A
alitaptap
Guest
Our daily bread.
- Status
A
Andy_III
Guest
Greylorn, I’m afraid you’ve made an error. I’m sure you know this, but I’m pasting this here for everyone else on the thread:
"Wikipedia:
So the First Law of Thermodynamics says energy is not created or destroyed that we’ve observed, as far as we know. This is a far cry from saying it couldn’t have ever happened just once. We need not add an exception for God as described by the Church.
Now who’s quoting dogma? Please do not present atheist dogma as evidence, and I will continue refraining from doing the same with Church dogma.
A
Andy_III
Guest
Fair enough, do you have an explanation for the origin of self-replicating structures (cells or otherwise)?
A
avflf
Guest
I was comparing his idea of God as evolving along with the Universe to your one of a non-omniscient, non-omnipotent one, as I see it. However, I’ll have to read your upcoming book to get the gist of your belief to make up my mind on its merit or otherwise.
When do you expect publication?
R
rvilbig
Guest
Here’s another one I came up with. I call this the “argument from fitness.”
First, I establish that evolution is compatible with teleology. Douglas Adams was fond of saying that for a man to believe the universe was designed for him is like a puddle of water believing it was designed for a ditch; in both cases, the object at hand is simply the result of the necessity of physical laws. However, we also know that by studying the shape of the puddle, we may be able to discern the intention of the ditch-digger; for example, whether it was dug as a building foundation or fencepost hole or garden, etc. Therefore, assessing the end-products of evolution may suggest the intention of the creator, or so to speak “ditch-digger,” of the universe.
Now, here’s the main point. In cultural evolution, belief in God is an extremely fit ‘meme,’ or cultural unit of replication, to use Richard Dawkins’ term. As he himself has stated: “The survival value of the [G]od meme in the meme pool results from its great psychological appeal. …] [T]he idea of God is copied readily by successive generations of brains. God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture” (Dawkins, Selfish Gene, page 193).
The prevalence of a belief in God may suggest that it was the intention of the universe’s creator that man have this belief. In other words, the ditchdigger of the universe wanted a puddle for Christians to live in. Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church must have the fittest memes of all, as evidenced by its one billion members. Additionally, the martyrs demonstrated that the Christian meme survives death, as Tertullian said: “The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed” (Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 50).
I think Edith Stein was onto this idea, before she killed at Auschwitz. “The ’core’ of a community, from which its character is shaped and which guarantees its enduring being - this is what the carriers of the communal life are, insofar as their personal being is devoted to the community. The more carriers a community has to support it, and the further their devotion to it extends, the more secure its substance and the more assured its outward demeanor.” (Saint Teresa Benedicta, Philosophy of Psychology and Humanities, p. 281).
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
C
Call_Me_V
Guest
Only if you choose the order that you’re trying to draw the cards in before you draw them. You can’t look at a particular combination after you’ve drawn them and then decide “Well, that was pretty unlikely, the deck must be rigged”.
V
C
Call_Me_V
Guest
You’re assuming that that there was a ditch digger. Many puddles form in holes and ruts in the ground that were not put there intentionally, but formed through natural processes.
Again, you’re assuming what you’re trying to prove by assuming there was a ditch digger.
Actually, Islam has more members than the Catholic Church does. Praise Allah!
So does communism. The communists were one of the major groups targeted by Nazi Germany, and they were one of the groups best able to resist torture and hold on to their sanity as a result of their devotion to their cause. I guess communism is also a meme that has survived because God wants people to hold onto it!
V
D
DysonSphere
Guest
It is my thought that quoting any probability for evolution by random mutation is not very meaningful, because a mechanism is not well understood. Random occurrences sifted through careful mechanism can produce beautiful order and appearance of design, as with snowflakes.
