pinker here [21].

In any event, the evidence is clear that both our cognitive architecture, and also our emotional dispositions, make it difficult or unnatural for many people to accept evolution. "Natural selection is like quantum physics...we might intellectually grasp it, with considerable effort, but it will never feel right to us," writes [22] the Yale psychologist Paul Bloom. Often, people express surprise that in an age so suffused with science, science causes so much angst and resistance.

Perhaps more surprising would be if it didn't.

www.motherjones.com/print/239836 (http://www.motherjones.com/print/239836) :icon_study:
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: RE on December 17, 2013, 05:26:15 AM
Belief in God and Belief in  Evolution are not incompatibable concepts.  This article creates a false dichotomy.

The philosophical/architectural problem is not with Evolution, it is with Life Genesis, which is not explained in any meaningful way by EITHER Evolution or traditional Religions.  The kind of thermodynamic arguments Paul Chefurka makes try to breach that chasm, but they fall short by a long shot.

You can believe in God and believe in Evolution also.  What is much more difficult is to explain the genesis of life or following that sentience.  Neither Evolution nor traditional Religion expalin this very well, so you are more or less on your own to develop a set of postulates that works for you in this area.

Your Belief Structure, as it were.

RE
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Bot Blogger on December 17, 2013, 11:30:09 AM
Fantastic article GO,

I agree with RE there is a weird take away delivered by the writer. Arguing for Evolution vs Creationism. That it's somehow easier to be a creationist. Creationists are just lazy etc.

The article is a cop out to basically explain, why we're not converting people into the atheist fold so well.

But the patterns in the studies are very interesting. A lot of them have been discussed here before.

Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Eddie on December 17, 2013, 11:53:51 AM
The title says more about the article than the content.  Whoever decides what news to put on the net, it seems now each and every piece must be "Ten Surprising Facts About      " or "Seven Reason to        ".

When McCluhan said that bit about the medium being the message,  he didn't realize TV was just the beginning of a long slide into infantile journalistic regression.

Most people would rather believe in magic than understand how things work. This is not news to me.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: g on December 17, 2013, 12:46:51 PM
Quote
Most people would rather believe in magic than understand how things work. This is not news to me.

Might I suggest that belief in a Creator, and belief in magic are two very different things?

Likewise how things work and what humans are.


Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Eddie on December 17, 2013, 01:15:58 PM
Might I suggest that belief in a Creator, and belief in magic are two very different things?

For some of us, they are. I believe in a Creator, or at least a Great Design, that is beyond my understanding. I don't believe in magic, at least as I understand magic.

I think (and it is simply my opinion) that most people fail to make much of a distinction. They create a God in their own image, rather than vice versa.

God is God, and Evolution is (for the moment at least) the most respected scientific theory about how living things change in relation to environmental changes. These articles that try to create an/either or dichotomy, like if I believe in God, then I shouldn't believe in Evolution, offend me. So therefore I respond by being pissed off.

Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: agelbert on December 17, 2013, 01:20:19 PM
Quote
Might I suggest that belief in a Creator, and belief in magic are two very different things?

Likewise how things work and what humans are.

 :emthup: :emthup: :emthup: :icon_sunny:

Might I also suggest to the claim that "creationists are JUST LAZY" by others here that probability and statistics mathematicians are anything BUT lazy.

It is they who accuse you evolutionists of believing in fairy tales and magic. Respond to that instead of hurling abuse at creationists who you try to ridicule by bunching them falsely with the "God created the universe in 6 days and we are only 6,000 years old" NUT BALLS.

You Darwinists are as NUTTY and faith based as the 6 day creationists. You are also as arrogant and stubborn as they are.

Science states that either God did it or ET made this biosphere. Either way, evolution is BULSHIT! Live with it or die in denial. Your choice.  ;)

Quote
... information theorist Hubert Yockey (UC Berkeley) realized this problem:

"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers … [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance."43

Note that in his calculations, Yockey generously granted that the raw materials were available in a primeval soup. But in the previous chapter of his book, Yockey showed that a primeval soup could never have existed, so belief in it is an act of ‘faith’. He later concluded, "the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception based on the ideology of its champions."44

More admissions

Note that Yockey is not the only high-profile academic to speak plainly on this issue:

"Anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started on earth some 3.4 billion years ago is a fool or a knave. Nobody knows."—Professor Stuart Kauffman, origin of life researcher, University of Calgary, Canada.45

"…we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." —Franklin M. Harold, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Colorado State University.46

"Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell."—Professor Paul Davies, then at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.47

"The novelty and complexity of the cell is so far beyond anything inanimate in the world today that we are left baffled by how it was achieved."— Kirschner, M.W. (professor and chair, department of systems biology, Harvard Medical School, USA.), and Gerhart, J.C. (professor in the Graduate School, University of California, USA).48

"Conclusion: The scientific problem of the origin of life can be characterized as the problem of finding the chemical mechanism that led all the way from the inception of the first autocatalytic reproduction cycle to the last common ancestor. All present theories fall far short of this task. While we still do not understand this mechanism, we now have a grasp of the magnitude of the problem."49

]"The biggest gap in evolutionary theory remains the origin of life itself… the gap between such a collection of molecules [amino acids and RNA] and even the most primitive cell remains enormous."—Chris Wills, professor of biology at the University of California, USA.50

Even the doctrinaire materialist Richard Dawkins admitted to Ben Stein (Expelled, the movie documentary) that no one knows how life began:

Richard Dawkins: "We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life—it was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule."

Ben Stein: "How did that happen?"

Richard Dawkins: "I’ve told you, we don’t know."

Ben Stein: "So you have no idea how it started?"

Richard Dawkins: "No, nor has anybody."51


"We will never know how life first appeared. However, the study of the appearance of life is a mature, well-established field of scientific inquiry. As in other areas of evolutionary biology, answers to questions on the origin and nature of the first life forms can only be regarded as inquiring and explanatory rather than definitive and conclusive."52 (emphasis added)[/b]




In nature, DNA can do some very wild things. I have seen what a mosquito larvae looks like under a microscope in a bit of pond water.  Observe the segmentation present also in millipedes and centipedes. Observe the feather/fin like multiple appendages instead of feet. It's a swimming centipede!

(http://uq.edu.au/integrative-ecology/images/Predator/notoscriptus-larva.jpg)(http://lancaster.unl.edu/pest/images/centipedemillipede/gardncnt.jpg)
Mosquito larvae on left - much smaller than centipede on right

Yet a mosquito is not related, according to the evolutionists, to a centipede. That is, one did not evolve from the other. The insect hordes all show up around the Devonian - supposedly 400 million years ago with a few changes due to "natural selection" and extinction events to arrive at our "modern" insects - Triassic until now (you know, Dinosaurs until NOW  ;)).

(http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/comparison-of-dinosaurs-of-triassic-roy-andersen.jpg)

comparison of Dinosaurs of the Triassic Period

Quote
Insect evolution is characterized by rapid adaptation  ???
with selective pressures exerted by environment, ???
with rapid adaptation being furthered by their high fecundity. ???

It appears ??? that rapid radiations and the appearance of new species, a process that continues to this day, ???
result in insects filling all available environmental niches.

Insect evolution is closely related to the evolution of flowering plants.   (http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif)  Insect adaptations include feeding on flowers and related structures, with some 20% of extant insects depending on flowers, nectar or pollen for their food source. This symbiotic relationship is even more paramount in evolution  (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif)considering that about 2/3 of flowering plants are insect pollinated.  ;) 

Insects are also vectors of many pathogens that may even have been responsible for the decimation or extinction of some mammalian species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogeny_of_insects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogeny_of_insects)


I will take the above quote apart in a minute but let me tell you where I'm going with this centipede/ mosquito thing as related to studying hominid skulls.

We have centipedes and we have mosquitos. How come such analogous shapes are allegedly NOT related? BECAUSE they show up at the same time in the fossil record. Why do they assume (no proof, just Darwinian based speculation) something is not related to something else when they appear at the same time? Because the Theory REQUIRES a distance in time for one thing to evolve into another, period.

Now you would say, HEY, didn't Darwin think we came from apes (which, of course, exist now too!)? YEP. It was OBVIOUSLY, as Ashvin pointed out in a quote here recently, based on prejudice against negros and had nothing to do with science. If Darwin had been approaching the issue scientifically, he would have to ASSUME that all modern life forms are evolved from something that is not present today. But he didn't do that, did he?  ;)

The evolutionary scientists DO THAT today saying that, OBVIOUSLY, what we evolved from doesn't exist today so it was incorrect to think we are related to apes or chimps. It HAS to be that we have a common missing link someplace back there, they say. Sniff!

When they do that they step further into illogic. Why? Because Mosquitos and centipedes and dragon flies and MILLIONs (about 12 million total of which most are insects at last count) of other insects STOPPED "EVOLVING" at the time of the Triassic (and the links to their Devonian cousins are speculative due to the NEW forms that were symbiotic with the NEW types of plant life - angiosperms
Quote
The apparently sudden appearance of relatively modern flowers in the fossil record initially posed such a problem for the theory of evolution that it was called an "abominable mystery" by Charles Darwin.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plant))!
But they just don't want to address that brazen bit of inconsistency in their flawed theory. Now of course they want to talk about "rapid adaptation" and "evolutionary spurts" and all sorts of silliness that strains credibility in all but the most gullible.

So, back to the basic premise of a truly scientific approach to what is in the fossil record. A mosquito larvae looks like a centipede adult form. Let's check the DNA package to look for similar gene coding sequences. We find, say a 30% identical set of sequences for two creatures that did not evolve from each other. Hmmmm. There is NO fossil evidence of insects before the Devonian. Working hypothesis: Somebody designed them both. Why? Because they have a similar design and did not have time to evolve from anything else because there simply isn't anything else remotely similar to insects prior to that time. To complicate matters further, we have the angiosperms (flowering plants) showing up at the same time as the insects that pollinate AND feed on them(symbiosis).

In the quote from the evolutionary view of insect phylogeny above, observe the following DATA presented and why the conclusions are exactly backwards in an attempt to fit the facts to natural selection (and even that they mess up!).

 

1. RAPID ADAPTATION can ONLY occur when the DNA PACKAGE has latent coding sequences that respond to environmental pressures. Think of an aircraft fliying through the air. It has a landing gear that NEEDS TO BE HIDDEN or the plane won't fly as well. However, when it has to land, the landing gear has to come out for the plane to survive. The landing gear is in the ORIGINAL "DNA" package design of the aircraft and environmental conditions cause the "landing gear gene" to be expressed. This is NOT EVOLUTION. This is adaptation from a pre-planned DNA design.

The SLOW ADAPTATION to environmental stresses from mutations in natural selection CANNOT produce RAPID ANYTHING because 98% of mutations are harmful. I've discussed the math before. When Positive mutations occur, it is a glacially slow process. That process becomes MISSION IMPOSSIBLE when we have multiple symbiotic mechanisms occurring SIMULTANEOUSLY between two extremely disparate life forms (flowering plants and insects). 


2. After they emit all this silliness, "Insect evolution is characterized by rapid adaptation  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif)
with selective pressures exerted by environment,..." (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif), they jump to the old 'evolution through multiple generations' trick,   ;)
"with rapid adaptation being furthered by their high fecundity." (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif).

WHY is this not logical, or truth based? BECAUSE the flowering plants arrived at the SAME TIME in the fossil record as the insects that feed on them AND pollinate them. If fecundity had anything to do with natural selection or any other "evolutionary" species modifying mechanism, we would have VERY DIFFERENT insects than the "modern" ones we have that are virtually UNCHANGED from the Triassic!

So fecundity works when it is CONVENIENT to the theory of evolution and doesn't when they don't need to explain some "difficulty" in their procrustean bed?  (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif) I don't think so.



