Question: How Can We Know One Belief Selected for By Evolution is Superior to Another?

_{Barry Arrington

March 2, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Theist: You say there is no God.

Evolutionary Materialist [EM]: Yes.

Theist: Yet belief in God among many (if not most) humans persists.

EM: I cannot deny that.

Theist: How do you explain that?

EM: Religious belief is an evolutionary adaption.

Theist: But you say religious belief is false.

EM: That’s correct.

Theist: Let me get this straight. According to you, religious belief has at least two characterizes: (1) it is false; and (2) evolution selected for it.

EM [looking a little pale now, because he’s just figured out where this is going]: Correct.

Theist: You believe the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis [NDS] is true.

EM: Of course.

Theist: How do you know your belief in NDS is not another false belief that evolution has selected for?

EM: ___________________

Our materialist friends are invited to fill in the blank.

Comments

Sonfaro, Here is an example of where the double translation might be giving a very strong false impression of what Jesus taught: Samuel Dawson has a page where he addresses the use of the word "Hell" in the Old and New Testaments (http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html). According to him, in the twelve places in the King James version where Jesus uses the word, it was translated from the Greek, "Gehenna", which is actually a place name that refers to a valley outside of Jerusalem where the dead were cremated. Jesus also speaks of "unquenchable fire" in a number of those same passages. Dawson contends that in all those passages, Jesus was actually speaking to the Jews of his day and not to future generations (us) at all. He makes the case that Jesus was making a prophesy (which was fulfilled) regarding what would happen to the residents of Jerusalem if they did not change their ways, namely that their city would be burned and they would be cast into the cremation fires of Gehenna. I am not a Biblical scholar, so I can't really evaluate Dawson's analysis of what Jesus meant, but I do think that it is enough to give one pause that what appears to us as "Hell" in the English version of the scriptures is actually the name of a physical location near Jerusalem in the Greek. This leads nicely into what I am referring to when I speak of the distinction between what Jesus said and did and what those who came after claim that it means. As I am sure you are aware from previous threads, the part of Christian dogma with which I take issue is the part where God is portrayed as judgmental, condemning, and punishing, which I see as a contradiction of His basic nature, ie., infinitely and unconditionally loving. I believe that this belief stems from a deeper error in Christian thought that has us separate from God and from each other. Jesus said that he was One with the Father. Well, I believe that we are all One with the Father (and thus with each other) and that that was Jesus' real message. I have no problem whatsoever with your using Jesus life as a model for yourself. I support you fully in that, and if you find that your Christian faith helps you to be more of the person you want to be, then by all means, go for it.Bruce David_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

Thanks BA! - SonfaroSonfaro_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

Sonfaro, this may be of interest; Defense Of The Historical Jesus From Supposed Higher Criticism Of Biblical Text And Historical Reliability - William Lane Craig http://www.vimeo.com/11144955 It should be noted that I feel the Bible 'authenticates itself' through precisely fulfilled prophecy. Especially this prophecy since it was fulfilled within our time; The Precisely Fulfilled Prophecy Of Israel Becoming A Nation In 1948 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041241 Bible Prophecy Fulfilled - Israel 1948 - article http://ezinearticles.com/?Bible-Prophecy-Fulfilled---Israel-1948&id=449317 further notes; The following video is downright eye-opening with its evidence for authenticity of the Bible: The Physical Ashen Remains Of Sodom and Gomorrah - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwTVFk1HK3Y The following videos have some fairly persuasive archaeological, and even geological, evidence that the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt actually did occur: The Exodus Case Interviews with Lennart Moller - video http://www.prophecyinthenews.com/the-exodus-case-interviews-with-lennart-moller/ Exodus Revealed part 2 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bJ5JdBd4QUbornagain77_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