R
rvilbig
Guest
The mechanism of genetic variations in evolution is actually well understood. Quantum mechanics causes tautomeric shifts and wobble pairing, leading to ‘mismatches’ and thereby mutations. Erwin Schrödinger first proposed the basics of this idea in his book What is Life? Others developed it further, and most recently, it has been well described by JohnJoe McFadden in his book Quantum Evolution: “Watson and Crick proposed that is, during DNA replication, either the template DNA base or the incoming base is in the tautomeric form, then the wrong base may be inserted into the new strand, resulting in a mutation. Tautomeric forms of DNA bases account for about 0.01 per cent of all natural DNA bases, so incorporation of incorrect bases, due to tautomerization, is likely to be relatively common. …] The inclusion of proof-reading into the system vastly reduces the error rate to only about one wrong base for every billion correct bases. Those errors that escape the correction machinery are the source of naturally occurring mutations; and their source is quantum-mechanical.” (Quantum Evolution, page 66)
The question then is whether these quantum events are random, and several physicists have argued that quantum mechanics, and hence genetic variations, are not random. Consider the following quotes, from physicists Wolfgang Smith and Robert John Russell:
“The natural or ‘natured’ world presupposes a creative or ‘form-bestowing’ agency not simply in the sense of a first cause that brought the universe into existence but as a transcendent principle of causality that is operative here and now. This is the conclusion at which we have arrived prompted by the phenomenon of state vector collapse” (Smith, Quantum Enigma, page 109).
“My central thesis is that God acts objectively and directly in and through quantum events to actualize one of several potential outcomes; in short, the collapse of the wave function occurs because of divine and natural causality working together even while God’s action remains ontologically different from natural agency" (Russell, The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science, page 586).
To the Christian, nothing is random in the universe. Hopefully, these brief reflections will be helpful.
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
D
DysonSphere
Guest
This is quite possibly well understood. Not by me.
This is not really the only mechanism for evolution, and it is random (unless you claim that people can predict accurately where the next mutations will take place and what they will be, for any given species).
I’ll e-mail you to inquire further.
G
greylorn
Guest
Reply 1 of x to Post 418, Page 28
If you’ve chosen some categories, which then determine what you accept as science, your preferences still determine the outcome. Your categories are like the US Supreme Court which makes political choices and pretends that they are judicial decisions. Since you are only responsible to yourself for your ideas and beliefs, why ring in some kind of intellectual intermediary? You don’t need it.
Personally, I never set up mental boundaries for my own thought processes, and since these are a complex mix of science, religion, and a small dash of philosophy, I guess that I set no boundaries on these fields either. Each religion has boundaries determined my its dogma, but these are not inherent in the notion of “religion.” For example, the Mormon church shows considerable flexibility. Historically, the Catholic Church has adjusted elements of dogma, and Christianity in general has spawned a number of non-Catholic sects centered upon Jesus Christ.
The problem is that each sect will generally make one or several dogmatic adjustments in its departure from the main sect, and then become rigid.
I know that “science” is supposed to be a nicely defined way of figuring things out, but I’ve worked in enough fields and long enough to know better. So long as science does not get its pipes clogged with asinine authority figures (as has happened already in some pseudo-scientific fields) who determine what is or is not valid, I see no limits to it.
This is because I see no limits to what can be understood by an intelligent human mind dedicated to the understanding of something, and given the time and resources to pursue his thoughts.
The only boundary I know of to science is self-set. When scientists get a belief system going they do not accept evidence contrary to that belief system as readily as they might without preformed opinions. I’ve had occasion to do a fair amount of science, and during student years got to perform a number of controlled laboratory experiments. I recall being dismayed at the erratic data from these experiments, not at all like the pure theory from textbooks.
Years later I had the opportunity to observe Uri Geller bend a spoon using mysterious forces, at extremely close range and out of his sight, twice. The evidence for his ability to do that is beyond question, and superior to the evidence I obtained in physics labs and real world experiments. Yet Geller is regarded as a charlatan.
I once visited a tourist spot in Santa Cruz featuring a gravitational anomaly, which might be called “The Mystery Spot.” It was long ago. The effects of this anomaly are freakish and can be easily demonstrated and verified, which I did. They are explained away as a normal gravitational mascon but remain mysterious because of the sharply defined boundary of the anomaly, which not even a huge lump of pure lead buried underground can explain.
I checked just now. Mystery Spot has a website. The place has become a destination for people with way too much free time, and the website info and video was generated by nitwits.
Should you ever choose to visit, this must be done during off-peak hours, as I did 30-odd years back. Check with me first and I can suggest simple and complex instruments to carry. (E.g. I’d really like to know if GPS works within the anomaly. Nonetheless, a camera, a friend, two plumb bobs and a 5’ carpenter’s level should be enough to get your attention.
I’m guessing that you are a young and idealistic scientist, and trust that you have as open a mind as possible under these circumstances (else you’d not be posting cogently, here). As you work in your chosen fields, learn to watch for,and separate yourself from science-based belief. This will be a challenge, for belief permeates all aspects of human thought, and agreement rules all.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I have three. None of them is perfect, nor optimally stated, undoubtedly. But here goes:
(1) Programming code is designed, deliberate – not spontaneous. It must be (name removed by moderator)ut. Unexpected configurations and results may happen spontaneously on a computer, due to the convergence of data, but those are accidents and random, and normally not replicated.
Creatures, on the other hand, are biologically programmed. If you’re a parent you know exactly what I’m talking about. Given just basic affection and security – and no physiological interference or impediments – virtually every infant in the universe develops at the same pace, and utterly internally. You don’t “act on” the infant or “do” anything to him or her to “cause” him/her to develop spontaneously like clockwork, in increasingly complex manners. In a word, living creatures have been programmed. So who programmed them?
(2) Symmetry/Order in the natural universe as a logical derivative of an organizing Order which contains and authors it. Randomness is in opposition to order. If randomness were the controlling principle for an interdependent universe (a favorite argument of atheistic scientists), order could not repeatedly survive and suppress its adversary – randomness.
(3) Personal experience. When you’ve personally experienced God, the opponents lose any footing to argue. (Especially when you’ve been cleared of any mental disorders such as delusions, and when there are no abnormal patterns in your behavior.)
(1) Programming code is designed, deliberate – not spontaneous. It must be (name removed by moderator)ut. Unexpected configurations and results may happen spontaneously on a computer, due to the convergence of data, but those are accidents and random, and normally not replicated.
Creatures, on the other hand, are biologically programmed. If you’re a parent you know exactly what I’m talking about. Given just basic affection and security – and no physiological interference or impediments – virtually every infant in the universe develops at the same pace, and utterly internally. You don’t “act on” the infant or “do” anything to him or her to “cause” him/her to develop spontaneously like clockwork, in increasingly complex manners. In a word, living creatures have been programmed. So who programmed them?
(2) Symmetry/Order in the natural universe as a logical derivative of an organizing Order which contains and authors it. Randomness is in opposition to order. If randomness were the controlling principle for an interdependent universe (a favorite argument of atheistic scientists), order could not repeatedly survive and suppress its adversary – randomness.
(3) Personal experience. When you’ve personally experienced God, the opponents lose any footing to argue. (Especially when you’ve been cleared of any mental disorders such as delusions, and when there are no abnormal patterns in your behavior.)
G
greylorn
Guest
Reply 2 of x to Post 418, page 28
Yes, but are there interesting questions, i.e.questions with answers that might affect our lives, that science cannot answer?
If you gain nothing else from our conversations, may this be it.
Incidentally, I do not see this conversation as a violation of the ban. It is not a new thread, but a side conversation, and is being conducted in a non-emotional manner. (So try not to get into another of your runken drages on this thread.) With your forbearance, if anyone needs moderator-level action, it will be me. You are too valuable to lose.
Biological evolution is no more a scientific theory than is gravity. Both are facts. Anyone with an open mind can look at dinosaur bones and figure out that these critters were not around last century. I figured that out from encyclopedia pictures when I was 8 years old, being a slow learner. I recognized the existence of gravity even earlier, at age 3,coming away from the experience with a shattered elbow.
Theories are the ideas we come up with to explain and describe facts. Aristotle had one about gravity, which was wrong. Galileo applied some logic and science to the issue, and Newton finally came up with a mathematical description of gravitational behavior (neglecting the 3rd and other derivatives of distance with respect to time). Finally Einstein actually came up with a theory, in general relativity. (Which does not explain what space is, or why it might be warped by mass.)
None of these theories, right or wrong, affected gravity. I’m certain that the publications of papers caused no disturbance to the universe’s gravitational fields that would not have been caused by the publication of a comic book.
