EVOLUTION: what about this

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rogerteder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why does Dawkins think that Evolution makes God improbable, and atheism an intelectually fullfilled position.?.
Click to expand...
His philosophical predispositions. Nothing he’s done in science make it so, and he admits it.
 
The_Barbarian said:
Quantum events are by chance.
Click to expand...
Well, kinda. Quantum events occur within probabilities that can be calculated. Path integral formulation is a method of obverting chance in quantum mechanics to make it more uniform with classical mechanics. But I agree that quantum events appear to be random, but they really aren’t quite. Just trying to clarify a little bit.
 
Namesake said:
Well, kinda. Quantum events occur within probabilities that can be calculated. Path integral formulation is a method of obverting chance in quantum mechanics to make it more uniform with classical mechanics. But I agree that quantum events appear to be random, but they really aren’t quite. Just trying to clarify a little bit.
Click to expand...
But one cannot know for certain unless they observe the events.
 
mpartyka said:
That’s easy to say, but the fact is that even before evolution hit the scene, people have had to come up with ways to reconcile contradictions raised by the Bible. For example, in the Gospel of Mark, the time of Jesus’ crucifixion is given as “the third hour”, while in Matthew and Luke the time is “the sixth hour”. St. Augustine reconciled this internal discrepancy by claiming that “the third hour” is when the Jews denied Jesus before Pilate and called for Jesus to be crucified, so that was when Jesus was crucified in a sense, but not literally. So this “fudging” the meaning of the Scriptures to fit with reality is really nothing new.

–Mike
Click to expand...
No need to “fudge” anything. Jesus’ crucifixion could only have occurred on Friday, just as the Scriptures state.

Matt 27:62-64
Mark 15:42-44
Luke 23:54-56
John 19:31-33

None of these Scriptures contradict the understanding of being crucified on Friday.

The Biblical record is also clear that Jesus was buried later that (Friday) afternoon or evening before the Sabbath (Saturday) began.

Another problem is that you are apparently a literalist, choosing to read things so literally that there is no other means of understanding what is being said. This type of interpretation makes it very difficult to read ANY book, much less the Bible.

Jesus rose on Sunday. That’s three days - from Friday, to Saturday (the Sabbath), to Sunday.

The Jews method of reckoning for a day was indicated by the idiom which they used for a day - “one day and one night” - which was how the Jews indicated a day, even when it was applied to only a part of a day. The Jewish reference to this period as three days and three nights is strictly in accordance with the Jewish mode of reckoning. Evening and morning, or night and day, is the Hebrew phrase for a natural day. It was a maxim among the Jews in computing time, that a part of a day was to be received or computed as the whole.

It really is no mystery, unless you are a Biblical literalist.
 
StAnastasia said:
Bye bye antibiotics. Hello multi-drug resistance with a vengeance. Bye bye universities. Hello straw-chewing, edentulate montagnards.
Click to expand...
What’s so funny about this is that antibiotics are the leading scientific cause of multi-drug resistance. Where have you been sticking your head?
 
PEPCIS said:
What’s so funny about this is that antibiotics are the leading scientific cause of multi-drug resistance. Where have you been sticking your head?
Click to expand...
Yep, that’s right. Evolution in action.

Peace

Tim
 
PEPCIS said:
No need to “fudge” anything. Jesus’ crucifixion could only have occurred on Friday, just as the Scriptures state.
Click to expand...
The discrepancy I cited concerns at which hour Jesus was crucified – (third or sixth?) – not on which day He was crucified.

–Mike
 
PEPCIS said:
What’s so funny about this is that antibiotics are the leading scientific cause of multi-drug resistance. Where have you been sticking your head?
Click to expand...
Pepcis, do you know how multi-drug resistance arises? Do you understand the biology of it? Do you understand the evolutionary basis for it?
 
StAnastasia said:
Pepcis, do you know how multi-drug resistance arises? Do you understand the biology of it? Do you understand the evolutionary basis for it?
Click to expand...
Yes. God designed the DNA of all creatures to be able to adapt; like with a simple point mutation that turns off an active gene, or turns on an inactive gene. And those who have eyes to see can see this, but those who don’t can’t - because God hides His face from the wicked, but gives grace to the humble. But what does any of this have to do with a fish turning into a philosopher? :banghead:
nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word090106.htm
(2) As a scientific matter, the evidence for “micro-evolution” seems beyond doubt; the case for “macro-evolution” is less persuasive.
Click to expand...
While Benedict does not believe it is the church’s role to settle scientific debates, that doesn’t mean he lacks his own views. Most notably, Benedict has doubts about what he calls “macro-evolution.” (“Micro-evolution” refers to developmental changes within a species, “macro-evolution” is the transition from one species to another on the basis of mutation and selection.)
Click to expand...
Ratzinger outlines his thinking in a November 27, 1999, lecture delivered at the Sorbonne entitled “The Truth of Christianity,” which is published in his 2003 book Truth and Tolerance.
Click to expand...
“No one will be able to cast serious doubt upon the scientific evidence for micro-evolutionary processes… [T]he problem emerges at the point of transition from micro- to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmáry and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: 'There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.’”
Click to expand...
This distinction between “micro” and “macro-evolution” is apparently one Ratzinger began to make in the 1980s, after hearing a series of lectures at the Gustav Siewarth Academy, a small Catholic academy in Germany’s Black Forest. Tassot told NCR that a German Catholic intellectual named Alma von Stockhausen, the founder of the Gustav Siewarth Academy, has said that Ratzinger concluded macro-evolution is “impossible” after this experience.
Click to expand...
 