@Bruce: Not much bruh' ;-) This may be long and winding. But... ah, whatever. You say: -"On the subject of evidence, I would like to make one point, which is that even if one accepts all the evidence for the historical Jesus and the events of his life, including the resurrection, that in no way validates the Christian dogma that was developed long after those events took place by church leaders making their interpretations. Further, the events and words attributed to Jesus in the Bible must be read with the understanding that they have been twice translated–from Aramaic into Greek and thence into English, and that the meanings could have been significantly distorted by that process." I agree with this in principle, I think. This is something I'd like to make clearer to my brothers and sisters in Christ as well as non-believers, as it would clear up a lot of objections to the bible and our faith if this were understood. There's double... sometimes triple hearsay from the bible (Aramaic->Greek->Old English). What is recorded and what actually went down may be two different things (though I doubt they'd be too far different.) I think though, the core of the faith (ie. that Jesus was who he said he was) is somewhat validated through the historical evidence. Maybe not the miracles, but the teachings and life he lived, and the example he gave to the rest of humanity. It just makes sense to me that if we all resisted the so called 'selfish gene' in the way he did that life would be easier. Which is why I think Christianity (and I guess it's cousin Bahi to an extent...but that's a different bag of marbles) is one of the stronger faiths IMO. 'Course, if I understand pantheism correctly (and I'm in no ways an expert) Jesus saying he was the son of God and his actions thusly fits anyway, as we're all part of the mind of God - right? (please correct me if I'm wrong dude). Also, you say: -"When I watch videos of people giving evidence for Chritianity, I get the strong impression that their stance is something like, “Here is the evidence that Jesus lived, performed these miracles, died on the cross and rose from the dead. Therefore the entire body Christian belief is true.” The second sentence really doesn’t follow." Again, I understand most of this, though I agree a bit less with the second statement. While the evidence for Jesus life, works, miracles, and reserection wouldn't confrim, say, the need for catholic mass or repeating doxologies or any number of the things we do as an organized religion; I think the core beliefs shared by every denomination of Christians - Jesus was who he said he was, and that there is a God - are somewhat validated. I just realized I may have said that earlier above. Sorry if I'm repeating myself. Hope that makes sense though. - SonfaroSonfaro_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Bornagain.Bruce David_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

@42 should read, "the more general [arguments] for God's existence normally [precede] the specific arguments"....StephenB_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

---collin: "There’s evidence for God that is specific to Christianity and evidence that is more general. The more general evidence points to the existence of a god of some kind while the more specific evidence shows that given the existence of a god, it is more likely than not that that god is Christ." Yes, that's right. Also, the more general evidence for God's existence normally precede the specific arguments for Jesus Christ. After the general argument is made, we can say, "now that we know that God exists, let's line up those who claim to speak in his name and assess their credentials." On the other hand, the specific arguments can be made independently of the general arguments. When we do line up the claimants, it isn't much of a contest.StephenB_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

---markf: "A misunderstanding between us – I was saying that was one of things I was not assuming." OK. I was, however, hearkening back to your original statement, which read: ---"You probably think there is strong evidence for Christianity, but the majority of people do not believe in Christianity." Clearly, that statement suggests that the strength of the arguments in favor of Christianity should be assessed, at least in part, by taking into account the number of people who happen to believe in Christianity. I was simply pointing out that this is not the case. The strength of the arguments for Christianity has nothing to do with the number of people who believe in Christianity since, as indicated, one must first know what those arguments are in order to be persuaded by them. In fact, many people are not even permitted to investigate the matter, especially in Muslim countries. And, of course, Darwinists are not the least be interested in hearing about them.StephenB_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

Bruce, I've collected those quotes over the years from UD contributors. I must say I like the clarity of your response to markf at 35. Especially; 'In other words, in your heart of hearts, you actually deny the materialism you espouse on the surface of your thinking (but you won’t admit it to yourself, much less to me).' Reminds me of this scripture; Romans 1:20 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.bornagain77_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