After that package of pseudo-scientific assumptions above, they go ALL OUT into speculation to make a giant assumption,
"It appears  ;D that rapid radiations and the appearance (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png) of new species,...".  

Let's correct that statement to state the FACTS,  "It appears  that rapid radiations and the rapid simultaneous appearance of new species depending for their existence on multiple symbiotic mechanisms cannot be explained by natural selection".  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)



Finally, they make the final leap of Darwinian faith to the present despite not having ANY significant change in insects morphology since the Triassic to indicate "evolution" is in progress,
"a process that continues to this day, result in insects filling all available environmental niches."    (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)

Let's correct that last bit of wishful thinking to reflect the facts on the ground: It appears  that  the rapid simultaneous appearance of new species depending for their existence on multiple symbiotic mechanisms cannot be explained by natural selection, indicating a (still unexplained) process occurred in the Triassic period that resulted in insects filling all available environmental niches of the present biosphere.

The symbiotic angiosperm/insect relationship is not rapidly adapting to the present level of planetary industrial toxins. Therefore, whatever the unexplained rapid adaptation mechanism that occurred in the Triassic Period was, there is no evidence that it is present today because we are experiencing a high level of species extinctions affecting, but not limited to, insects and angiosperms.
 


THAT is honest science.


To do HONEST SCIENCE as to our origins, I would proceed from my observation that mosquitoes and centipedes and angiosperms appeared simultaneously to find out when WE appeared. I would need a clock. I would start with Carbon-14 (up to 100,000 years accurately IF the carbon radioactive decay clock hasn't changed over that period but I would start with it just the same). WHY? Because we have items with organic carbon that we KNOW the date of like Egyptian mummies that we can crosscheck for accuracy.

Crude oil, for example contains NO carbon-14, indicating that, since the plant life form that became that oil decayed, all the C-14 has radiated out. That means crude oil is technically older than 100,000 years.

I would proceed to more higher scale dating methods only if I couldn't get C-14 data.


THEN I would start looking at DNA sequences.

Only after I was convinced our closest relative was not the one that looks most like us would I dig further. During that time I would study the tendon bone attachments, anatomy and physiology of hominid skulls. I would go where the data took me.

Yes, I have a working hypothesis that we are a package DNA deal (created by God) and I would certainly want to find proof. But it is far more logical to start with that hypothesis than the Darwinian one  because evolution doesn't have proof of their most basic premise! (the self assembling amino acids for the first cell).

Furthermore, I have fossil evidence that millions of species popped up out of nowhere in more than one strata.

I think I'm being more scientific and empirical than the Darwinists "it's all a crap shoot" arrogance, don't you? (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185701.png)


It isn't "EASY" to believe in Created life versus Evolution; it is LOGICAL and Science BASED. It is also HARD to accept that we owe our existence to a supreme being much smarter than we are. But it is REALLY EASY to pretend we can do whatever the fuck we want using a Darwinian Fairy tale to ignore ethical behavior. In Fact, there is NOTHING EASIER or LAZIER than saying life is a crap shoot.  How fucking convenient for you arrogant fucks.  ;)  Have a nice day.  :icon_mrgreen:

Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Eddie on December 17, 2013, 01:36:37 PM
Yeah, yeah, all you  armchair experts should give it a rest in my opinion.

Your ability to cut and paste doesn't impress me. When a reasonable minority of real scientists in the world change their views, I just might too. In the mean time, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'd suggest you respect mine, especially if you're within range.

Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Bot Blogger on December 17, 2013, 03:18:03 PM
Interesting read Thanks AG. I always enjoy the hard work you put into your posts!  :icon_sunny:
I also enjoy reading your thoughts on ENERGY

Did you read the article that GO posted at the top of the thread?

SORRY.  :'(  if you took offense at what you imagined I said, as you're wont to do.

The ARTICLE implies that creationists are lazy of thought. The article is making the claim that people need to get over their natural tendencies to orient towards creationism.

I am not saying such a thing.
No one here did.

Or in AG speak:

I also enjoy reading your thoughts on ENERGY  :emthup: :emthup:  :icon_sunny: :kissing2:


The ARTICLE implies that creationists are lazy of thought. BOO! HISS!  :WTF:


But impressive draw on that bazooka.  ;D
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Ka on December 17, 2013, 03:28:24 PM
Seven (unwarranted) assumptions made by materialist evolutionists (def: those who believe that species come and go strictly through chance and natural selection):

1. That all mentality is the spatiotemporal activity of the brain.

2. That all reports of religious and paranormal experiences are either lies or delusory.

3. That consciousness can emerge from that which is not consciousness.

4. That the process of perception can be explained in terms of the products of perception.

5. That physical laws never change.

6. That space and time exist independently of the perceptual process (this in spite of the radical difference between quantum reality and perceived reality.)

(From (5) and (6) we get the consequent assumption that ages past can be thought of unproblematically in terms of our current perceived reality.)

7. That homo sapiens throughout its existence, or at least in recorded history, perceived nature and had the same intellectual capability as contemporary humanity does.

BTW, some theistic evolutionists and creationists also accept some of these.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Bot Blogger on December 17, 2013, 04:06:50 PM
KA

I love the way these flip back n forth between a belief in a static reality and a dynamic reality:

How evolutionary thought can basically involve thinking that evolution has stopped and we have arrived at the top or the end or some such terminal.

Evolutionists and Atheists do not seem to offer a way forward for evolution. Or an understanding of how evolution is dynamic. We really don't understand what nature is. We just know we should remain on top the food chain.

Hence super bugs and the way nature responds to humanity's complete reckless dominance. Hopefully a natural balance to us effectively becoming GOD in our own minds.

And yet the interior experience is approached as if there was no one home. We are vessels of mental addictions and somatic reactions.

I especially like this one:

Quote
(From (5) and (6) we get the consequent assumption that ages past can be thought of unproblematically in terms of our current perceived reality.)

7. That homo sapiens throughout its existence, or at least in recorded history, perceived nature and had the same intellectual capability as contemporary humanity does.

However I don't agree with Barfield that any change-over has happened en Mass. If there has been an evolving version of consciousness, an awareness of inside experience, it's not something that is complete nor is it necessarily wide spread. There is plenty evidence that we hold our beliefs inside of one another. So as we get older we bring with us the 3 year old that believes in Santa. We just ADD on another layer that believes in consumerism. An Onion layer of perception.

I only became aware of an inside when I was 35 and it had been my job to relate the interior experience on stage. It is still something I am coming to terms with.





Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Eddie on December 17, 2013, 04:10:24 PM
BTW, some theistic evolutionists and creationists also accept some of these.

I'd say most people, regardless of their particular stance on evolution, creationism, etc., fall into those traps. Yeah, me too, I'll admit it, and I know better.

Number two is more common with atheist types, I think. For myself, I only see religious and paranormal experiences "through a glass darkly." But I have experienced things I cannot explain. Like...I will (quite often, in fact) have a thought about someone I take care of in the practice. Might not have seen them for years, but then, they are in my head. Generally, it isn't long before they show up in my office. I can only assume that I think about them...because THEY are thinking about me. I don't have a rational explanation for that...but it has happened many times.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: g on December 17, 2013, 05:24:33 PM
Quote
We have centipedes and we have mosquitos. How come such analogous shapes are allegedly NOT related? BECAUSE they show up at the same time in the fossil record. Why do they assume (no proof, just Darwinian based speculation) something is not related to something else when they appear at the same time? Because the Theory REQUIRES a distance in time for one thing to evolve into another, period.

Now you would say, HEY, didn't Darwin think we came from apes (which, of course, exist now too!)? YEP. It was OBVIOUSLY, as Ashvin pointed out in a quote here recently, based on prejudice against negros and had nothing to do with science. If Darwin had been approaching the issue scientifically, he would have to ASSUME that all modern life forms are evolved from something that is not present today. But he didn't do that, did he?  ;)

You got through the skull of the Ox right here Agelbert. I finally get it, or at least think I do.  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :Thinkingof_:

Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Ka on December 17, 2013, 07:14:45 PM
And yet the interior experience is approached as if there was no one home. We are vessels of mental addictions and somatic reactions.

Sometimes I wonder (not really) if the eliminative materialists (those, like Daniel Dennett, who try to explain away consciousness) in fact have nobody home.

Quote
I especially like this one:

Quote
(From (5) and (6) we get the consequent assumption that ages past can be thought of unproblematically in terms of our current perceived reality.)

7. That homo sapiens throughout its existence, or at least in recorded history, perceived nature and had the same intellectual capability as contemporary humanity does.

However I don't agree with Barfield that any change-over has happened en Mass. If there has been an evolving version of consciousness, an awareness of inside experience, it's not something that is complete nor is it necessarily wide spread.

Actually, Barfield doesn't claim that it happened everywhere to everybody: his book (StA) is "a [sketch of a] history of human consciousness; particularly the consciousness of western humanity during the last three thousand years or so." Indeed, part of his argument comes from comparing modern "civilized" understanding of reality to that reported by anthropologists of "primitive" groups, who still have what one of them called a "participation mystique", i.e., original participation.

Quote
There is plenty evidence that we hold our beliefs inside of one another. So as we get older we bring with us the 3 year old that believes in Santa. We just ADD on another layer that believes in consumerism. An Onion layer of perception.

Hence the need for intellectual discipline, as I've been arguing with Impermanence about.

Quote
I only became aware of an inside when I was 35 and it had been my job to relate the interior experience on stage. It is still something I am coming to terms with.

Now this is very interesting. I can't say when I became aware of an inside, but it is the case that my "Aha!" moment (when I realized that ordinary consciousness transcends space and time) happened when I was 37 (and only after that that I read Barfield and Wolff et al). On the other hand, I had been thinking about thinking and perception for many years before that, so I had to have had some sort of ability to introspect. Maybe one just has to be about that old before such thinking can pay off. But then, what's Dennett's excuse?
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Eddie on December 18, 2013, 06:02:47 AM
I only became aware of an inside when I was 35 and it had been my job to relate the interior experience on stage. It is still something I am coming to terms with.

Now this is very interesting. I can't say when I became aware of an inside, but it is the case that my "Aha!" moment (when I realized that ordinary consciousness transcends space and time) happened when I was 37 (and only after that that I read Barfield and Wolff et al). On the other hand, I had been thinking about thinking and perception for many years before that, so I had to have had some sort of ability to introspect. Maybe one just has to be about that old before such thinking can pay off.

I think I went to sleep thinking about this one. Very interesting indeed. I was trying to remember a time when I WASN'T aware of an inside. I'm sure I wasn't at some early point in childhood, but I'm not sure exactly when.

I would say that I was aware by age 16, when I began to seriously experiment with falling down the rabbit hole with LSD. And by age 19 I was turned on to Alan Watts The Book. I've been thinking about dualism/non-dualism since then at least. More time spent thinking about it hasn't made it easier to understand though.

I would hazard a guess that it isn't age as much as personality type that influences the onset of the kind of introspection you're discussing. That and exposure to Eastern thought, at least through books or some other avenue.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Petty Tyrant on December 18, 2013, 06:27:09 AM
Ironic that an article format designed for lazy shallow consumption makes its central claim that people  are lazy thinkers.

First of all most of the claims centre on childrens various developmental stages and state that we retain this way of thinking as adults only where creation is concerned, or more correctly lack of belief in evolution.

This is like saying that because a 3 year old does not know how sexual reproduction works and says "god put me in mumms tummy", the same child should reject sex education as a teenager or adult. The fact is that children are introduced to the theory of evolution at the same age as sex education and if they reject it, it is because it is inadequately proven to them.

