Gaps in Evolution

[josie_L]

Why are they? By that same logic, one can say there is a 50% chance that the higher power is either the Christian God or Allah… thus reducing the 50% chance of the original question down to 25% for the Christian God.

You can do this forever. The point is none of these 50%s are based on anything. You must first prove that there is an equal chance for each one to happen. Then you can conclude there is a 50% chance. It can’t just be assumed.

Because science can neither prove nor disprove God, and being that the circumstancial evidence for the existence of a God is good why shouldn’t there be an equal likelihood that God exists as opposed to his not existing (in fact I would argue that the likelihood is greater than 50% for there being a God)? I understand what you mean though, it can’t be viewed like a coin toss (where we know we have an equal opportunity to land a head or a tail).

 

[josie_L]

Stop reading up at answeringenesis

I read wikipedia as per Curious badger’s and St. Anastasia’s request (and I told you I believe in evolution but that doesn’t mean that I don’t see gaps and/or flaws).

P.S. Stop assuming!

 

[akoso]

Because science can neither prove nor disprove God, and being that the circumstancial evidence for the existence of a God is good why shouldn’t there be an equal likelihood that God exists as opposed to his not existing (in fact I would argue that the likelihood is greater than 50% for there being a God)? I understand what you mean though, it can’t be viewed like a coin toss (where we know we have an equal opportunity to land a head or a tail).

I think percentages are best left out of such a debate, because they distract from the argument at hand. I don’t mean this in a condescending way, so I apologize if it comes across that way… but since we have no mathematical formulae or empirical evidence to go by, a 50/50% split is as likely to be accurate as a 90/10% split (in favour of either).

Either way, hopefully the debate on Pascal’s Wager can end, because it is not, and never was, supposed to be used a proof of God’s existence. The person who posted it should not have included it as an argument for God’ existence, since the link he posted even states under Pascal’s Wager - “We mention it here and adapt it for our purposes, not because it is a proof for the existence of God, but because it can help us in our search for God in the absence of such proof.”

 

[akoso]

First off, thanks for the link. Although the details of it seem well over my head (I’m not a Biologist), I’m interested in giving it a quick read over.

The results suggest that oxygen levels in the environment, and the ability of eukaryotes to extract energy from oxygen, as well as produce oxygen, were key factors in the rise of complex multicellular life.

You have to realize that in academia, claiming something is a “key factor” is very, very different from claiming something is the “reason/solution”. Increased oxygen levels may very well have had an effect on things, but that is not to say that that was the solution and the case is closed.

Although this may be one of the many, many factors involved… I’m still quite certain that the understanding and explanation of the Cambrian explosion is quite far from being solved.**

 

[texson]

I prefer beliefs based on evidence.

Yo CD,
There are numerous historical extra-biblical references to Jesus of Nazareth.
I imagine you have heard of Pliny, the elder and the younger whom are among
the most notable historians of the early first century.

The famous human, Jesus, who was also called Christ existed, fact.

C. S. Lewis’ simple yet profound question of Liar, Lunatic or Lord must be answered
by anyone who really cares. You wouldn’t be here spending so much time and
mental effort if you didn’t care. So, in your opinion, based upon what he said and taught,
was Jesus:
A liar
A lunatic
The one true Messiah, God in the flesh, as he claimed?

(We have many early copies of these claims, in the
form of New Testament scrolls. Sorry I can’t provide you
with a YouTube link of Jesus himself making these claims.)

 

[buffalo]

Ok so your not defining your god I.E. Yahweh? So i can get into heaven with out believing specifically in Yahweh?

I would say that it is a first step. You have to believe a God exists.

Do you believe in any superior being to you - human or otherwise?

 

[buffalo]

Why would it matter if it contradicts Darwin? We don’t throw out later physics because it contradicts Newton. Do you not realize that Darwin died more than a century ago, and that evolutionary theory has progressed considerably beyond what Darwin thought? Remember, Darwin is not God or some unchanging biological magisterium.

Right on StA. And the tree of life died too.

 

[buffalo]

The cambrian explosion took place over about 10 milllion years

Time to play the Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge once again.

Have you played it yet Chuck?

 

[curioosbadger]

You lose! You have created a premature STOP codon and broken your gene

cute, but the plight of one unviable offspring doesnt spell doom for all of its viable cousins.

 

[josie_L]

I think percentages are best left out of such a debate, because they distract from the argument at hand. I don’t mean this in a condescending way, so I apologize if it comes across that way… but since we have no mathematical formulae or empirical evidence to go by, a 50/50% split is as likely to be accurate as a 90/10% split (in favour of either).

Either way, hopefully the debate on Pascal’s Wager can end, because it is not, and never was, supposed to be used a proof of God’s existence. The person who posted it should not have included it as an argument for God’ existence, since the link he posted even states under Pascal’s Wager - “We mention it here and adapt it for our purposes, not because it is a proof for the existence of God, but because it can help us in our search for God in the absence of such proof.”

Oh no apologies necessary. But I think it is good that Pascal’s Wager was included because:

“Reason has its limitations and it cannot possibly grasp the existence of God. One must either take a guess or a leap of faith. Yet as Pascal, a major figure in probability theory, put it, it is a win-win situation to “bet” on God’s existence .”