Hi Sonfaro. 'Sup with you? On the subject of evidence, I would like to make one point, which is that even if one accepts all the evidence for the historical Jesus and the events of his life, including the resurrection, that in no way validates the Christian dogma that was developed long after those events took place by church leaders making their interpretations. Further, the events and words attributed to Jesus in the Bible must be read with the understanding that they have been twice translated--from Aramaic into Greek and thence into English, and that the meanings could have been significantly distorted by that process. When I watch videos of people giving evidence for Chritianity, I get the strong impression that their stance is something like, "Here is the evidence that Jesus lived, performed these miracles, died on the cross and rose from the dead. Therefore the entire body Christian belief is true." The second sentence really doesn't follow.Bruce David_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Bruce at 35 "you actually deny the materialism you espouse on the surface" Quite correct. They seemingly all do. Who operates like they are matter alone? Certainly none of the evangelical materialist that appear here on UD.Upright BiPed_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

Bornagain: That's quite a compilation of paleontology quotes (#24). I'm impressed. In fact, I have copied your comment and saved it as a Word document.Bruce David_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

Hi markf, You write: -"I agree. What did I write that gave you the opposite impression?" I don't know about Collin. But I got that impression from this statement you made from the beginning. -"You probably think there is strong evidence for Christianity, but the majority of people do not believe in Christianity." The implication being read by Christians from this statement (at least by me) is that: while we BELIEVE the evidence for our faith is strong, the fact that the majority of the world doesn't follow our example demonstrates that we don't actually have evidence on the level of material atheism (which is what I'm assuming you are. If I'm wrong in that my 'b'). In the context of your statement previous: -"What is selected for is the strange propensity, in the case of religion, to have a belief when there is little or no evidence." The picture painted is that Religions don't have strong evidence (or evidence at all). Which is why the straight Theists on this board (and Bruce - 'sup dude?) are responding. What I think is being ignored is that most religion (at least the three major Abrahamic faiths and their subsidiaries) share quite a bit of the historical evidence used to defend our causes. I submit that, as most of religion shares a similar premise (that is: a God exists, that said God has sent messengers to promote his will for this realm) that the core evidence for all are moderately firm (Christian William Lane Craig has used the Islamic based Kalam Cosmological argument on numerous occasions for example, and I've seen a Muslim creationist site that references Christian authors all the time). It's when we get into what that God (or gods) want from creation that brings up the dispute between Religions. As to evidence for Christianity: the widely accepted historicality of Jesus' existence, coupled with the accounts of peoples within the timephrame of his death and the 1st generations of Christians afterwards (including Josepheus, Tacitus, etc.) make a solid if not strong case for Christianity, on top of the base of theism in general. There will be disagreements from my muslim/jewish/mormon/Bahi cousins, but for my money Christianity works. Now, all of this is off-topic. Still, I hope I've been clear enough to state our/my key issue with some of your posts. As already mentioned by others, anyone can make a statement like "the evidence" and wave a hand like it's settled. So again, as StephenB put it: -"The question is, how do you know which way to interpret the evidence if the standards for interpretation may, themselves, be false?" My two cents anyway. ;-P - SonfaroSonfaro_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Markf: You said (beginning by quoting me), "'First, a completely material brain simply cannot detect logic errors in its programming any more than a defective computer program can detect its own bugs. The brain has only its internal logic with which to operate. If that logic contains errors, it’s stuck with them. It has no other recourse.' You assert this but do not prove it...But in any case it is not necessary for this to be true for such brains to be able to detect their own bugs for them to discover that they have come to false conclusions. I gave an example above. You can know you are in error without knowing why your reasoning was defective." No. You don't get it. You (according to your own metaphysics) are a machine, like a computer. You form conclusions about the nature of reality through the operation of the machine. NO conclusion you reach can be trusted, because it is the result of the internal logic of the machine, which you, the machine, have no way of determining whether or not is flawed. If you deny this, please reveal to us a method THAT DOES NOT UTILIZE THE OUTPUT OF YOUR BRAIN by which you can verify the validity of any conclusion you come to. Here's what I believe is true about this: your refusal to see the truth of what I have said is the result of a deep knowing on your part that you actually are NOT a machine, that the conclusions you come to are not just the output of a machine called your brain, but have a validity that is senior to any mechanical view of reality. In other words, in your heart of hearts, you actually deny the materialism you espouse on the surface of your thinking (but you won't admit it to yourself, much less to me).Bruce David_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