Questions remaining such as, why have only apes evolved into the level of humans? Why are current apes not all evolving too? Why are there no new sudden spontaneous "big bang"'s out of nothingness? Why do ancient civilizations accounts of genetic engineering by extra terrestrials tally well with modern day genetic engineering and hybridization? If the theory that we went through 4 linear stages of homind species, has been abandoned in light of new finds and technology and replace with numerous other extinct recognised hominid species, why should we not expect many other aspects of the theory to be thrown out in future? If entropy and decay are normal for anything not living, why is there life at all outside of nature, evolution deals with living things but cannot explain why anything is living from the very start of life (regardless of how much better a believer of evolution is at conceptualizing vast time) millions of years ago.

And of course the reasoning in the article is all reference to reasons people can believe in a god at all. It of course stops short of saying that if you can believe in god you are too limited intellectually to believe in evolution, but that is the logical conclusion.

Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Ashvin on December 18, 2013, 07:09:09 AM
If our minds have evolved to reject evolutionary theories, then why are they so popular and unconditionally accepted in modern society? People who believe in creationism are actually few and far between, so the entire premise of this article is nonsense to begin with.

Besides that, a legitimate scientist would never try to argue for or against a theory by claiming it's "easier" to believe in bad theories and harder to believe in good ones.

But here's a relevant question for the naturalist evolutionist - if our minds are simply a function of our brains, and our brains have naturally evolved based on survival advantage from unintelligent, undirected processes, then how can anyone claim that their thoughts (or theories) are more rational or closer to "the truth" than anyone else's? The only thing the evolutionist can know is that our minds help us survive, and if a bunch of inaccurate cockamamie theories about "reality" help us do that, then those are the theories that will dominate.

Yet evolutionists continue to argue that their theories are closer to "the truth" than ID theories. How can that be??

Anyway, AG puts on a fine display of legitimate science above. He totally dismantled the crucial aspects of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Anyone who wants to cling on to their faith in such a theory needs to honestly confront the science AG presented and come up with rebuttals.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Ashvin on December 18, 2013, 07:21:20 AM
We have centipedes and we have mosquitos. How come such analogous shapes are allegedly NOT related? BECAUSE they show up at the same time in the fossil record. Why do they assume (no proof, just Darwinian based speculation) something is not related to something else when they appear at the same time? Because the Theory REQUIRES a distance in time for one thing to evolve into another, period.

A similar major flaw in the evolutionary paradigm can be shown by comparing species with very similar mental attributes, but which are, according to evolutionists, not at all related.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/quoth-the-raven-nevermore (http://www.reasons.org/articles/quoth-the-raven-nevermore)
In the recent opinion essay in Nature, biologist Johan Bolhuis and psychologist Clive Wynne accept the premise that species have naturally evolved and, thus, possess shared ancestry. But they contest the Darwinian principle “that species with shared ancestry will have similar cognitive abilities.”5 For example, researchers have noted cognitive similarities between physically disparate species, but not necessarily between physically similar species. Bolhuis and Wynne point out that this “illustrates that cognitive traits cannot be neatly arranged in an evolutionary scale of relatedness.”6

Bolhuis and Wynne contrast the cognitive capacities of birds and primates. In the Darwinian models, apes and humans are closely related and share a relatively recent common ancestor. Birds, on the other hand, are only distantly related to primates. Thus, Darwinists predict that of all animals, apes should come closest to manifesting the cognitive capabilities of human beings.

But Bolhuis and Wynne give examples where birds defy this prediction. They cite how “Caledonian crows [though not quite matching ravens in intellectual prowess] outperform monkeys in their ability to retrieve food from a trap tube–from which food can be accessed only at one end.”7 They also refer to an experiment demonstrating that “crows can also work out how to use one tool to obtain a second with which they can retrieve food, a skill that monkeys and apes struggle to master.”8 Evidently, certain bird species exhibit greater powers of the mind than do apes. (See crows’ cognitive powers in action here.)

High cognitive abilities of certain bird species even sometimes challenge a purely physical explanation for their behavior. Take for example the marsh tit. This bird stores seeds in tree bark or in the ground and is able to retrieve them days later while its “close relative,” the great tit, doesn’t store food at all.9 Biologists presumed the difference would be explained by a larger hippocampus in the brain of the food-storing birds. Alas, the evidence doesn’t support this suggestion.10 Studies also show that food-storers do not perform any better in spatial memory tasks than do the non-food-storers.11

In their paper in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, three psychology researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), boldly declared Darwin’s idea of the continuity of the mind (from lower species to higher) a mistake.12 They argue “there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the higher order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system.”13 They go on to show that this discontinuity “pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain.”14
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Eddie on December 18, 2013, 08:47:39 AM
Anyone who wants to cling on to their faith in such a theory needs to honestly confront the science AG presented and come up with rebuttals.

Uh, exactly why is that Ashvin? None of us are real scientists. Why can't we wait for the scientific community at large to absorb your and AG's stunning information, and just let it filter down.

Because most of us consider it fairly boring, and it impacts our daily lives not at all.

Whatever articles you want to quote, whatever unassailable logic you want to present, I always remember who is presenting it, and I know why you're presenting it. You're presenting it because it fits your fundamentalist Ashvin Unified Theory of the Christ-Centered Universe...which is fine, you know, but it is what it is.

I no more look to you as a scientific expert in this kind of thing than I'd look to Watson and Crick for legal advice or Linus Pauling to tell me how to land an airplane. You have zero credentials, and you have a HUGE bias that shows every time you open your mouth.

Once again, let me reiterate what RE said. Articles like this are designed to create a false dichotomy that says one either has to believe in God or Evolution but not both, that such a position is somehow untenable.

This is offensive to many people who do hold such a position, whether they're right or wrong. And for you to pile on just shows how little you care about what anyone besides you happens to think. It convinces no one of anything and it just shows how fixed your own belief system is and how little tolerance you have.

End of message. Let the rants continue. I would never try to argue with an idealogue, especially a Christian idealogue.


Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Bot Blogger on December 18, 2013, 08:49:57 AM
If our minds have evolved to reject evolutionary theories, then why are they so popular and unconditionally accepted in modern society? People who believe in creationism are actually few and far between, so the entire premise of this article is nonsense to begin with.

Well first off I would say that the article is a collection of research on 'belief'. It was not written by the scientists conducting the studies. It was written by a propagandist. Hence it identifies causes and comes to conclusions that possibly the actual scientists may never have come to.

That does not mean that the research is bad. Just that the conclusions drawn are.

I imagine that religious belief has waned in modern society for a number of reasons: The gross trespasses by the institutions that purported to represent GOD on earth. Also I would also say that technology has played a great role in stealing miracle making thunder away from the Church. Without an ability to provide lights and action, the church is not the central 'show' anymore. The television/internet PlayStation is. The church and institutions serve little to no function. Fewer people are getting married and if they are it's not in a church, it's on a beach. Less is a church a place to contemplate something larger. More a lonely place haunted by creepy men ministering to desperate losers. Again that is not my opinion but my perception of perception. Please take no offense.  :icon_mrgreen:


Quote
But here's a relevant question for the naturalist evolutionist - if our minds are simply a function of our brains, and our brains have naturally evolved based on survival advantage from unintelligent, undirected processes, then how can anyone claim that their thoughts (or theories) are more rational or closer to "the truth" than anyone else's? The only thing the evolutionist can know is that our minds help us survive, and if a bunch of inaccurate cockamamie theories about "reality" help us do that, then those are the theories that will dominate.

Yet evolutionists continue to argue that their theories are closer to "the truth" than ID theories. How can that be??

Good question. But bottom line it's a dis against going with your instincts. It's suggesting reasoning and intellect will lead us out of our tendencies. Sound familiar?

What I find interesting is all these tendencies could be used to explain belief in the religion of science. Or they could lead one to completely different conclusions and yet better questions...

Quote
Biological Essentialism. First, we seem to have a deep tendency to think about biology in a way that is "essentialist"—in other words, assuming that each separate kind of animal species has a fundamental, unique nature that unites all members of that species, and that is inviolate. Fish have gills, birds have wings, fish make more fish, birds make more birds, and that's how it all works. Essentialist thinking has been demonstrated in young children [6]. "Little kids as young as my 2 and a half year old granddaughter are quite clear that puppies don't have ponies for mommies and daddies,"

Well do puppies have pony parents? HUH?
Don't we assume that consciousness is the purview of humans ALONE.

Quote
Teleological Thinking. or the tendency to ascribe purposes to things and objects.

What exactly is the difference between a purpose and a mechanism?

Quote
Overactive Agency Detection. our tendency to treat any number of inanimate objects as if they have minds and intentions. Examples of faulty agency detection, explains University of British Columbia origins of religion scholar Ara Norenzayan, range from seeing "faces in the clouds" to "getting really angry at your computer when it starts to malfunction." People engage in such "anthropomorphizing" all the time; it seems to come naturally.

If I see faces in the clouds. That's 'cause they're there. If I get angry at the computer it's cause I want to kill it's designer. Sounds reasonable to me :icon_mrgreen:

Quote
Dualism. "Preschool children will claim that the brain is responsible for some aspects of mental life, typically those involving deliberative mental work, such as solving math problems," "But preschoolers will also claim that the brain is not involved in a host of other activities, such as pretending to be a kangaroo, loving one's brother, or brushing one's teeth."

What if the 'brain' is not the center of LOVE nor the centre of imagination. Is that really so hard to imagine?

Quote
Inability to Comprehend Vast Time Scales. We have to override our incredulity."

Who can really comprehend these things, anyway. And how? The only way I see is to imagine ourselves alternately as giants and insects. And this we can do. Regardless, it does not change AWE and incredulity, they should never be overridden, as DAWKINS has expressed it too.

Quote
Group Morality and Tribalism.
Fear and the Need for Certainty.

This is all we talk about on the diner. And many different conclusions are drawn.

For clarity sake, AG is not disputing that there is a mechanism called evolution. Whether it was created or set in motion by God is another question. That it exists is not. Hence the ability to breed animals of a particular size shape mind over generations.

Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Ashvin on December 18, 2013, 11:24:04 AM
Uh, exactly why is that Ashvin? None of us are real scientists. Why can't we wait for the scientific community at large to absorb your and AG's stunning information, and just let it filter down.

Because most of us consider it fairly boring, and it impacts our daily lives not at all.

First of all, if this is so boring and unimportant to you, then why are commenting about it, so far as to say that it even "pissed you off".

Second, this idea that we can't have a meaningful discussion and approximate the truth without being experts in the field is bogus. Most of us aren't experts in economics, energy, ecology, geopolitics, etc., but sites like these spend a lot of time discussing those things.

The real question is whether we are RELYING on experts to inform our arguments, and AG most certainly is.

Quote
Once again, let me reiterate what RE said. Articles like this are designed to create a false dichotomy that says one either has to believe in God or Evolution but not both, that such a position is somehow untenable.

This is offensive to many people who do hold such a position, whether they're right or wrong. And for you to pile on just shows how little you care about what anyone besides you happens to think. It convinces no one of anything and it just shows how fixed your own belief system is and how little tolerance you have.

Why is it offensive??

AG and I happen to believe that people who believe in God and Darwinian evolution are WRONG. We have arguments to support that belief. And we absolutely respect your right to challenge our beliefs with your own arguments. There is no intolerance here...

Quote
Whatever articles you want to quote, whatever unassailable logic you want to present, I always remember who is presenting it, and I know why you're presenting it. You're presenting it because it fits your fundamentalist Ashvin Unified Theory of the Christ-Centered Universe...which is fine, you know, but it is what it is.

OK, but that's a very silly way to think about other peoples' arguments, and I think you already know that...

especially being someone who finds such things so boring and unimportant. ::)

Everyone has pre-established worldviews and motives for making their arguments.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Ashvin on December 18, 2013, 11:35:59 AM
For clarity sake, AG is not disputing that there is a mechanism called evolution. Whether it was created or set in motion by God is another question. That it exists is not. Hence the ability to breed animals of a particular size shape mind over generations.