 

[curioosbadger]

I coulda sworn the atheist experience clip covered pascals wager thoroughly in 2 minutes, but I guess maybe people arnt big on following links here, so the high points again:

the wager assumes that if the theist is right → yay heaven, but if the theist is wrong → oh well, dead anyway.

but it ignores other possibilities (other heavens, other hells)

it assumes that faith costs you nothing.

it presumes belief is subject to the will and that god is gullible enough to buy into your covering your *** scheme.

anyways, whats this thread about again? gaps in evolution?

 

[buffalo]

cute, but the plight of one unviable offspring doesnt spell doom for all of its viable cousins.

Try playing some more.

 

[j1akey]

Try playing some more.

As far as I can tell that thing really isn’t calculating anything. It just seems like it gives out predefined answers that seem to be randomly chosen while just adding generations on top of generations.

I’d need to see the actual calculations this person is using.

Even if it is doing more in the background than what it looks like, it also seems very limited in scope and set on a specific set of criteria. A single lineage from single asexual organism isn’t exactly a big test bed.

It also seems to me like a calculation like this would be impossible to produce one way or the other either in favor for or against ID or evolution one way or the other. It just seems like another exercise in evolution bashing.

 

[akoso]

Oh no apologies necessary. But I think it is good that Pascal’s Wager was included because:

“Reason has its limitations and it cannot possibly grasp the existence of God. One must either take a guess or a leap of faith. Yet as Pascal, a major figure in probability theory, put it, it is a win-win situation to “bet” on God’s existence .”

For me, the flaw that lies in Pascal’s Wager is the “belief” part. If someone tells me to sign a contract saying I believe in X, then I choose to do that or not. If someone tells me to actually believe in X, I can’t just choose or not choose to believe in it. Faith and belief have to come from somewhere else… they’re not just a choice.

That’s the issue I’ve always had with Pascal’s Wager. I think it’s very sound logic, but very impractical to implement.

 

[akoso]

the wager assumes that if the theist is right → yay heaven, but if the theist is wrong → oh well, dead anyway.

but it ignores other possibilities (other heavens, other hells)

Then your summary of Pascal’s Wager can be changed to:

if the theist is right → yay heaven, but if the theist is wrong (i.e. God doesn’t exist or you picked the wrong God) → oh well, dead anyway.

It doesn’t change the the principles of it.

it assumes that faith costs you nothing.

It doesn’t assume that faith costs you nothing. It just doesn’t factor in costs vs. reward. The reward is heaven if you’re right, but there is nothing saying how much better heaven is than hell… or how much you save by not having faith.

it presumes belief is subject to the will and that god is gullible enough to buy into your covering your *** scheme.

If I understand your crude way of expressing your ideas, I think this is the part where I agree with you. As I stated in my previous post, I don’t think belief can be a choice that is made based on a logical application of decision theory. Faith, by definition, is outside of this realm (faith is “a belief not resting on logical proof or material evidence.” - thefreedictionary.com/faith).

 

[StAnastasia]

You took the words right out of my mouth because I’ve just been reading up on the Cambrian explosion and there is thus far no consensus to explain it (including the theory of punctuated equilibrium). I wonder if this is brought up in a biology class?

Why do you doubt that it would be brought up in a biology class?

 

[curioosbadger]

correct, so pretending to believe because of a fear of hell , or greed of heaven isnt a good reason to believe in god.

 

[akoso]

correct, so pretending to believe because of a fear of hell , or greed of heaven isnt a good reason to believe in god.

I’m assuming this is in reply to my comment, even though you didn’t quote me, so I can’t tell.

It is a good reason to believe in God… it’s just not something you can fake. But it doesn’t change the fact that a belief in God (if you’re lucky enough to have it) makes you better off and gives you an incredible opportunity at eternal happiness. Whether you can or not is another matter.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

First off, thanks for the link. Although the details of it seem well over my head (I’m not a Biologist), I’m interested in giving it a quick read over.

You have to realize that in academia, claiming something is a “key factor” is very, very different from claiming something is the “reason/solution”. Increased oxygen levels may very well have had an effect on things, but that is not to say that that was the solution and the case is closed.

Although this may be one of the many, many factors involved… I’m still quite certain that the understanding and explanation of the Cambrian explosion is quite far from being solved.**

Yes it is just one of many factors. The rate of genetic change during the cambrian explosion does not pose a problem for evolution, as evidence suggests that genomic complexity occurred alot earlier (100’s of millions years if not a billion years) prior to the phenotypic diversity of the Cambrian.The real question is what is the threshold that is being crossed that allowed the development of multicellular life.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I’m assuming this is in reply to my comment, even though you didn’t quote me, so I can’t tell.

It is a good reason to believe in God… it’s just not something you can fake. But it doesn’t change the fact that a belief in God (if you’re lucky enough to have it) makes you better off and gives you an incredible opportunity at eternal happiness. Whether you can or not is another matter.

Not always, it may make you feel that way but there are plenty of people that don’t share your views.

Besides what does it matter how it makes you feel, what should matter is whats true.