#32 Do you really believe that most people have evaluated the evidence for and against Christianity and made an informed decision about it? Isn’t it more likely that most have just not considered it very carefully? I agree. What did I write that gave you the opposite impression?markf_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

#30 I was responding to this statement: …”the reason most people do not believe in Christianity is because the evidence is not strong.” A misunderstanding between us - I was saying that was one of things I was not assuming.markf_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Markf, Do you really believe that most people have evaluated the evidence for and against Christianity and made an informed decision about it? Isn't it more likely that most have just not considered it very carefully?Collin_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

Markf & StephenB, There's evidence for God that is specific to Christianity and evidence that is more general. The more general evidence points to the existence of a god of some kind while the more specific evidence shows that given the existence of a god, it is more likely than not that that god is Christ.Collin_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

---markf: "I am glad you agree that the majority of religious people believe something for which there is no strong evidence." Yes, as long as we understand that the word "something" needs to be more precisely defined. If, by "something," you mean the existence of God in general, you would be mistaken. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of the Creator. On the other hand, you would be correct if you said that many religious people believe in irrational manifestations of God, such as the idea that God is organic with the universe [Pantheism] or that God can whimsically change his mind about morality [Islam]. Of course, we can also say that Darwinists believe in something for which there is no evidence. The difference would be this: ALL Darwinsits embrace their world view on the basis of faith apart from reason and in the absence of evidence, while MANY religious people are guilty of the same fault. ---"I was making no assumptions or claims about the quality of evidence for Christianity or why most Christians believe what they do. What made you think I was?" I was responding to this statement: ..."the reason most people do not believe in Christianity is because the evidence is not strong."StephenB_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

StephenB #28 I am glad you agree that the majority of religious people believe something for which there is no strong evidence. This is all I wanted to establish. I was making no assumptions or claims about the quality of evidence for Christianity or why most Christians believe what they do. What made you think I was?markf_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

---markf: "My case is: ---"The majority of religious people are not Christians." ---"Therefore, unless you believe that the evidence for these other religions is strong, the majority of religious people believe something for which there is no strong evidence." Yes, the majority of people believe in religions for which there is no evidence. So what? That has nothing to do with the fact that a minority of people believe in a religion for which there is evidence. ---"This case does not assume: ---"the evidence for all religions is of the same quality." Yes, it does. You just haven't picked up on your assumptions yet. ---"the reason most people do not believe in Christianity is because the evidence is not strong." The strength of the evidence for Christianity has nothing at all to do with the fact that very few people even know what the evidence is. Even at that, many people reject propositions for which there is plenty of evidence because they simply would prefer not to go where the evidence leads. ---"In fact it would hold even if the evidence for Christianity were overwhelming." No, your argument is totally disconnected as indicated above. Indeed, you would seem to qualify as one of those about whom I speak. You claim that the evidence for Christianity is not strong, yet you appear not to know what that evidence is. Don't you think that is a bit irregular?StephenB_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

bornagain, your gallop through quotes has plucked out mainly quotes by evolutionists. Yet they accept evolution, by definition!Portishead_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT}

Re (26): Actually, if evidence is the criteria for choosing a faith (??) then Hinduism should be the religion of choice. The evidence for miracles by Hindu gods is far stronger than that for Christian ones (though still weak by objective standards).Portishead_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT}

#26 Stephenb I am only to pick up on a few of your points as we have discussed the others before.
—”What is selected for is the strange propensity, in the case of religion, to have a belief when there is little or no evidence.” You have, by using the generic term “religion, fallen into a logical error of assuming that the evidence for all religions is of the same quality. —”You probably think there is strong evidence for Christianity, but the majority of people do not believe in Christianity.” You have fallen into yet another logical error by assuming that the reason most people do not believe in Christianity is because the evidence is not strong, when the fact is, most people do not know what that evidence is. –”So unless you accept there is also strong evidence for all the other religions then for some reason a lot of people believe in something for which there is no strong evidence. This needs explaining.” Same error as above.
My case is: The majority of religious people are not Christians. Therefore, unless you believe that the evidence for these other religions is strong, the majority of religious people believe something for which there is no strong evidence. This case does not assume: the evidence for all religions is of the same quality the reason most people do not believe in Christianity is because the evidence is not strong In fact it would hold even if the evidence for Christianity were overwhelming. markf_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