This isn't accurate.

It's true that no one here is disputing the ability of species' to sometimes adapt to their environments with the aid of genetic mutations and natural selection, or for those processes to create variation within a species. That is usually referred to as "micro-evolution".

However, AG and I are disputing the Darwinian theory of "macro-evolution", which suggests that these evolutionary mechanisms are sufficient to establish life and its vast diversity and complexity throughout Earth's history.

Deists and theists who say God "set evolution in motion" or "directs evolution" are still relying on a majorly flawed theory that doesn't comport with the evidence.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Eddie on December 18, 2013, 11:36:27 AM
First of all, if this is so boring and unimportant to you, then why are commenting about it, so far as to say that it even "pissed you off".

Easy. Because posting that kind of article is a deplorable practice, one called "sandbagging", where someone posts something deliberately offensive to see if anyone will rise to the bait. I wish this forum was above that, and I'm willing to call "bullshit" occasionally.

Everyone has pre-established worldviews and motives for making their arguments.

But not everyone delights in being an intolerant supercilious asshole. Some people leave room for the children of a lesser God to save a little face. That's a lesson you really should learn. It's an important lesson, and I think it would benefit you, so I'm willing to work on your rough edges when I can.



Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: agelbert on December 18, 2013, 12:14:23 PM
Thank you, Ashvin, for giving logic and common sense the importance it is due in any conversation, no matter what the subject matter.  :emthup: :icon_sunny:

I don't agree with the 6 literal day creationists but I read their hard boiled, science based articles on radiometric dating, errors in Evolutionary circular reasoning and geologic column totally unscientific assumptions BECAUSE they quote the scientific community work fastidiously before they launch into their rebuttal.

People that AUTOMATICALLY refuse to debate evolution versus creation (a totally separate subject from whether the creator did it in 6 days or not!) are using a filter that narrows their perception. "Let's wait for the scientific community to LEAD us", they say. YET, they are quite willing to question every other error in human society UNTIL their RELIGION (humanistic evolution) is questioned. They don't see that as bigotry. They see it as the height of modern, sophisticated, scientific thinking.

Your rebuttal shows the holes in that rather convenient, and arrogant, attitude. You are more polite than I am but I get pretty pissed off listening to people denigrate my ability to think logically with ridicule (belief in God is magic for those weak minds that cannot face "reality" LOL!).

These "reality" facers flat refuse to argue the nuts and bolts of evolution because "they are bored and have moved on from such silliness". BULLSHIT!

What they DON'T want to deal with is the questioning of their RELIGION (the scientific high priesthood of Darwin's  theory).

The moment they open that bag of worms, they think they are headed for fundy nutty territory and fear all the feelings of guilt and recognition of our debt to the creator for having created us like the PLAGUE!

They deliberately paint belief in God as an unscientific exercise in magical thing and cultish and slavish dedication to a set of silly laws, never mind the golden rule. They paint Christians as a caricature of human straight jacket thinking in order to avoid any nuance whatsoever. Darwin forbid that they see us as rational, logic humans capable of engaging in an objective conversation about human origins.  ;)

They disparage us as quaint whackos they sniff at and pity. Then THEY think it is THEY who should be offended by someone calling THEM arrogant fucks.  ::)

If I had that attitude about Fossil Fuelers, who OBVIOUSLY have an agenda to denigrate and disparage Renewable Energy, I would refuse to debate with them because I had, "moved on from such silliness".  Of course they have an agenda and a position. Of course I ahave an agenda and a position.

Debate with FACTS instead of opinions tends to celar up who is right and who is wrong. Just look at the page views on my channel. Do you think many people have not benefited from my knock down drag out arguments? Of course they have. The truth about Renewables versus Fossil fuels is disseminated this way.

The bottom line is disseminating the TRUTH. That's why anyone refusing to argue evolution on the merits based on the creationist world view of the debating opponent is engaging in close minded bigotry.

I will show you and EXCELLENT example of close minded bigotry on the part of Charles Darwin. He had an agenda to destroy deism and he did it with pseudo science.

Wallace, an admirer of Darwin, wrote him a letter saying that natural selection could explain ape level crude intelligence but a creator was required for human level intelligence simply because we had no evolutionary need for such a high level of intelligence and tool making ability to survive in the natural world. Darwin had a shit fit. He didn't argue it. He wrote NO!, NO!, NO! right next to CREATOR. If that isn't an AGENDA, I don't know what is.

If anyone here wants the source and details of the Wallace, Darwin correspondence I will provide it. But I won't waste my time with ridicule and evasions.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Eddie on December 18, 2013, 12:42:56 PM
People that AUTOMATICALLY refuse to debate evolution versus creation (a totally separate subject from whether the creator did it in 6 days or not!) are using a filter that narrows their perception. "Let's wait for the scientific community to LEAD us", they say. YET, they are quite willing to question every other error in human society UNTIL their RELIGION (humanistic evolution) is questioned. They don't see that as bigotry. They see it as the height of modern, sophisticated, scientific thinking.

Horseshit. You're a fanatic. I don't argue with true believers, especially Christian true believers. They (you) are too fixed in their beliefs, and too loaded with articles googled from who knows where that ALWAYS DEFINITELY SHOW how absolutely and completely right they are while everyone else is wrong.

You and Ashvin and GO are not about to change your POV one iota, and I get little satisfaction in discussions that are basically long cut and pastes with no original thinking.

You boys should just accept that your belief system is just that, and not something that needs to be shoved down my throat.

Posts like the one you just made just show your intolerance.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: agelbert on December 18, 2013, 01:04:28 PM
Quote
You boys should just accept that your belief system is just that, and not something that needs to be shoved down my throat.

Oh, but I DO ACCEPT that it is a belief system because I have no PROOF.

It is YOU who refuses to accept that YOUR belief system is JUST THAT! It is YOU who, by ridiculing "true believers and Fanatics" want to shove YOUR Maslow Peer Group acceptance horseshit down OUR THROUTS by claiming WE are thinking "magically".

I take offense to that, Eddie. Sorry if you take offense to my "cut and paste" stuff. It's all at the Darwin thread in my forum. I cut and paste the SCIENTIFC CONCENSUS before I argue it and take it apart. What is your problem with that?

Really Eddie, I think your problem is that you refuse to believe your views are FAITH BASED and become grievously offended when I call YOU what you call ME.  :icon_mrgreen:

What's good for the GOOSE is good fro the GANDER.  ;)
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Bot Blogger on December 18, 2013, 01:17:28 PM
For clarity sake, AG is not disputing that there is a mechanism called evolution. Whether it was created or set in motion by God is another question. That it exists is not. Hence the ability to breed animals of a particular size shape mind over generations.

This isn't accurate.

It's true that no one here is disputing the ability of species' to sometimes adapt to their environments with the aid of genetic mutations and natural selection, or for those processes to create variation within a species. That is usually referred to as "micro-evolution".

However, AG and I are disputing the Darwinian theory of "macro-evolution", which suggests that these evolutionary mechanisms are sufficient to establish life and its vast diversity and complexity throughout Earth's history. Deists and theists who say God "set evolution in motion" or "directs evolution" are still relying on a majorly flawed theory that doesn't comport with the evidence.

You say 'micro' I say 'macro, lets call the whole thing off and just use 'evolution'.
We agree, it's a mechanism. An 'evolutionary mechanism'.

Whether it deserves the title role of mechanism of will and power or karma and fate, is not my point to make.
If it exists, then it's one of God's sacred mechanisms.
As sacred as every sperm.
At attention Catholics:


Every Sperm is Sacred (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk#)



Every Sperm is Sacred

DAD:
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

GIRL:
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

MUM:
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

PRIEST:
Every sperm is sacred.
BRIDE and GROOM:
Every sperm is good.
NANNIES:
Every sperm is needed...
CARDINALS:
...In your neighbourhood!

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
FUNERAL CORTEGE:
God needs everybody's.
MOURNER #1:
Mine!
MOURNER #2:
And mine!
CORPSE:
And mine!

NUN:
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
HOLY STATUES:
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: g on December 18, 2013, 01:48:09 PM
Quote
Eddy  You and Ashvin and GO are not about to change your POV one iota

Quote
quote   
 Agelbert

    We have centipedes and we have mosquitos. How come such analogous shapes are allegedly NOT related? BECAUSE they show up at the same time in the fossil record. Why do they assume (no proof, just Darwinian based speculation) something is not related to something else when they appear at the same time? Because the Theory REQUIRES a distance in time for one thing to evolve into another, period.

    Now you would say, HEY, didn't Darwin think we came from apes (which, of course, exist now too!)? YEP. It was OBVIOUSLY, as Ashvin pointed out in a quote here recently, based on prejudice against negros and had nothing to do with science. If Darwin had been approaching the issue scientifically, he would have to ASSUME that all modern life forms are evolved from something that is not present today. But he didn't do that, did he?  ;)


Quote
Quote      GO You got through the skull of the Ox right here Agelbert. I finally get it, or at least think I do.  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :Thinkingof_:

Speaking just for myself Eddie, Not True, both gents have changed my point of view on important matters many times.

The above thank you to Agelbert, posted earlier, is just one example. Both gentleman have cleared my vision repeatedly and I am thankful.

I was the one who posted the article you are deriding. It was clearly stated by me in the introduction to the article that it was posted because of prior interest shown in the topics presented and a desire by me to be more educated by those Diners well versed on the topic. My goal was accomplished by that above quote and Ashvin subsequently pointing to it's validity.

Your claim that I was baiting the forum and you wish we could rise above such behavior was particularly offensive to me.
Please ponder any such claims in the future about me with more care and accuracy.                         Thanks, GO





Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Eddie on December 18, 2013, 02:08:32 PM
My views are my views. I never once proselytized your ass and tried to influence you at all. I try to respect other peoples views and give them space to be whatever they feel they should be...worship God however they see fit.

Your Creationist views don't bother me. It's your lack of tolerance, and your willingness to bring your religion to this forum, where it definitely doesn't belong, that chaps my ass. I offended you? Good. You're a pompous old ass who is in love with his own typing.

You and Ashvin want to somehow prove the unprovable so that you can know the unknowable and figure it all out so your busy little minds can be at peace. Good luck with that.

Stick with your work on renewables. What you do with that is phenomenal. The Creationist Christian hard line just makes you look like a fool.



Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Eddie on December 18, 2013, 02:13:19 PM
Your claim that I was baiting the forum and you wish we could rise above such behavior was particularly offensive to me.

Good, because you do it frequently and then sit back and wait for somebody to take the bait. Most of the time I manage to ignore it.

As long as I'm offending people, I might as well offend you too, because you are completely culpable. People who want to bring their religion to the internet are disgusting. Give it a fucking rest, why don't you.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: g on December 18, 2013, 02:23:54 PM
Your claim that I was baiting the forum and you wish we could rise above such behavior was particularly offensive to me.

Good, because you do it frequently and then sit back and wait for somebody to take the bait. Most of the time I manage to ignore it.

As long as I'm offending people, I might as well offend you too, because you are completely culpable. People who want to bring their religion to the internet are disgusting. Give it a fucking rest, why don't you.

Well thank you for your tolerance and good manners.

Personally, since you opened the door, I am sick and tired of the pictures of the new toys you purchase weekly for your play pen the stead.
Can't you just buy yourself a Lionel train set like the other children who never grew the fuck up and spare us, please, give it a fucking rest will you.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Eddie on December 18, 2013, 02:36:24 PM
Yeah, I'm sure a fair number of the readers here aren't doing diddly squat to prep for collapse, and probably feel the same way you do about my experiments in the real world, that involve a real attempt to do something to actually better the odds for me and my family to survive a real emergency.