buffalo said:
But one cannot know for certain unless they observe the events.
Click to expand...
Oh, that is so true. However, theoretical science is pretty good. I mean, look at all the theory that worked out pretty well with the atomic bomb. The theory worked just as predicted. Lots of examples of that sort of thing.
 
Luke65 said:
Yes. God designed the DNA of all creatures to be able to adapt; like with a simple point mutation that turns off an active gene, or turns on an inactive gene. And those who have eyes to see can see this, but those who don’t can’t - because God hides His face from the wicked, but gives grace to the humble. But what does any of this have to do with a fish turning into a philosopher? :banghead:
Click to expand...
So you don’t understand. OK – here’ how it works. You employ antibiotic A on a bacterial population. Let’s say 1% of it is resistant to that, so only 99% are killed off, and the 1% multiply to form a new population. Then you try antibiotic B, with the same result. Now you have a population of bacteria that have evolved resistance to both antibiotic A and antibiotic B. And so on for every drug in your arsenal. Evolution in action – got it?
 
Luke65 said:
But what does any of this have to do with a fish turning into a philosopher? :banghead:
Click to expand...
Luke, I didn’t see your last sentence. Do you really believe that is how evolution works? That a given fish can suddenly morph into a philosopher of the species Homo sapiens? Is that really how you understand evolution as working?
 
StAnastasia said:
So you don’t understand. OK – here’ how it works. You employ antibiotic A on a bacterial population. Let’s say 1% of it is resistant to that, so only 99% are killed off, and the 1% multiply to form a new population. Then you try antibiotic B, with the same result. Now you have a population of bacteria that have evolved resistance to both antibiotic A and antibiotic B. And so on for every drug in your arsenal. Evolution in action – got it?
Click to expand...
This is not evolution. Bacteria have a built-in ability to react to outside threats. They can even exchange genetic material between different species of bacteria. But they do not change into something other than bacteria.

The macro problem is there appears to be little evidence that random mutation and natural selection can lead to radical changes in a macro organism’s morphology. Fish to humans.

Peace,
Ed
 
StAnastasia said:
Luke, I didn’t see your last sentence. Do you really believe that is how evolution works? That a given fish can suddenly morph into a philosopher of the species Homo sapiens? Is that really how you understand evolution as working?
Click to expand...
Sure, given enough time (we are told) anything is possible:

google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_3846_404_1617_43/http%253B/public-content%253B7087/publishedcontent/publish/ecological_issues/genetic_biodiversity/phylogenetic_trees_intro/tree.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt%3Fopen%3D512%26objID%3D404%26%26PageID%3D1617%26mode%3D2%26in_hi_userid%3D2%26cached%3Dtrue&h=484&w=400&sz=31&tbnid=amha94D-xfF0kM::&tbnh=129&tbnw=107&prev=/images%3Fq%3Devolutionary%2Btree&hl=en&usg=__ASfYkoCL34MgtzEYbv_Uj-CdzhY=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=4&ct=image&cd=1

Peace,
Ed
 
StAnastasia said:
So you don’t understand. OK – here’ how it works. You employ antibiotic A on a bacterial population. Let’s say 1% of it is resistant to that, so only 99% are killed off, and the 1% multiply to form a new population. Then you try antibiotic B, with the same result. Now you have a population of bacteria that have evolved resistance to both antibiotic A and antibiotic B. And so on for every drug in your arsenal. Evolution in action – got it?
Click to expand...
:hmmm:

Isn’t that called “natural selection”? Why do you call it “Evolution”?
 
StAnastasia said:
Luke, I didn’t see your last sentence. Do you really believe that is how evolution works? That a given fish can suddenly morph into a philosopher of the species Homo sapiens? Is that really how you understand evolution as working?
Click to expand...
I enjoy your sense of humor too, StAnastasia. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top