Theist: " How do you know your belief in NDS is not another false belief that evolution has selected for?" ----Markf: ..."the evidence." But you have begged the question. Both sides can appeal to evidence. The question is, how do you know which way to interpret the evidence if the standards for interpretation may, themselves, be false? ---"What is selected for is the strange propensity, in the case of religion, to have a belief when there is little or no evidence." You have, by using the generic term "religion, fallen into a logical error of assuming that the evidence for all religions is of the same quality. ---"You probably think there is strong evidence for Christianity, but the majority of people do not believe in Christianity." You have fallen into yet another logical error by assuming that the reason most people do not believe in Christianity is because the evidence is not strong, when the fact is, most people do not know what that evidence is. --"So unless you accept there is also strong evidence for all the other religions then for some reason a lot of people believe in something for which there is no strong evidence. This needs explaining." Same error as above. Also, by virtue of your unless/then proposition, you are assuming the law of non-contradiction, even though a selection process cannot produce any such law, nor do you acknowledge any such law.StephenB_{March 4, 2011
March
03
Mar
4
04
2011
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT}

#23 Bruce David First, a completely material brain simply cannot detect logic errors in its programming any more than a defective computer program can detect its own bugs. The brain has only its internal logic with which to operate. If that logic contains errors, it’s stuck with them. It has no other recourse. You assert this but do not prove it. I am not convinced - although Godel's theorems have been interpreted as providing a justification for this view. But in any case it is not necessary for this to be true for such brains to be able to detect their own bugs for them to discover that they have come to false conclusions. I gave an example above. You can know you are in error without knowing why your reasoning was defective.markf_{March 3, 2011
March
03
Mar
3
03
2011
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT}

Portishead you wrote;
'And that is the real reason why evolution is accepted by most scientists, not “faith” as some would have it. After millions of fossils, studies of tens of thousands of species alive today, and increasingly vast amounts of molecular studies, the data supporting evolution is immense. Contrast that with field data supporting ID – essntially, there is none.'
1) After millions of fossils "The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find' over and over again' not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another." Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager "A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." Professor of paleontology - Glasgow University, T. Neville George "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." David Kitts - Paleontologist "The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists" – Stephen Jay Gould - Harvard "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9 "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be .... We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated". David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History "In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." Fossils and Evolution, TS Kemp - Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999 "Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360. "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." - Niles Eldredge , "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," 1996, p.95 "Enthusiastic paleontologists in several countries have claimed pieces of this missing record, but the claims have all been disputed and in any case do not provide real connections. That brings me to the second most surprising feature of the fossil record...the abruptness of some of the major changes in the history of life." Ager, D. - Author of "The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record"-1981 "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." Stephen Jay Gould "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties?" Charles Darwin - Origin Of Species Ancient Fossils That Have Not Changed For Millions Of Years - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4113820 2) increasingly vast amounts of molecular studies A New Model for Evolution: A Rhizome - May 2010 Excerpt: Thus we cannot currently identify a single common ancestor for the gene repertoire of any organism.,,, Overall, it is now thought that there are no two genes that have a similar history along the phylogenic tree.,,,Therefore the representation of the evolutionary pathway as a tree leading to a single common ancestor on the basis of the analysis of one or more genes provides an incorrect representation of the stability and hierarchy of evolution. Finally, genome analyses have revealed that a very high proportion of genes are likely to be newly created,,, and that some genes are only found in one organism (named ORFans). These genes do not belong to any phylogenic tree and represent new genetic creations. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-model-for-evolution-rhizome.html Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: - 21 January 2009 Excerpt: Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says. ."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html As well, completely contrary to evolutionary thought, this following article and video shows that the 'same exact genes' in different species have actually been shown to produce 'completely different' body structures: A Primer on the Tree of Life (Part 4) Excerpt: "In sharks, for example, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from cells on the floor of the cavity. And in frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. This discovery—that homologous structures can be produced by different developmental pathways—contradicts what we would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. - Explore Evolution http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_3.html#more Neo-Darwinism's Gene Homology Problem - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6P6bXA50c0 As well, many times evolutionists will scan molecular sequences using computer algorithms to find a hypothetical Tree Of Life (TOL), but this is very problematic because of the inherent bias of researchers to look solely for evidence that accords to a preconceived evolutionary conclusion whereas ignoring all sequences that disagree with their inherent bias:,,, Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis - 2006 Excerpt: Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/7/2043.abstract A Primer on the Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - 2009 Excerpt: The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified. http://www.discovery.org/a/10651 Do Molecular Clocks Run at All? A Critique of Molecular Systematics - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Bruno Maresca Abstract: Although molecular systematists may use the terminology of cladism, claiming that the reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships is based on shared derived states (synapomorphies), the latter is not the case. Rather, molecular systematics is (largely) based on the assumption, first clearly articulated by Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1962), that degree of overall similarity reflects degree of relatedness. This assumption derives from interpreting molecular similarity (or dissimilarity) between taxa in the context of a Darwinian model of continual and gradual change. Review of the history of molecular systematics and its claims in the context of molecular biology reveals that there is no basis for the “molecular assumption.”.. For historians and philosophers of science the questions that arise are how belief in the infallibility of molecular data for reconstructing evolutionary relationships emerged, and how this belief became so central … http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/biot.2006.1.4.357 etc.. etc.. etc.. thus Portishead, much contrary to you bold assertions, the truth is that the more we learn the more absurd darwinism becomes!bornagain77_{March 3, 2011
March
03
Mar
3
03
2011
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