Coming here is a sort of social experiment for me. I expect I'm more like impermanence than I want to admit. I never met a group yet that I quite dovetailed into seamlessly. This one , weird as it is, has felt better than most. But it's a time waster.

I actually was hoping it might help somebody, or attract some real preppers to the table to talk here. But it always just seems to be the same bunch of do-nothing bullshitters. (With some very notable exceptions), but I'm not sure it's worth it to put up with the daily crapola.

Oh, btw , kiss my ass. You're a pompous old fart.


Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Petty Tyrant on December 18, 2013, 02:36:51 PM
Hey wheres the christmas cheer? steady on eddie.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: g on December 18, 2013, 02:42:29 PM
Quote
Oh, btw , kiss my ass. You're a pompous old fart.

Likewise Edward, tongue my ass whenever you wish.

BTW, you are not exactly a kid anymore going by your picture. Grecian formula 5 might help in the hair dept.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: g on December 18, 2013, 02:46:41 PM
Hey wheres the christmas cheer? steady on eddie.

Thanks UB,  Time to end the conversation. Sorry Doc, just a temper tantrum. 
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Ka on December 18, 2013, 03:17:11 PM
I was trying to remember a time when I WASN'T aware of an inside. I'm sure I wasn't at some early point in childhood, but I'm not sure exactly when.

As I understand it (which is not at all very well), children only acquire an ego at about age six of seven, so that's a kind of minimum limit. But clearly there are other considerations, like being able to focus inwardly. Or maybe have the ability to question one's own reasoning.

Quote
I would say that I was aware by age 16, when I began to seriously experiment with falling down the rabbit hole with LSD. And by age 19 I was turned on to Alan Watts The Book. I've been thinking about dualism/non-dualism since then at least. More time spent thinking about it hasn't made it easier to understand though.

Me too, though my book was Huxley's Perennial Philosophy. But the big question for me is why that didn't stick. Harold Bloom once described himself as (I forget the exact wording, but something like) "an agnostic with occasional yearnings for mystical gnosis". That describes me from late teens to 37.

Quote
I would hazard a guess that it isn't age as much as personality type that influences the onset of the kind of introspection you're discussing. That and exposure to Eastern thought, at least through books or some other avenue.

Well, I'm not sure. Personality type is obviously a factor, but I think age does play a role as well. Take the reasoning ability of a teenager vs. older people. The logic used is the same, but the former seems to have little ability to critique his own reasoning, that is, to be able to detach themselves from their own thinking. Not that all that many adults bother to do so either -- I guess that is where personality type makes a difference.

I also find it interesting that Jewish mystics say that one should not start studying Kabbalah unless one (a) knows the Law (i.e., Talmud), (b) is married, and (c) is at least forty.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: RE on December 18, 2013, 04:31:00 PM
I think you guys need to take some Chill Pills.  Lighten Up.

(http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/adamape.gif)

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wFRR0dLrLd8/UJHM9LiG7dI/AAAAAAAAEs0/vVwdk1UBGOs/s1600/KD+knols+img+63.jpg)

(http://jeffreyhill.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d417153ef01156e901893970c-pi)

(http://citizentom.wordpress.com/files/2008/12/2006-06-28-christian-unity-cartoon4.jpg)

(http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/trall/2007/trall070625.gif)

(http://www.toonpool.com/user/997/files/caveman_evolution_finance_idea_1018785.jpg)

(http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/190494/81103148.jpg)

RE
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: agelbert on December 18, 2013, 05:50:52 PM
Eddie,
You are on a ROLL, today. Yahoo! If I didn't know you were from Texas, I would know now!  :icon_mrgreen:

Thank you for your enjoyment of my Renewable energy support.  :emthup: :icon_sunny:

Of course I am prone to a bit of sermonizing and vitriol now and then.  ;D

It goes with territory. Eddie, I have been THERE with college professors and health care professionals for the last 30 years or so on the intolerance, disdain, disparagement and continuous smirks about being ignorant and a magical thinker.

For nearly 8 months you have consistently weighed on the issue of Christians in particular and believers in God in general maintaining repeatedly that they are magical thinkers as if you are discussing root canals or some other truth of your experience and profession.

Every time you do that, you are moving into religious territory and defending your world view. It should NOT bother you that we challenge it. But every time you talk about believers in God and scoffers of evolution like they are idiots, you are opening yourself up to debate.

If you don't want to talk religion, that's cool. Don't say we are magical thinkers. Every time you do, I will challenge you.

Do you think I have no clue where you are at? You live in Texas! You married someone who's father was a preacher, right? I know how intolerable and stuffed shirty those people can be. I know how pompous and rigid they can be too. Hypocrisy is rife in Evangelical Christianity. But they don't have a fucking franchise on magical thinking and hypocrisy. When they get legalistic about 6 day creation or the Sabbath or whatever, they are justifying such wishful thinking with magical thinking that Moses was God's stenographer. But to group people who believe God created us with judgmental legalists is wrong, offensive, objectionable and unscientific. I do admit it's easier to group us all together as whackos not worthy serious consideration.

I have argued against evolution while I believed it was the way things happened since 1985 because my profs could not answer my questions about it logically.

I read a lot of science articles and the word "evolution" is like flies on shit for them. They just cannot write without using that word. I've got one about E. Coli "evolving" for the few years through thousands of generations in closed containers by varying nutritional content (the latest buzzword in evolutionary circles because they are in the process of shit canning natural selection in favor of caloric forced gene expression - more fairy tales  ::)).

The E. Coli is STILL, low and behold, E. Coli but one group metabolizes sugars at a few percentage points (about 3%) faster than the other so that is EVOLUTION!  Give me a fucking break here! The term ADAPTATION has been captured by the evolutionists. Adaptation is gene expression to environmental conditions from a pre-existing package. That is NOT EVOLUTION.

WE intelligently designed E. Coli to make insulin by putting some plasmids into it but in millions of years it didn't do it on its own, did it?

Remember those coin flipping exercises in genetics? You know that it takes a LONG time to get students to obtain 9 tails and one head or vice versa by each person flipping one coin ten times. Now to get protein folded amino acids just right (assuming you HAVE all the amino acids you need all present) you need SEQUENTIAL 9 to one "mutations" (gross simplification but you get the idea). You need thousands of SEQUENTIAL (as in one after the other with NO GAPS) 9 to one mutations for that first cell. So if it takes one million years of primeval soup amino acid random folding to get ONE key protein, you need to go FACTORIAL (million times a million times a million, etc.) to get ALL the protein sequences needed for life.

There isn't enough time in a 14 billion year universe for that.

Remember all that stuff about vaccines and evolution? Remember how the cocci this or the bacilli that will "EVOLVE" antibiotic resistance? Hello? They are STILL cocci this or bacillus that, are they not? They didn't become E. Coli. There was adaptation, not evolution.

But they DID get some foreign genetic material so that must be evolution, right? WRONG. The "evolutionary advantage" that allowed them to become more virulent did not change their species. They adapted BECAUSE their DNA package allowed a plasmid for antibiotic resistance to be incorporated as part of its original design. The process by which Streptococcus pneumonia  metabolizes sugars and reproduces DID NOT CHANGE. It is STILL  Streptococcus pneumonia. But we were TAUGHT that was EVIDENCE of EVOLUTION. NOT!

What we did to E. Coli for insulin production is crude. It's still E. Coli even though we altered its metabolism. Ther comes a point in messing with bacterial DNA when the changes are rejected and it dies because every life form has programming to prevent becoming whatever it ISN'T. Nature breeds TRUE. DNA edits fastidiously to AVOID change. You know this.

Natural DE-selection works to cull species but natural selection has never produced an ORIGIN OF SPECIES as Darwin postulated.

If Darwin had seen this short video, he would NEVER have tried to push the theory of evolution. Evolution is story telling magical thinking. If you don't agree, show me some proof that it is occurring. Instead of "change is constant in the natural wordl" meme we had hammered into us by evolutionary thinking, science has discovered that the DNA inside cells fight change continuously through very sophisticated editing.


http://www.youtube.com/v/LY0hZLDOb00#&fs=1
HOW can ANYBODY believe the above happened RANDOMLY? (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6656.gif) (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1730.gif) (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1402.gif)







 
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: impermanence on December 18, 2013, 07:08:02 PM
Interesting exchange.

This is what happens when people are attached to their thinking, i.e., frustration at the inability to communicate, and anger at the others' refusal to affirm.  More than anything, people want others to tell them they actually exist.

Being able to see cognition as transient allows tremendous freedom from the above, a great release, allowing oneself to see the true nature of the thinking mind.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Ashvin on December 19, 2013, 05:23:31 AM
You say 'micro' I say 'macro, lets call the whole thing off and just use 'evolution'.
We agree, it's a mechanism. An 'evolutionary mechanism'.

We don't agree. It's a theory, not a mechanism. The cornerstone of this theory is common descent/ancestry for all living beings, and that is what is being disputed by AG and I.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Ashvin on December 19, 2013, 11:56:03 AM
for anyone interested, here is an interesting debate between Stephen Meyer, philosopher of science and author of "Darwin's Doubt", and Charles Marshall a paleobiologist:

http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={EC4DB82F-6C74-4C34-B9A6-C3821967CEEA} (http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={EC4DB82F-6C74-4C34-B9A6-C3821967CEEA})

It focuses mostly on the Cambrian explosion, which Darwin said was "at present inexplicable... and may be truely urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained" in The Origin of Species.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Bot Blogger on December 19, 2013, 07:01:45 PM
for anyone interested, here is an interesting debate between Stephen Meyer, philosopher of science and author of "Darwin's Doubt", and Charles Marshall a paleobiologist:

http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={EC4DB82F-6C74-4C34-B9A6-C3821967CEEA} (http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={EC4DB82F-6C74-4C34-B9A6-C3821967CEEA})

It focuses mostly on the Cambrian explosion, which Darwin said was "at present inexplicable... and may be truely urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained" in The Origin of Species.

It's not even a debate. They are dabbing one another on the nose with love taps. Stephen is having a bro-mantic conversation with his friend Charles. It's actually quite charming, their mutual respect. I like it.  :emthup:  :laugh:

So God dropped some life on the planet 4 BILLION years ago and then, three and a half BILLION years later (500 Million years ago) during the Cambrian period, God dropped the garden of Eden on earth. Then God took to sprinkling life forms on earth over the next few hundreds of millions of years culminating in humans being plunked onto the planet. Is that your story? Is That AGs story? Do we trust scientists to use carbon dating or whatever meager method they have to judge the passage of millions and billions of years? Or is that out the window? Also, please feel free to point out the places on the timeline where all the various events coincide with biblical stories, if you don't mind.   :icon_mrgreen:


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Geologic_Clock_with_events_and_periods.svg/800px-Geologic_Clock_with_events_and_periods.svg.png)



(http://www.locolobo.org/spiral_column.JPG)


Science is going to be the means by which this is resolved.
Bottom line is, neither you, AG or me are going to come up with an answer to the 'mystery' of the Cambrian explosion.
But thankyou for bringing it into the conversation. I love mystery.  :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Bot Blogger on December 19, 2013, 07:34:01 PM
It seems research into our origins is advancing at a rapid rate. More parts of the picture are coming together and new 'mysteries' are being discovered: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/science/toe-fossil-provides-complete-neanderthal-genome.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/science/toe-fossil-provides-complete-neanderthal-genome.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0)


(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/12/19/science/19zimmer-2/19zimmer-2-sfSpan-v2.jpg)

Scientists have extracted the entire genome of a 130,000-year-old Neanderthal from a single toe bone in a Siberian cave, an accomplishment that far outstrips any previous work on Neanderthal genes.

The accuracy of the new genome is of similar quality to what scientists would achieve if they were sequencing the DNA of a living person.

“It’s an amazing technical accomplishment,” said Sarah A. Tishkoff, an expert on human evolution at the University of Pennsylvania, who was not involved in the research. “Twenty years ago, I would have thought this would never be possible.”

The new Neanderthal genome, which is described in the current issue of Nature, is part of an extraordinary flurry of advances in studying ancient human DNA. Earlier this month, for example, scientists reconstructed a small segment of genes from a 400,000-year-old fossil in Spain, setting a record for the oldest human DNA ever found.

Using improved methods, the scientists were able to reconstruct the genome from another trove of DNA from an 80,000-year-old finger bone retrieved by a team of Russian explorers from a cave called Denisova.

Much to their surprise, the genome belonged to a separate lineage of humans that had not been known from the fossil record before. The scientists called these mysterious people the Denisovans.

By comparing the rough drafts of the Denisovan and Neanderthal genomes to modern human DNA, Dr. Paabo and his colleagues found clues to how we’re all related. Modern humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans all descended from a common ancestor that lived several hundred thousand years ago. The ancestors of modern humans then branched away on their own lineage. It wasn’t until later that Neanderthals and Denisovans split apart from each other.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Petty Tyrant on December 19, 2013, 08:37:26 PM
"Extinct Hominids" Published in 2000 first proposed that our progression was not linnear through 4 recognised stages from homo habilis to homo sapiens. While their classifications of new distinct australopith hominid species was not convincing to me, genetics is now showing that there definitely were more unrecognised sub-branches that went extinct in the family tree and not just in africa prior to 3 million years. Im waiting to hear that homo erectus was not the ancestor of all humans as generally accepted, but only some south east asians.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Ashvin on December 20, 2013, 04:55:04 AM
It's not even a debate. They are dabbing one another on the nose with love taps. Stephen is having a bro-mantic conversation with his friend Charles. It's actually quite charming, their mutual respect. I like it.  :emthup:  :laugh:

Yep, that's what I like about real academic discussions/debates. None of those 2 min soundbites of people just shouting at each other back and forth. Both of these guys had carefully read the others' books/papers before engaging their arguments. It also shows how ID advocates are not at all what they are portrayed to be by MSM - they are highly informed, objective and rigorous in their analysis of the science.

Charles Marshall started to make the standard argument "ID advocates aren't doing science, they just want to spread their religion in the schools", but I think he backed off that towards the end as he realized how informed and objective Stephen Meyer really was.

Quote
So God dropped some life on the planet 4 BILLION years ago and then, three and a half BILLION years later (500 Million years ago) during the Cambrian period, God dropped the garden of Eden on earth. Then God took to sprinkling life forms on earth over the next few hundreds of millions of years culminating in humans being plunked onto the planet. Is that your story? Is That AGs story?

That could be a working hypothesis to explain the scientific data, yes. (but the science here only gets us to an "Intelligent Designer", not necessarily the God of the Bible)

Quote
Do we trust scientists to use carbon dating or whatever meager method they have to judge the passage of millions and billions of years? Or is that out the window? Also, please feel free to point out the places on the timeline where all the various events coincide with biblical stories, if you don't mind.   :icon_mrgreen:

Excluding Genesis 1 creation account, all of the Biblical stories coincide with times after the appearance of modern humans...

Quote
Science is going to be the means by which this is resolved.
Bottom line is, neither you, AG or me are going to come up with an answer to the 'mystery' of the Cambrian explosion.
But thankyou for bringing it into the conversation. I love mystery.  :icon_sunny:

Why not? You just came up with a plausible scientific answer above.  :emthup:
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: agelbert on December 20, 2013, 01:47:45 PM
Ashvin Debates Bot Blogger:

 
Quote
So God dropped some life on the planet 4 BILLION years ago and then, three and a half BILLION years later (500 Million years ago) during the Cambrian period, God dropped the garden of Eden on earth. Then God took to sprinkling life forms on earth over the next few hundreds of millions of years culminating in humans being plunked onto the planet. Is that your story? Is That AGs story?
 



That could be a working hypothesis to explain the scientific data, yes. (but the science here only gets us to an "Intelligent Designer", not necessarily the God of the Bible)



Quote

Quote
Do we trust scientists to use carbon dating or whatever meager method they have to judge the passage of millions and billions of years? Or is that out the window? Also, please feel free to point out the places on the timeline where all the various events coincide with biblical stories, if you don't mind.   :icon_mrgreen: 




Excluding Genesis 1 creation account, all of the Biblical stories coincide with times after the appearance of modern humans...



Quote

Quote
Science is going to be the means by which this is resolved.
Bottom line is, neither you, AG or me are going to come up with an answer to the 'mystery' of the Cambrian explosion.
But thankyou for bringing it into the conversation. I love mystery.  :icon_sunny:
 


Why not? You just came up with a plausible scientific answer above.  :emthup:

Agelbert, now that Ashvin (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/thankyou.gif) has done most of the logic and truth   leg work,  makes a few observations and adds a few emoticons too!  :icon_mrgreen:

Quote
So God dropped some life on the planet 4 BILLION years  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif) ago and then, three and a half BILLION years later (500 Million years ago)  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif) during the Cambrian period, God dropped the garden of Eden on earth.  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif) Then God took to sprinkling life forms on earth over the next few hundreds of millions of years culminating in humans being plunked onto the planet. Is that your story? Is That AGs story?  ::) (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif)

 



Let's skip the bible because my argument is based on CREATION of the physical universe versus EVOLUTION through Random mutations as a function of a RANDOM universe WITHOUT AN intelligent designer. The later position is, I believe, your position, is it not, Bot Blogger?

The former is my position and the one I wish to argue. I do not wish to mix the stories in the bible with this simply because I do not believe the stories in the bible about human origins are scientifically accurate. Yeah, I believe God CREATED us. No, I don't have a clue how he did it. That is why I accepted, for most of my life, the theory of evolution as God's chosen mechanism UNTIL I actually started studying molecular biology and realized it was bullshit.

You claim that I claim that God "dropped" and "sprinkled" life here and there along a multi billion year time line. You seem to have a problem with using the verb "create". does it give you hives or something?  :icon_mrgreen: I get the fact that you don't accept Creation as a possiblity in this universe. You have make that painfully clear.


Quote
Do we trust scientists to use carbon dating or whatever meager method they have to judge the passage of millions and billions of years? Or is that out the window? Also, please feel free to point out the places on the timeline where all the various events coincide with biblical stories, if you don't mind.   :icon_mrgreen:

I repeat, the biblical stories aren't the issue here. We can discuss HOW Creation took place ONLY if you AGREE that it took place. As long as you don't, your best talking point is to ridicule (rightfully so!) the 6 literal day creationists that BELIEVE (without a shred of proof) that the Earth and the rest of the universe is only 6,000 years old. Nice try.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)

I think Carbon-14, as I posted earlier, is the best way to go with the dating. the other dating methods that reach into millions or billions of years must work 100% of the time (They don't. The scientific bias is ALWAYS to cherry pick the method that provides the oldest age - to support the Evolution Hypothesis, of course).

Tell me, dear Bot blogger, what does a scientist DO when he finds a mosquito in geologic column strata of the Triassic period (meaning some of his pals dined on Dino blood) and discovers that the blood (REAL BLOOD - Heme Groups with iron and Carbon - Not fossilized mineralization) in his gut has Carbon-14 in it? He discards it as an anomaly, a mistake, an instrument error, etc. This has happened repeated times. I can provide sources if you want.

So what's the problem? The problem is OTHER radiometric dating techniques revealing a multi-million year strata where that mosquito was found. And modern science (the experts, not me!) state unequivocally that dead things with Carbon-14 in them CANNOT be older than approximately 100,000 years. So the "prudent" scientist tosses out the Carbon-14 data as contamination or instrument error.

That is NOT science. That is Evolutionary Theory BIAS.

I bring all this to your attention because, while I agree that the universe is possibly 14 billion years old, I am not convinced that WE are. The Earth very well may be 4.5 billion years old. SO WHAT? That isn't enough time for the FIRST CELL to come about by random mutation amino acid folding.


Quote
Science is going to be the means by which this is resolved.
Bottom line is, neither you, AG or me are going to come up with an answer to the 'mystery' of the Cambrian explosion.
But thankyou for bringing it into the conversation. I love mystery.  :icon_sunny:
 


MY purpose is to eliminate unworkable theories of our origins. If you feel you must have one to explain our existence apart from an intelligent designer God, go for it. I will listen to you. But you have nothing with evolution UNTIL you get past that first cell.

Which brings me to my final observation. Please EXPLAIN the Chaperones and, more importantly, the Chaperonin amino acid processing, exquisitely precise protein folding mechanism from the RANDOM UNIVERSE point of view which dictates primeval soup self organizing amino acids and protein folding and the evolution of complex, multicellular life and different species through natural selection.

If you can't, because of probability and statistics, go where the data takes you. I'll give you a working hypothesis that excludes a CREATOR:

Monism: We are really just ONE organism. We have ALWAYS been one organism. Time is an illusion. Matter is an illusion. Separateness is an illusion. WE oscillate (Hi Carl Sagan) between alternate universes creating (sorry to use that word old boy.  :icon_mrgreen:) the illusion of a Big Bang where everything starts anew in a time line of ascending complexity of life!

Since there ARE multiple universes and dimensions, probability and statistics mean
nothing at all so ANYTHING is possible, prudent and we don't need no silly creator. No evolution OR creator REQUIRED! So there!  (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-005.gif)

But that hypothesis seems a bit like magical thinking to me. How about YOU? (http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg)   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)


Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Bot Blogger on December 28, 2013, 09:28:18 AM
Sorry for the delay. An Ice storm took out power in T dot and I'm just getting back.

Quote
So God dropped some life on the planet 4 BILLION years ago and then, three and a half BILLION years later (500 Million years ago) during the Cambrian period, God dropped the garden of Eden on earth. Then God took to sprinkling life forms on earth over the next few hundreds of millions of years culminating in humans being plunked onto the planet. Is that your story? Is That AGs story?

That could be a working hypothesis to explain the scientific data, yes. (but the science here only gets us to an "Intelligent Designer", not necessarily the God of the Bible)

I don't have a stake in 'getting us' to the God of the Bible. Nor do I care about what happened 500 million years ago.

I am interested in the question of how life formed. I am curious about the patterns we all seem to repeat.


Quote
Science is going to be the means by which this is resolved.
Bottom line is, neither you, AG or me are going to come up with an answer to the 'mystery' of the Cambrian explosion.
But thank you for bringing it into the conversation. I love mystery.  :icon_sunny:

Why not? You just came up with a plausible scientific answer above.  :emthup:

Well fair enough it's possible to come up with a theory based on some info but you have to have the info first. I'm not going to gather it for this particular problem.

Now this guy is developing a means of using other peoples research and giving credence to what you are saying. He simply uses other peoples research to show where we might do more research. I think this is the big development with the explosion of DATA out there. More people going through and making connections are going to 'correct' or balance scientific specialization and silo-fication.


Quote
Using a computational model of addiction, a literature review and an in silico experiment, theoretical computer scientist Yariv Levy and colleagues suggest in a new paper this week that rehabilitation strategies coupling meditation-like practices with drug and behavior therapies are more helpful than drug-plus-talk therapy alone when helping people overcome addiction.


Levy says the goal is to translate what has been learned from animal and human studies to better understand addiction and explore new approaches to treatment.

Levy says, “Our higher-level conclusion is that a treatment based on meditation-like techniques can be helpful as a supplement to help someone get out of addiction. We give scientific and mathematical arguments for this.”

His theoretical research approach using virtual subjects is rather unusual, Levy acknowledges, but it’s now gaining significant trust because it offers some strengths. In particular, because it relies on the increasing amount of available data and knowledge, in silico research offers quick preliminary tests of “rationally supported speculations,” he says, before full-scale experiments are launched with human patients or animals.

“I am a theoretician, so I use other peoples’ studies and try to see how they work together and how experiments fit in,” Levy points out. “This work follows a knowledge repository (KR) model, where the knowledge comes from other peoples’ theories and experiments. By consolidating them, we propose some hypotheses that we hope will subsequently be tested by experts in the field.”
T

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131219154547.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fcomputers_math+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Computers+%26+Math+News%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131219154547.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fcomputers_math+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Computers+%26+Math+News%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo)


But what are we focusing on is the main question. Christianity is a theory too. Especially if it is founded on theories of science.

I'm more interested in the practice of these things because therein lies all our self deception. See fukushima for reference.

SO my vote for Surly's quotes of the year goes to Impermanence for paying attention to what is actually going on:

Quote
Would you disagree that the most effective course of action is in first perceiving as accurately as is possible?  If ones perceptions are inaccurate, then no matter the skillfulness of the action, the results are wanting.

So, if Reality is inaccessible intellectually, and we must tap into what is actually going on to render an acceptable outcome, then what?  How do we know what to do?

You see people out there, highly intelligent people, making enormous mistakes bases on faulty perception, faulty processing, disregarding their intentions.  People refuse to accept the Truth of the matter because it is so fucking simple.  They are taught that real things are complex, because complexity is how the deception operates.

Now I don't agree that this is all pre-thinking I believe it is post-thinking. Obviously Impermanence has done some thinking to get to where he is at. ;-)

My father who was a heavy equipment operator worked on big projects and trained truck drivers and crane operators in Sri Lanka and St Lucia on Dam projects. Said this:

'Always drive on the road you are on. Not the one in your imagination. Not the one where you worry about what other drivers are doing and thinking about how they should behave.' Look at what is actually happening on the road.

Another person I'd like to quote is LD digging a beautiful swale, nice work!:

Swale Dig (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llXNYZwLlGs#ws)
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Tony on December 29, 2013, 01:57:11 PM
What is much more difficult is to explain the genesis of life or following that sentience.
I'm not sure about sentience, which could be regarded as another mutation - it could be gone when humans become extinct. Genesis? Yes, difficult to explain, but there are many things (everything?) that were difficult to explain, at some stage in the past. RE regards these as "miracles". If a "miracle" is defined as "something that doesn't yet have a provable explanation", then the origin of life is a miracle, but I don't think that "miracle" is usually thought of in that way.

Whether a god exists or not is a less important question, I think, than "is the existence of a god (a creator-god) relevant to our lives?" After many years, even decades, of considering this question, I've come to the conclusion that it isn't relevant.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: RE on December 29, 2013, 02:22:05 PM
What is much more difficult is to explain the genesis of life or following that sentience.
I'm not sure about sentience, which could be regarded as another mutation - it could be gone when humans become extinct. Genesis? Yes, difficult to explain, but there are many things (everything?) that were difficult to explain, at some stage in the past. RE regards these as "miracles". If a "miracle" is defined as "something that doesn't yet have a provable explanation", then the origin of life is a miracle, but I don't think that "miracle" is usually thought of in that way.

Whether a god exists or not is a less important question, I think, than "is the existence of a god (a creator-god) relevant to our lives?" After many years, even decades, of considering this question, I've come to the conclusion that it isn't relevant.

:hi: to the Diner Tony!

If you were to pick one topic on here certain to get a response, this one would be it.  LOL.

On a practical level, I agree with you that pondering on the Existence of God doesn't have a whole lot of relevance.  If God exists, this entity does not appear to drop in and make a difference as often as the Bible says happened in the old days.

Where it does matter is more in the Spiritual realm than the practical one.  It matters for instance if there is Eternal Punishment or Reward for your behavior and/or beliefs after you pass into the Great Beyond.  It matters in terms of how people set up a framework for their behaviors towards others.  If you don't think there are any consequences for being an asshole all your life, if being an asshole is good for you, then you operate through life as an asshole.

It also matters from an intellectual standpoint in terms of trying to explain stuff like how life began or how we know what we know, or don't know what we know, or know what we don't know, or don't know what we don't know.  LOL.  There are all sorts of metaphysical problems that revolve around this which philosophical types like to ponder on.  It's been going on for millenia, and is part of being Human.

RE
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: WHD on December 29, 2013, 02:48:33 PM
Quote
If you don't think there are any consequences for being an asshole all your life, if being an asshole is good for you, then you operate through life as an asshole.

That, or the assholes never learn their lesson, and keep coming back as assholes, seeing as the number of assholes has been expanding exponentially. Or maybe there is just always a percentage of assholes relative to population. Can't help think though, what with all the overabundance of material and digibit wealth, that assholes keeps adding up 2 or 3x-exponentially and then some! LOL

Anyway, 

:hi: to the Diner Tony!   :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny: 

WHD

BTW Tony- Gets a little rowdy around here. No worries. This is not an accusation that you are one of the above. Unless of course you start spouting that Oil is infinite and Bankers and Financiers and CEOs deserve everything they have (taken). LOL
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: WHD on December 29, 2013, 02:58:53 PM
So I read that article for the first time, and I think Chris Mooney is an asshole.  :icon_mrgreen:

I would sum this article up as saying, belief in God is childish, and belief in evolution is for adults.

I'm like, why is it so damn hard for either Materialists like Mooney, or Believers, to believe in evolution AND a creator?

WHD
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Ashvin on December 29, 2013, 03:01:40 PM
I am interested in the question of how life formed. I am curious about the patterns we all seem to repeat.

OK...

I don't get what the rest of your post has to do with that question.

AG's posts, on the other hand, have directly addressed that question (among others) and some of the most popular "answers".

Quote
But what are we focusing on is the main question. Christianity is a theory too. Especially if it is founded on theories of science.

Christianity could be considered a theory of sorts, but it is not founded on scientific theory.

That would be Intelligent Design theory.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: monsta666 on December 29, 2013, 03:08:58 PM
I'm like, why is it so damn hard for either Materialists like Mooney, or Believers, to believe in evolution AND a creator?

I think a big part of it is how some people have a tendency to develop a siege mentally whereby they divide people into two distinct groups with the us versus them meme. To do that they have to define the "them" to not only be actively against the us but those other people do not hold any of our beliefs and therefore can't be reasoned with. Tribal instincts and arrogance in one's beliefs/abilities usually result in this type of thing. But I suppose attention seeking could be another motive and there is nothing better in gaining attention by ridiculing religious people about their religious beliefs. Ironically often you get more attention if your criticisms are without solid foundations.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: WHD on December 29, 2013, 03:13:21 PM
I'm like, why is it so damn hard for either Materialists like Mooney, or Believers, to believe in evolution AND a creator?

I think a big part of it is how some people have a tendency to develop a siege mentally whereby they divide people into two distinct groups with the us versus them meme. To do that they have to define the "them" to not only be actively against the us but those other people do not hold any of our beliefs and therefore can't be reasoned with. Tribal instincts and arrogance in one's beliefs/abilities usually result in this type of thing. But I suppose attention seeking could be another motive and there is nothing better in gaining attention by ridiculing religious people about their religious beliefs. Ironically often you get more attention if your criticisms are without solid foundations.

Right, Mooney is basically projecting onto Believers the same Dualist and Tribalist tendencies he is suffering from.

WHD
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Petty Tyrant on December 29, 2013, 04:10:09 PM
I'm like, why is it so damn hard for either Materialists like Mooney, or Believers, to believe in evolution AND a creator?

I think a big part of it is how some people have a tendency to develop a siege mentally whereby they divide people into two distinct groups with the us versus them meme. To do that they have to define the "them" to not only be actively against the us but those other people do not hold any of our beliefs and therefore can't be reasoned with. Tribal instincts and arrogance in one's beliefs/abilities usually result in this type of thing. But I suppose attention seeking could be another motive and there is nothing better in gaining attention by ridiculing religious people about their religious beliefs. Ironically often you get more attention if your criticisms are without solid foundations.

Thats called Ingroup/Outgroup thinking Monsta, leading to often erroneuos conclusions.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: g on December 29, 2013, 04:11:12 PM
I am interested in the question of how life formed. I am curious about the patterns we all seem to repeat.

OK...

I don't get what the rest of your post has to do with that question.

AG's posts, on the other hand, have directly addressed that question (among others) and some of the most popular "answers".

Quote
But what are we focusing on is the main question. Christianity is a theory too. Especially if it is founded on theories of science.

Christianity could be considered a theory of sorts, but it is not founded on scientific theory.

That would be Intelligent Design theory.

Have a problem considering Christianity a theory of sorts.

Christ lived, founded the religion. It blossomed into billions of followers. Has it's martyrs, saints, churches all over the world, members of the religion right here on the Diner.

Christianity is a fact in my book, our own distinct views on what happens after death are where the controversy comes in.

Heaven, hell, God the Father, eternity, an everlasting soul. What is meant by them, are we to interpret them in our own way, or are they to be taken strictly and literally as spoken?

Christianity without these questions and many more of course, is a factual historical religious movement that has been duly recorded as all histories have, and exists today, nothing theoretical about it.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Tony on December 29, 2013, 07:29:26 PM
Thanks to RE and WHD for the welcomes.  It's always interesting finding new forums to contribute to!

On a practical level, I agree with you that pondering on the Existence of God doesn't have a whole lot of relevance.  If God exists, this entity does not appear to drop in and make a difference as often as the Bible says happened in the old days.

Where it does matter is more in the Spiritual realm than the practical one.  It matters for instance if there is Eternal Punishment or Reward for your behavior and/or beliefs after you pass into the Great Beyond.  It matters in terms of how people set up a framework for their behaviors towards others.  If you don't think there are any consequences for being an asshole all your life, if being an asshole is good for you, then you operate through life as an asshole.

It also matters from an intellectual standpoint in terms of trying to explain stuff like how life began or how we know what we know, or don't know what we know, or know what we don't know, or don't know what we don't know.  LOL.  There are all sorts of metaphysical problems that revolve around this which philosophical types like to ponder on.  It's been going on for millenia, and is part of being Human.
It's not so much the pondering that is irrelevant but the possibility of a god, in itself. As you say, that entity hasn't really stepped into the world we inhabit as much as it would appear to have done in the past, if certain stories are to be believed. Indeed, I think such intervention would pretty much put an end to science, unless such intervention is never seen or recorded (in which case, it becomes a matter of belief).

The other points that you say are affected by the existence of a god aren't so much affected by that but by how this god would appear to want its creations to behave, and whether it has more in mind for those creations than the recycling bin or simply non-existence. Different religions have different ideas on the matter, and even different people in the same religion have different ideas on the matter. It's pretty clear to me that either god doesn't really mind what we do (which seems a perfectly reasonable position for an entity as powerful as that) or hasn't yet decided to give us some clear idea of what it is that we should do (which, I suppose, amounts to not really minding what we do, for now). So-called holy books (written or verbal) and occasional personal revelations don't really give us that as many people have never been and are never reached with exactly the same message.

Consequently, it's down to individuals to decide these questions for themselves but I just hope any actions they take don't force the consequences of those beliefs on other people. Sadly, that doesn't seem to generally be the case.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: RE on December 29, 2013, 07:52:55 PM
The other points that you say are affected by the existence of a god aren't so much affected by that but by how this god would appear to want its creations to behave, and whether it has more in mind for those creations than the recycling bin or simply non-existence. Different religions have different ideas on the matter, and even different people in the same religion have different ideas on the matter. It's pretty clear to me that either god doesn't really mind what we do (which seems a perfectly reasonable position for an entity as powerful as that) or hasn't yet decided to give us some clear idea of what it is that we should do (which, I suppose, amounts to not really minding what we do, for now). So-called holy books (written or verbal) and occasional personal revelations don't really give us that as many people have never been and are never reached with exactly the same message.

I go with a kind of "set it and forget it" God.  God set up the material universe and various sorts of souls inhabit this Universe.  I think I wrote once that souls are "captured" by living organisms when they reach a certain age, for homo sapiens around the time of 1-2 years old.  This is all speculation of course.

All the major religions have their own narratives, along with structures and rules for behavior which usually the purported believers in these religions don't follow too closely.  Again, you can't prove these narratives are valid, you either believe them or you don't.

In any event, I spent most of my life as an Agnostic, but in the last decade or so have a more Theistic outlook.  I see too much evidence of Intelligent Design to buy a random generation theory for either Life or the Universe itself.  This doesn't mean God gives a hoot about what is currently going on here on Earth though.  Probably too busy creating other Universes in the Multi-verse to pay much attention.

RE
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: WHD on December 29, 2013, 08:21:39 PM
Quote
Consequently, it's down to individuals to decide these questions for themselves but I just hope any actions they take don't force the consequences of those beliefs on other people. Sadly, that doesn't seem to generally be the case.

I go with a God that is conscious of all things, always. Of course, such a God is by def. incomprehensible to a mere human. Of course, saying that , the biggest knock against the existence of God is the absence of observable justice on this planet. But then, in a universe that is said to be 14-15 billion years old, true justice might be on a bit longer timeline.

The second biggest knock against God is of course God people, like you say, so many of them so sure about what's what, and what other people should believe. Too bad for God, or them really, I imagine, if justice is on the timeline I imagine.  :icon_mrgreen:

WHD

Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Tony on December 29, 2013, 11:21:20 PM
I see too much evidence of Intelligent Design to buy a random generation theory for either Life or the Universe itself.  This doesn't mean God gives a hoot about what is currently going on here on Earth though.  Probably too busy creating other Universes in the Multi-verse to pay much attention.
I don't think there is any evidence (of the kind one might use in scientific research) of intelligent design. It seems to me more of an incredulity question. There seems to me to be plenty of evidence of unintelligent design but, of course, that is only from the viewpoint of less than full understanding of even this planet, never mind the universe. Evolution isn't random (or not just random) mutations, but random mutations filtered by natural selection. Whether there is anything really random at all may be a question too large for our limited abilities.

Indeed, our limited abilities are all we have, to consider these questions, so there is always a high probability that we will never get anywhere near an understanding of what is real. God may be having a good belly laugh at our meagre attempts and our simplistic conjectures.

I often wonder why, if there is a creator god, it created the universe in a way that makes it discoverable (or apparently discoverable) to parts of it which consider themselves intelligent. Why have creatures with inner workings that appear to have evolved, why have matter with atoms? And so on. But then again, god works in mysterious ways.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Ashvin on December 30, 2013, 05:29:57 AM
I often wonder why, if there is a creator god, it created the universe in a way that makes it discoverable (or apparently discoverable) to parts of it which consider themselves intelligent. Why have creatures with inner workings that appear to have evolved, why have matter with atoms? And so on. But then again, god works in mysterious ways.

Addressing the second question first, who says the Universe has creatures with inner workings that appeared to have evolved? Only biologists over the last 150 or years or so, and that's not even accurate. Even atheist biologists say that life appears to be designed, but in reality it is not (according to their theories).

(it's interesting to note that non-biologist scientists, such as astronomers, cosmologists, physicists, etc., are much more open to intelligent design theories, i.e. the obvious appearance of design in the Universe is, in reality, design)

Your first question is a very interesting one to consider. I would frame it this way - if all of life evolved through unintelligent, undirected natural processes, then why did one part of that life happen to "evolve" with exactly the right capacities and in exactly the right time period at which the Universe it inhabits could be thoroughly investigated and "discovered"?

It makes great sense if, instead of unintelligent natural processes running the show, an Intelligent Designer was responsible for crafting intelligent life with the purpose that it should have the capacity to know and relate to him through his created order.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Ashvin on December 30, 2013, 05:43:34 AM
Have a problem considering Christianity a theory of sorts.

Christ lived, founded the religion. It blossomed into billions of followers. Has it's martyrs, saints, churches all over the world, members of the religion right here on the Diner.

Christianity is a fact in my book, our own distinct views on what happens after death are where the controversy comes in.

By Christianity, I mean the Christian FAITH (not a historical religious movement). The faith is not a fact. It is a committed belief to spiritual conclusions that arise from a set of historical and experiential facts.

You don't get Christianity by the mere existence of a 1st century Rabbi teaching people certain ideas and generating a lot of followers. You also need the claims to Messianic fulfillment, divinity, atonement for sin, a validation of those claims (via the Resurrection) and a hope for his final consummation of God's Kingdom (the second coming) to get a spiritual worldview that can call itself Christianity.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Tony on December 31, 2013, 07:14:23 PM
Addressing the second question first, who says the Universe has creatures with inner workings that appeared to have evolved? Only biologists over the last 150 or years or so, and that's not even accurate. Even atheist biologists say that life appears to be designed, but in reality it is not (according to their theories).
Hmm. I would have thought that it wasn't particularly controversial to state that life appears to have evolved. If you found the odd atheist biologist who thinks the life appears to have been designed, that doesn't mean that all biologists or all atheist biologists think that. It appears to have evolved because of features that can be traced back through other species, but maybe that's just my take. In any event that wasn't really the main thrust of my comment.
(it's interesting to note that non-biologist scientists, such as astronomers, cosmologists, physicists, etc., are much more open to intelligent design theories, i.e. the obvious appearance of design in the Universe is, in reality, design)
That seems to be another sweeping statement. I suppose you mean that you believe that there are some non-biologist scientists who seem to entertain the notion of intelligent design. I think, though, that any research to try to verify the notion will be hard to finance, since it would be a mightily difficult thing to verify.
Your first question is a very interesting one to consider. I would frame it this way - if all of life evolved through unintelligent, undirected natural processes, then why did one part of that life happen to "evolve" with exactly the right capacities and in exactly the right time period at which the Universe it inhabits could be thoroughly investigated and "discovered"?
Why do you think the last 200,000 years is "exactly the right time period" or that humans, over the last 200,000 years have had "exactly the right capacities" to investigate the matter. Regardless, it does seem as though at least one part of the universe currently has some capability (we can't know if it is the only part of the universe with such capability) to discover that there are inner workings of the universe, rather than it is just there. I find that doesn't fit well, to my mind, with the notion of a creator who wishes us to behave in a certain way that isn't discoverable by what we think of as a great way to discover things - science. Instead, increasing scientific knowledge has done away with much of the past need for a guiding hand from some other ethereal plane.
It makes great sense if, instead of unintelligent natural processes running the show, an Intelligent Designer was responsible for crafting intelligent life with the purpose that it should have the capacity to know and relate to him through his created order.
So, it makes sense if one imagines a certain intention on the part of a creator. But capacity isn't a purpose. To know and relate to the creator might be a purpose if it was a purpose that all humans have the capacity to achieve and have always had that capacity. It doesn't really make much sense if such a purpose is only attainable by some of the humans (in practical terms) who happen to be alive in a period that gave them incredible tools to investigate the inner workings of the universe, particularly the earth.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: JoeP on December 31, 2013, 07:37:54 PM
Tony, I can tell we're on the same page (or close) on this topic.  But in case you didn't know already, the person you are engaging with will go forevah....like the energizer bunny.  Not kidding.  :icon_scratch:
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Tony on December 31, 2013, 08:01:52 PM
Tony, I can tell we're on the same page (or close) on this topic.  But in case you didn't know already, the person you are engaging with will go forevah....like the energizer bunny.  Not kidding.  :icon_scratch:
Oh yeah. If he's the same Ashvin that I think, I know we'd likely end up agreeing to disagree!
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: RE on December 31, 2013, 09:48:10 PM
Tony, I can tell we're on the same page (or close) on this topic.  But in case you didn't know already, the person you are engaging with will go forevah....like the energizer bunny.  Not kidding.  :icon_scratch:
Oh yeah. If he's the same Ashvin that I think, I know we'd likely end up agreeing to disagree!

Is there any other Ashvin in the Collapse Blogosphere?  It's Ashvin Pandurangi from The Automatic Earth.

RE
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Tony on December 31, 2013, 10:41:01 PM
Is there any other Ashvin in the Collapse Blogosphere?  It's Ashvin Pandurangi from The Automatic Earth.
RE
Yup, that's the one.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: RE on December 31, 2013, 11:00:34 PM
Is there any other Ashvin in the Collapse Blogosphere?  It's Ashvin Pandurangi from The Automatic Earth.
RE
Yup, that's the one.

Well, you can forget about him agreeing to disagree on his Topics of Interest.  Anytime you make a post which hits his G-spot on these issues, you are bound to get a pretty copious response if he finds something in your perspective objectionable.  A particular thread may wear itself out, but the same ideas reappear all the time elsewhere, and the Biblical passages and Barfield quotes from Ka float on into shore again, like flotsam from the Sendai Quake on the shores of Malibu Beach.  LOL.  It's as predictable as the Tides turning.

RE
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: Tony on December 31, 2013, 11:04:58 PM
Well, you can forget about him agreeing to disagree on his Topics of Interest.  Anytime you make a post which hits his G-spot on these issues, you are bound to get a pretty copious response if he finds something in your perspective objectionable.  A particular thread may wear itself out, but the same ideas reappear all the time elsewhere, and the Biblical passages and Barfield quotes from Ka float on into shore again, like flotsam from the Sendai Quake on the shores of Malibu Beach.  LOL.  It's as predictable as the Tides turning.

Probably true but, hey, I changed my mind about a lot of stuff, religion included, so who knows? However, I don't think that the behaviour you highlighted is particularly rare, for all manner of subjects by all manner of advocates.
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: RE on December 31, 2013, 11:11:13 PM
Well, you can forget about him agreeing to disagree on his Topics of Interest.  Anytime you make a post which hits his G-spot on these issues, you are bound to get a pretty copious response if he finds something in your perspective objectionable.  A particular thread may wear itself out, but the same ideas reappear all the time elsewhere, and the Biblical passages and Barfield quotes from Ka float on into shore again, like flotsam from the Sendai Quake on the shores of Malibu Beach.  LOL.  It's as predictable as the Tides turning.

Probably true but, hey, I changed my mind about a lot of stuff, religion included, so who knows? However, I don't think that the behaviour you highlighted is particularly rare, for all manner of subjects by all manner of advocates.

Time will tell, you can't predict such things with absolute certainty.  It ain't over till it's over.  lol.

RE
Title: Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
Post by: WHD on January 01, 2014, 08:48:31 AM
Well, you can forget about him agreeing to disagree on his Topics of Interest.  Anytime you make a post which hits his G-spot on these issues, you are bound to get a pretty copious response if he finds something in your perspective objectionable.  A particular thread may wear itself out, but the same ideas reappear all the time elsewhere, and the Biblical passages and Barfield quotes from Ka float on into shore again, like flotsam from the Sendai Quake on the shores of Malibu Beach.  LOL.  It's as predictable as the Tides turning.

Probably true but, hey, I changed my mind about a lot of stuff, religion included, so who knows? However, I don't think that the behaviour you highlighted is particularly rare, for all manner of subjects by all manner of advocates.

Tony,

Well unless you are prepared to agree that evolution should be removed from science textbooks, you might want to reconsider getting into it with Ashvin. He is on the far right of the far right about that, and seeming too trend farther.

WHD