Evolution is like gravity, but the problem we have in dealing with it coherently is that Darwin had to bundle evolution with Darwinism in order to sell Darwinism.
The Microsoft Corporation is an excellent example of the power of bundling.
Bill Gates is a crummy programmer and brilliant marketer. He started with a simple OS (Operating System) bought from someone else, and applied it to IBM’s new PC, getting a license deal with IBM to distribute his crummy OS with every PC it built. Gate’s OS did not need to be good or even bug-free— it only needed to work good enough to get a job done.
As years went on, he continued to develop operating systems noted for their tendency to crash, their accessibility to viruses, features which did not work reliably or as advertised, worthless documentation, and stinko but expensive support. He was successful because he worked deals with every PC manufacturer to bundle (include for free) his crummy OS with every computer they sold.
The manufacturers paid a few dollars for it, but the consumer never saw that cost. The effect, for Gates, was a billion dollar software empire built upon crummy, unreliable software. He even put IBM out of the PC OS business, as well as thousands of good programmers who wrote better software but could not compete with Bill’s bundled marketing ploy.
Darwin did a similar thing. His theory had a serious marketing problem. Unlike Newton, who, when describing gravity, was describing something that everyone agreed existed, Darwin’s theory described evolution, something that few people believed in. He lived in a world populated by Christians who believed that the universe was just a few millennia old and created in just six days.
So to sell his crummy theories, he bundled them with evolution. They apparently remain bundled, even in the minds of those who could know better.
You can open up your PC, erase the Windows OS it is currently running, and install Linux for free, thereby unbundling your computer from its original OS. Lots of people do, but it takes time, expertise, and a tad more personal responsibility. It’s a practical choice. You may settle for a second-rate Windows OS because you do not want to spend the time and mental energy required to get a first-rate Linux OS. Understandable.
But do you want to compromise your own mind by settling for second-rate ideas, on the grounds that it is too much time and trouble to install good ideas?
If you do not want to compromise, keep the facts and evidence of biological evolution, but change the theory which explains them. Erase Darwinism and neo-Darwinism.
That will leave your excellent mind open to explanations for evolution which actually make sense, rather than going into agreement and choosing the best of a bad lot.
G
greylorn
Guest
Reply 3 of x where x=3 to Post 418 page 28.
Since, as I’ve explained, evolution is not a theory, but a fact (Darwinism is the theory), and given that there will be an explanation for every component of reality (even if we cannot find such an explanation), you are dead right.
You have over-generalized a bit here, but with luck, we can resolve the problem by distinguishing concepts.
The word God as currently understood by most people, atheists included, is indeed a non-scientific concept which cannot be made any more scientific than the “singularity” which allegedly preceded the big bang. (Neither can be physically detected, experimented upon, or mathematically defined.)
However, “God” encompasses a lot of implied concepts. Suppose we separate the notion of Creator from the definition of the creating entity? If we hypothesize the existence of an intelligent entity or entities capable of assembling raw components into the known universe, but do not declare that this entity is in any way unlimited, that hypothesis becomes potentially verifiable.
And yes, you do not need to worry about this. I’ve already done that and am in the final throes of pre-publication work, so you will be able to read the solution. In the meantime, keep that mind of yours open, alive, and curious.
I appreciate your scientific honesty. There is no explanation for the appearance of the first cell, without which, all varieties of Darwinism, Lamarckism, and every other explanation which excludes conscious intelligence from the design process, is moot.
How about interpreting organics in deep space as the residue from blown-up galaxies once teeming with organic life?
A free tip from an ornery old frat: Never trust the stuff you’ve been taught. Always trust your own mind. Both the taught-stuff and your mind will change, but only your mind will always be with you.
Me too. I’m curious as to your reaction to the book I’ve already sic’d you onto. PM on the way. The next book I’ll invite you to read is mine, but all your schmoozing and cozying-up won’t get you a free copy. I want your ten bucks and my 40-cent royalty income by way of support, and I figure on earning it. Cheap enough for life changing ideas.
A
antunesaa
Guest
If you bundle the myriad Islam schools and traditions together, the statement is probably true, although by a relatively small margin. But to be fair you have to compare all Islam with all Christianity, and then you have that Christians roughly double Muslims in number.
C
Call_Me_V
Guest
That’s a good point, you’re correct.
Either way, I think that we can all agree that it is fallacious to claim that the number of members of a religion is in any way indicative of the truth of that religion.
V
R
rvilbig
Guest
I don’t claim that the deck is ‘rigged.’ Re-read my posts.
Here’s the point. Chance is a ratio of the likelihood of one particular choice to all other choices. It is not a cause in itself. An agent is always required to make the particular choice. Now if the universe were an inert atomic blob, there would have been one choice to make (blob or no blob) and the cause could have been dismissed as something very simple. If the universe were a deck of quadrillion cards, an agent comparable to a human mind would be required to make choices to order the deck in *any *certain order. However, the universe we observe required innumerable choices because of the variety of outcomes permitted by quantum mechanics. The agent that has made these innumerable choices throughout time and everywhere in the universe has actualized an essentially improbable universe. This agent with such miraculous power everyone understands to be God.
Be well V.
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
R
rvilbig
Guest
If the universe’s ditchdigger had no intention in digging the ditch, then we would be able to discern no patterns in that which fills the ditch. Said another way, the ditch has been dug, so now can we discern anything from its shape? Now analogously, if the universe had no intention, we would discern no patterns in the creatures that fill it. This is not the case. Most of the world’s population belongs to an Abrahamic religion (Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Muslim). Perhaps sacred Scripture offers the reason:
"[God] took [Abram] outside and said: “Look up at the sky and count the stars, if you can. Just so,” he added, "shall your descendants be.“Abram put his faith in the LORD, who credited it to him as an act of righteousness.” (Gen 15:5-6)
I actually converted to Catholicism because I realized that they have the fittest memes, and I desire to rest in the bossom of Abraham someday.
I hope this helps.
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
C
Call_Me_V
Guest
You’re again assuming that someone would have had to choose to order them in a certain way. It is also possible that natural processes could determine how they were ordered. For example, if you look at layers of sediment, they are in a certain order, but noone would argue that that’s because God dropped them in there like that, they’re like that because natural processes formed those layers, one after another, over thousands of years. There’s no reason to assume that an individual chose where each layer of sediment was going to be placed.
Again, you’re assuming that in order for something to happen, someone has to choose to make it happen. This is false. The leaf that just blew by my window didn’t blow by because someone decided it was going to blow by, it blew by due to the natural effects of the wind acting upon it. Unless you’re saying that nothing can ever happen through natural processes, then your claim that everything that happens requires that someone choose for it to happen is false.
Again, that’s BS. There’s no reason to believe that everything that happens is the result of someone choosing for it to happen.
Again, why are you assuming that there is a ditchdigger? You seem to be saying that every little rut in the ground that is capable of forming puddles has to have been formed intentionally. That is false, the Grand Canyon, for example, was formed through natural processes such as erosion, not through anyone digging it. Therefore, you can’t simply assume that there was a ditchdigger.
Please provide evidence for the claim that patterns are impossible unless someone specifically put them there.
Yes, but this is irrelevant. Claiming that a belief is true simply because a large number of people believe it is a blatant ad populum fallacy. The number of believers says absolutely nothing about the truth of the belief. Does the fact that most people consider masturbation okay imply that masturbation really is okay? If not, then you must concede that an idea’s popularity is irrelevant in a discussion of whether or not it’s true.
I would actually somewhat agree with you, but having fit meme’s doesn’t make something true.
And I want a million dollars. Doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t gonna happen.
V
R
rvilbig
Guest
You’re assuming that God did not intend sediments to form as they did in order to prove that God could not have intended sediments to form as they did. You assume your own conclusion. I don’t. I ask the question: The universe exists, so what works here? The answer I found is that if I want to survive and be a part of something that survives after I die, I should join the Catholic Church. That’s evolution baby.
Interesting that you should say that. I was at a Father John Corapi talk yesterday (he’s a former drug addict who repented and became a multimedia evangelist) , and he told us that someone mailed him a million dollar check recently, but that he doesn’t accept donations, so he mailed it back. Perhaps God has placed this desire in you to lead you to your vocation.
I will continue to pray for you.
-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
- Status