Jump to content

Ichthus

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-12 Bad

About Ichthus

  • Rank
    Quark

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. And I very much enjoyed it, Dagl, and am looking forward to more discussions on science. I expected to come to a science forum for science discussions, not to see how "threatened" I must be by it all. Yes, I'm going to stay on the science part of this place and hopefully have more interesting, enjoyable, civil conversations. I am not reading the other replies to the post, no point, I've heard it all. I hope to have another good science discussion soon!
  2. Reality check, people. The fact is, we Christians love scientific advance, especially in the fields of medicine and agriculture and such. When it comes to things to worry about, we have other things, like secular culture trying to find ever more inventive ways to criminally charge us for daring to be a Christian against their will, or our brothers and sisters being severely persecuted and killed for their faith in communist and Muslim countries, or new late-term abortion laws that allow people to kill babies right up to the birth date, or homelessness and poverty. Frankly, we're just not that concerned about some intellectual snobs high on their own self-importance. Get a grip! Why is there even a religion forum on a Science discussion site, since you all think religion is by definition un-scientific? Philosophy I understand, but a different forum just for this? Yeesh. I'm going to stay on the mathematics forum, thanks.
  3. Sorry Strange! This has gone on a bit. If you look my original post, I was interested in some of Dawkin's claims about the certainty of evolution, you can look at his book if you want to feel embarrassed he represents intellectuals. His claim if that it is not random or by chance at all (Chapter 4). Actually, I don't think he's looked at advances in evolution theory since Darwin's first book.
  4. Maybe you should ask some churches about that, eh? Gosh, good to know I have an irrational belief because I don't like the finality of death and I somehow need to explain the beauty and awe of nature! Amazing what you logical, rational people can teach me about myself!
  5. Yes, I have been to a kingdom hall meeting. They go over their pamphlets, but the conclusions drawn are not questioned, nor do they look broadly at the bible, just at the little bits they are looking at. I am an evangelical, always have been. I was told to read the bible for myself and question anything taught by anyone by what the bible says, then ask the person who said it. Example - they are told their translation, the NWT, is superior, mainly because there is a fragment of parchment found from the time of Jesus of the book of Isaiah that agrees with them. I don't think any of them have looked at the information in the records of the Jerusalem museum. That parchment was found with the Dead Sea Scrolls amongst many, many others and under inspection is very poorly copied, with whole chapters left out, and many errors in words used compared to all the other scrolls with Isaiah on them found in the exact same archeological find. This is not an example from scripture, as I think that would matter less if you are not a believer. You do not question Watchtower or you get disfellowshipped.
  6. Then mutations are entirely random, tiny changes in genetic code that may do something or nothing at all. That is, you are saying exactly what Dagl said: it is all by chance, which is possible, but is not a certainty.
  7. Sensei - the eye was just a hypothetical. There are single-cell microorganisms that are light sensitive - this is a fraction of a percent. The original question was how it goes from 0% to even a fraction of a percent.
  8. I am friends with several JWs. They don't do their homework at all - they have rote questions that Watchtower tell them will trip up Christians because they are told we don't know what the bible says at all. When you talk to them their faith is very strong but based on something that is eggshell thin. It grieves me terribly. And the reason they do everything in pairs is so they can dob each other in if they start to listen to you - several of them have been barred from corresponding with me in any way, even though I have only ever been friendly and eager to listen, which they admit. Very sad. I see no reason why we shouldn't love and help JWs the same as anyone else, and treat them with the dignity of being made in the image of God, which means they do have brains, and can accept help and advice from them in turn. Two of them often give me a lift home when they see me out and it's bad weather.
  9. Well, the argument was about evolution theory in the book. Let's just say he's an arrogant jerk who doesn't speak for all people who follow natural selection at all, eh? I was wondering if evolution as a certainty could be explained better, that's all. I love a good science debate - thanks! Er, no. That's the point. it may come to exist, that is a possibility. Saying it 'will' happen is not right.
  10. Yes, could. If you place cards in any position, you COULD eventually form any shape and order, but it is never a certainty. (This in answer to Dagl) No, house of cards works better. In poker, you know exactly what the 52 cards are that are in the deck, and how many cards each player holds. This assumes much more certainty than being talked about in evolution. (This to Sensei)
  11. No. If you randomly arrange cards, then there is absolutely no certainty you will ever get anything more than a mess of cards. I'm sure the blokes on the Mathematics forum can back that one up. To clarify - by 'response to the environment' I mean that the environment must dictate in some way what mutations form - for example, mutations leading towards a thick warm fur coat will not help in a desert environment. The problem I have with Dawkin's argument is that he basis his entire theory on the fact that evolution isn't random, because, using the stack of cards idea, statistically you could rearrange the cards forever and not come up with any meaningful structure. I understand that mutations can be both negative and beneficial, and as you say, this system is based on chance. This doesn't solve the problem of how a useless feature becomes part of the dominant population, and why that useless feature would be one that is passed on, rather than a beneficial mutation. I have no problem with "It all happens by chance" - chance is a possibility, no matter how remote. But my problem with this is accepting one remote possibility as truth, and dismissing another because IT is improbable. And calling it 'logic'. Surely the scientific view would be that no possible solution can be ruled out?
  12. As I understand, natural selection is not random changes caused by chance, but mutations that form in response to the environment so that the beneficial mutation has a higher chance of survival therefore produces more offspring. If the mutations do not happen purely by chance, which was Dawkin's whole argument, then why would a mutation form which forces more calcium? And if it does form but isn't in any way beneficial at first, like you say, then why would this mutation that only happens in a single or very small group of organisms survive long enough to evolve through the necessary steps required to become the beginnings of an eye?
  13. Curious Christian here - I've been reading The God Delusion - I prefer not to comment, apparently I'm too stupid to understand anything because I'm a Christian. I've nearly finished chapter 4, and I have a question about the argument that evolution works because of a slow ascent of design. Examples given include the eye, where it begins with a very rudimentary semi-form of an eye, and then works its way up 1% of an eye, 2% and so on. No argument from me there, the problem not addressed is the progression from 0% to 0.0000001% of something. So far Richard's argument seems to solely be, "I'm not smart enough to understand this, an almighty God could not possibly be smarter than me, therefore there is no God." (I know even many atheists think he's an 'arrogant jerk' in their own words, so I'll assume I can get a civil answer to this question from here instead of a Dawkins site.) Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.