Markf: You said, "You also need to explain how you know that a material brain is incapable of detecting its errors but somehow you know that an immaterial mind is!" First, a completely material brain simply cannot detect logic errors in its programming any more than a defective computer program can detect its own bugs. The brain has only its internal logic with which to operate. If that logic contains errors, it's stuck with them. It has no other recourse. As to how I know that an immaterial mind can detect its own errors, well, I don't know it. I have some beliefs about it based on my own metaphysics/spirituality. Basically what I believe is that we are each made in the image and likeness of God (in this I agree with Christianity, although I take issue with other aspect of that faith), which includes the ability to know literally everything. However, I believe that it is part of the purpose of physical existence for each of us to forget who we really are when we take a body. Then what happens is that over the course of many incarnations we slowly remember, and in the process the errors in our understanding (which arose as a byproduct of the forgetting) are gradually revealed and thus eliminated. In a nutshell, my belief is that each of us is actually an infallible knower, that we have each forgotten that, but that we are in the process of gradually remembering.Bruce David_{March 3, 2011
March
03
Mar
3
03
2011
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

Kornbelt888: I apologize. I did quite misread your post. I should have been more careful. My definition of mind is the sum total of our thoughts, sense impressions, knowledge, memory, and emotions, and I am certain that mind in that sense continues after the death of the physical body, although much of the personality associated with that body probably drops away. Given the types of experience you allude to, I would be very interested to know in exactly what way you disagree with my conclusions.Bruce David_{March 3, 2011
March
03
Mar
3
03
2011
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

Bruce David (13), Your probability example might be plausible for five coin tosses, but progressively less so the more tosses you do. Anyone who tosses a coin 500 times will rapidly realise they aren't in a probability tail. Probability calculations - like science itself - become better with more data. And that is the real reason why evolution is accepted by most scientists, not "faith" as some would have it. After millions of fossils, studies of tens of thousands of species alive today, and increasingly vast amounts of molecular studies, the data supporting evolution is immense. Contrast that with field data supporting ID - essntially, there is none.Portishead_{March 3, 2011
March
03
Mar
3
03
2011
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply