Don'tcha love 2x2 matrixes...

[mikeh]

My post was in response to two by Gonzalo.

 

it may be that I misunderstand him, in which case I truly apologize. However, I have understood his posts to suggest that he is a christian with a strong belief in the teachings of at least one of the christian sects.

 

He also proudly, it seems to me, combines a rejection of atheism with an admission that he has not read any of the material to which atheists point in support of their position AND at the same time admits that he has not even read the texts underlying his faith.

 

How one can make these admissions and still legitimately claim to have 'thought' about his faith is beyond me. His faith is based on a combination of literal and metaphorical or allegorical interpretations of the Old and New testaments.. with different sects advancing different interpretations.. and all sects carefully ignoring blatant inconsistencies and contradictions. And he believes one version or the other... without ever reading the book?

 

That is not thinking... not any form of thinking with which I am familiar.. it is 'believing'.. and the entire world has daily reminders of the consequences of belief disconnected from critical analysis.... from the small scale of suicide bombers secure in their belief that they go to heaven, to the catastrophic failings of George W Bush.

 

As for arguing that Occam's razor can be satisfied by a belief in God as the simple ultimate cause... I don't get it... doesn't that very notion beg for the question of what god is? That's why I argue that this approach either pushes the questions out another layer (which is the opposite of the process suggested by occam) or requires that one shut off one's thinking at the blank wall or black box we label god. And occam's razor is to be used in THINKING, not as an excuse to STOP thinking. Or have I misunderstood? Didn't occam advise against the entertaining of unnecessary hypotheses?

 

Helene, I respect your posts on these issues as much as or more than I respect those of anyone else posting here.. and while I have never met Gonzalo, I suspect that I would like him if I did (whether the converse is true, I can't speculate). I do not for a moment think that Gonzalo does not respect differing views.

 

Personally, I respect those who think that some form of god entity is a plausible explanation underlying the origins of the universe. That does not require belief that the god entity is the christian god or indeed any god worshipped by humans. It does not require belief in the day-to-day involvement of god in the world.. nor the concept of sin, nor the concept of heaven etc. After all, we do not understand what existed 'before' the universe nor even if that concept makes sense. So filling in our 'unknown' and potentially unknowable areas with a 'god' makes some sense.

 

And that sort of belief is conditional... it may be logical to entertain it until and unless our understanding penetrates into that unknown area and sheds light on it.

 

But much light has been shed on matters that various religious sects have proclaimed to be revealed truths, and with each shedding of light, religious leaders have twisted their dogmas to accommodate the new reality, oblivious to the fact that previous leaders, equally infallible, had been convinced of the former dogma.

 

Anthropology has revealed HOW religion works, and why it is so powerful...and one of those mechanisms is a form of inoculation against self-examination. Gonzalo has been inoculated (it seems to me).. to the point that he can claim to have thought about issues, yet hasn't done even the most basic of reading! he can dismiss a scientific paper that explains why we have 23 chromosomes while related species have 24... without reading it!

 

It is more or less a free world, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, in my view, people who express opinions on readily accessible topics without even a modicum of effort to become informed should not expect to be listened to very often. And should expect some criticism.

[jdonn]

I think you are unfair to Gonzalo, Mike.

 

Gonzalo says he has thought a lot about the existence of God and came to the conclusion that he believes in God. He writes stuff that is critical of atheism as well as stuff that is critical of (Christian) fundamentalism. Nowhere do I see that he doesn't respect different views.

 

As you know I agree with most of your views on this matter but I am not sure if it is necessarily harmful or even stupid to believe in God as long as the belief is kept from interfering with science. You say that Ocam's razor implies that one should not believe in God since God adds unnecessary complexity to one's worldview. But isn't it somewhat subjective? Suppose some perceives a theist worldview as simpler or at least more sattisfactory/graspable than an atheist worldview, isn't it a valid reason to believe in God? I am not sure since I don't quite understand what the word "God" is supposed to mean, but I suppose to some it could be a valid reason.

Two comments.

 

One is that I am fairly certain Gonzalo is on record as admitting he has not extensively studied the scientific viewpoint, and that he is ignorrant about it. That is his own admission, so I don't think saying so is being unfair.

 

The other is that it's possible to not believe in Occam's razor too. B)

[jdonn]

OK, so when a horse and a 'wild' horse mate, how many chromosones do they have? And when this then mates with a regular horse, how many chromosones do they have? And if a 'wild' horse cannot mate with the child of a 'wild' horse and regular horse, how did regular horses evolve from wild horses?

 

Is there anything whatsoever in the article that explains how, if fusion was random and sporadic, how new species could occur? If you have a wild horse that gets genetically altered to a modern horse, it will end up mating with wild horses and the result will either be nothing or wild horse.

 

If through some magical carrier an entire family of wild horses were changed to modern horses within a generation of each other, then sure, you can explain what happened and they'd have fertile children. But that can't happen through random shifts. Something else must be happening.

This post is completely equivalent to foo's posts about bridge, except without all the hilarious formatting.

[mikeh]

Are you serious? Or illiterate? If you accept that the authors of that article are telling the truth as they have found it to be, and that the scientists upon whose work they depend also told the truth, then how on earth can you reject the fusion explanation? I read the article and found it to be a model of lucidity.

 

But then, I didn't have to read it through a veil of wilful ignorance created by belief in superstition B)

OK, so when a horse and a 'wild' horse mate, how many chromosones do they have? And when this then mates with a regular horse, how many chromosones do they have? And if a 'wild' horse cannot mate with the child of a 'wild' horse and regular horse, how did regular horses evolve from wild horses?

 

Is there anything whatsoever in the article that explains how, if fusion was random and sporadic, how new species could occur? If you have a wild horse that gets genetically altered to a modern horse, it will end up mating with wild horses and the result will either be nothing or wild horse.

 

If through some magical carrier an entire family of wild horses were changed to modern horses within a generation of each other, then sure, you can explain what happened and they'd have fertile children. But that can't happen through random shifts. Something else must be happening.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry :lol:

 

The authors of the paper in question did not intend to address the broad topics you raise... and yet your rejection of what they did address is based on that perceived failure!

 

They addressed, as I read the paper, one specific issue.. the fact that while we are closely related, on a genetic level, to other primates, we have 23 chromosomes while the other 3 species discussed have 24.

 

They suggested that this question might be arguably have arisen either as a design decision made by a creator or by evolutionary processes, and they proceeded to examine the evidence... at a level and by means unavailable and indeed inconceivable to the founders of all of our mainstream religions.

 

That examination revealed that one particular chromosome looked exactly as it should if in some ancestral primate two chromosomes had fused.. with the presence, in the middle (more or less) of the 'fused' chromosome of patterns that are usually found only at the end of chromosomes.. and patterns on both sides of the supposed point of fusion.

 

of course, one could argue that the creator deliberately created these patterns so as to conceal his handiwork... and no doubt some cretins will beleive that.

 

As to the larger questions that the authors were NOT addressing, there is ample literature out in the world about HOW mutations propagate and how speciation is understood to occur. You might try reading some of it. A lot of it is accessible to lay readers... I don't for a moment profess to have any training in genetics or evolution but your local bookstore (not the Christian one) will have a large section of well-written, easy to comprehend books on the topic, designed for lay readers.

[helene_t]

OK, so when a horse and a 'wild' horse mate, how many chromosones do they have? And when this then mates with a regular horse, how many chromosones do they have? And if a 'wild' horse cannot mate with the child of a 'wild' horse and regular horse, how did regular horses evolve from wild horses?

 

Is there anything whatsoever in the article that explains how, if fusion was random and sporadic, how new species could occur?

If you check the references provided in the article, you will get answers to most of your questions I think. Ref 9 answers your questions about the hybrid horses.

[Winstonm]

This argument is flawed: If you cannot prove evolution occured, God exists.

Here, it is the arguer who is flawed: If you cannot prove evolution to my satisfation, God exists.

[mikeh]

This argument is flawed: If you cannot prove evolution occured, God exits.

Here, it is the arguer who is flawed: If you cannot prove evolution to my satisfation, God exits.

a freudian slip? 'exits or exists'? such a small difference, such a large difference :)

[jdonn]

of course, one could argue that the creator deliberately created these patterns so as to conceal his handiwork... and no doubt some cretins will beleive that.

Of course then one wonders why he would leave it so we could discover it.

 

And then why he would have it so many wouldn't believe it anyway.

 

His plan is becoming more elaborate with each analysis!

[PassedOut]

of course, one could argue that the creator deliberately created these patterns so as to conceal his handiwork... and no doubt some cretins will beleive that.

Of course then one wonders why he would leave it so we could discover it.

 

And then why he would have it so many wouldn't believe it anyway.

 

His plan is becoming more elaborate with each analysis!

Perhaps god was very devious 6000 years ago, creating mountains of false evidence to trick those poor souls tempted to draw conclusions scientifically. That way the believers can cackle contentedly from heaven as those tricked by the planted evidence burn forever in hell.

 

But why worship a god like that?

[jtfanclub]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry :)

 

The authors of the paper in question did not intend to address the broad topics you raise... and yet your rejection of what they did address is based on that perceived failure!

I didn't reject what they said. It just doesn't have enough 'meat' in it to convince me that evolution works in the way that my textbooks claim it does. What I'm reading is a summary- I understand that it is just an overview of their conclusions on a limited area.

 

They addressed, as I read the paper, one specific issue.. the fact that while we are closely related, on a genetic level, to other primates, we have 23 chromosomes while the other 3 species discussed have 24.

 

They suggested that this question might be arguably have arisen either as a design decision made by a creator or by evolutionary processes, and they proceeded to examine the evidence... at a level and by means unavailable and indeed inconceivable to the founders of all of our mainstream religions.

 

What does religion have to do with this? There are other possible theories besides Modern Evolutionary Theory and Religion, you know.

 

That examination revealed that one particular chromosome looked exactly as it should if in some ancestral primate two chromosomes had fused.. with the presence, in the middle (more or less) of the 'fused' chromosome of patterns that are usually found only at the end of chromosomes.. and patterns on both sides of the supposed point of fusion.

 

Which would explain how you get one human, but not an entire race of humans.

 

I think genetics has to be environmental to some extent. Either something (such as an illness) tends to cause identical genetic mutations within a community, or a genetic mutation can somehow be shared without being a direct parent/child relationship.

 

As to the larger questions that the authors were NOT addressing, there is ample literature out in the world about HOW mutations propagate and how speciation is understood to occur. You might try reading some of it.

 

Sure. What would you recommend? As Helene points out, I should really start with the references in the article.

 

P.S. I'm not a Christian. I don't know if insinuating I am is more insulting to me or to them.

[Al_U_Card]

Ah yes....the "God" chromosome....number 24 is still there but just transformed into its psychic version so that we could have access to conscious awareness. The record of the evolution of our consciousness is held in that "invisible" strongbox. We didn't get better by "reducing", we got better by "improving". :) :lol:

[Winstonm]

This argument is flawed: If you cannot prove evolution occured, God exits.

Here, it is the arguer who is flawed: If you cannot prove evolution to my satisfation, God exits.

a freudian slip? 'exits or exists'? such a small difference, such a large difference :)

ROFLOL.

 

My eyesight is getting to be lousy.

[Winstonm]

of course, one could argue that the creator deliberately created these patterns so as to conceal his handiwork... and no doubt some cretins will beleive that.

Of course then one wonders why he would leave it so we could discover it.

 

And then why he would have it so many wouldn't believe it anyway.

 

His plan is becoming more elaborate with each analysis!

You obviously do not understand this apparent conundrum. The confusion is caused by Satan in an attempt to mislead the believers.

[mikeh]

of course, one could argue that the creator deliberately created these patterns so as to conceal his handiwork... and no doubt some cretins will beleive that.

Of course then one wonders why he would leave it so we could discover it.

 

And then why he would have it so many wouldn't believe it anyway.

 

His plan is becoming more elaborate with each analysis!

You obviously do not understand this apparent conundrum. The confusion is caused by Satan in an attempt to mislead the believers.

I was afraid that was the answer... I have long suspected that this was the most plausible explanation... and it is so easy on the grey matter.

[Winstonm]

of course, one could argue that the creator deliberately created these patterns so as to conceal his handiwork... and no doubt some cretins will beleive that.

Of course then one wonders why he would leave it so we could discover it.

 

And then why he would have it so many wouldn't believe it anyway.

 

His plan is becoming more elaborate with each analysis!

You obviously do not understand this apparent conundrum. The confusion is caused by Satan in an attempt to mislead the believers.

I was afraid that was the answer... I have long suspected that this was the most plausible explanation... and it is so easy on the grey matter.

It is a well-known fact amongst the informed that Satan uses the dual-blade system of Occam's razor for those hard-to-preach areas. What could be simpler?

[jtfanclub]

Sorry, was going to post an image- didn't work.

[Fluffy]

Too much to read, and I don't have time.

 

First of all thank you Helene, I love you, you know?

 

You never offended me on any way Mike.

 

I argue behemently against atheism partialy because I am blatantly outnumbered here. I try to attack your ideas, I hardly ever state mines actually.

 

I had never dropped the option that God might not be there, I don't like the idea but I cannot possible know it for sure. (As mentioned before, the concept of a purposeless universe is absurd to me, not impossible, but highly unlikelly IMO)

 

But the same way I try very hard for all of you to understand that you cannot know for sure the contrary either, leave your mind open.

 

You might find most of these absurd, but why not....

 

-The known universe is a simulation on a computer, like Matrix.

-The world was designed by super advanced aliens, who dropped the species in certain orders to make us think evolution is true (this has some work to do)

-You are the main character of a trumann show tv series, all the scientific things you read are actually lies invented for you to believe them.

 

Too much films you might think, actually I had other ideas but don't remember them now.

 

Anyway, your answer to this has to be the same: why do I care if I am being simulated on a computer or whatever? My life would be the same, I like science because it lets me predict things, and they will still work whenever god exists or not, the world works the way I think it works.

 

Well, the world also works for me when I think in God, maybe I am just very lucky, but actually praising has worked for me!, I would be stupid if I trusted that just praising would solve my problems (in fact doing it that way always fails to me :)), but I think it has helped sometimes.

 

Ok this is too long, maybe in 10 days or so I post some of my ideas so you can attack them, just that contrary of what you might think I love science, I beleive (more or less) in evolution and many other things.

[hrothgar]

I argue behemently against atheism partialy because I am blatantly outnumbered here. I try to attack your ideas, I hardly ever state mines actually.

 

I had never dropped the option that God might not be there, I don't like the idea but I cannot possible know it for sure. (As mentioned before, the concept of a purposeless universe is absurd to me, not impossible, but highly unlikelly IMO)

 

But the same way I try very hard for all of you to understand that you cannot know for sure the contrary either, leave your mind open.

 

You might find most of these absurd, but why not....

 

-The known universe is a simulation on a computer, like Matrix.

-The world was designed by super advanced aliens, who dropped the species in certain orders to make us think evolution is true (this has some work to do)

-You are the main character of a trumann show tv series, all the scientific things you read are actually lies invented for you to believe them.

Here's the thing...

 

I don't have an real emotional attachment to the theory of evolution. If some alternative scenario looked more plausible I'd be perfectly happy to change my mind.

 

Admittedly, I think that I'd be a bit surprised to find out that advanced aliens were screwing with us for kicks and giggles.

 

Finding out that I was actually a computer program would certainly present some existential issues.

 

I'd find it rather comforting if I were to find out that there actually is a "god" and he has some kind of lovely benevolent plan for me...

 

However, to date, evolution wins the plausiblity test hands down...

 

I'm not speaking for anyone else, but the reason that I get rather worked up in arguments about evolution is that religious fundamentalists scare me...

 

They're irrational.

They do stupid things.

They have all sorts of weird hang ups that make no sense.

 

More simply put, my attachment is not to evolution per see, but rather to the scientific method. It gets really frustrating dealing with people who are too stupid or too close minded to be able to deal with it...

[Winstonm]

religious fundamentalists scare me...

 

Amen, Brother.

[mikeh]

I argue behemently against atheism partialy because I am blatantly outnumbered here. I try to attack your ideas, I hardly ever state mines actually.

 

I had never dropped the option that God might not be there, I don't like the idea but I cannot possible know it for sure. (As mentioned before, the concept of a purposeless universe is absurd to me, not impossible, but highly unlikelly IMO)

 

But the same way I try very hard for all of you to understand that you cannot know for sure the contrary either, leave your mind open.

 

You might find most of these absurd, but why not....

 

-The known universe is a simulation on a computer, like Matrix.

-The world was designed by super advanced aliens, who dropped the species in certain orders to make us think evolution is true (this has some work to do)

-You are the main character of a trumann show tv series, all the scientific things you read are actually lies invented for you to believe them.

Here's the thing...

 

I don't have an real emotional attachment to the theory of evolution. If some alternative scenario looked more plausible I'd be perfectly happy happy to change my mind.

 

Admittedly, I think that I'd be a bit surprised to find out that advanced aliens were screwing with us for kicks and giggles.

 

Finding out that I was actually a computer program would certainly present some existential issues.

 

I'd find it rather comforting if I were to find out that there actually is a "god" and he has some kind of lovely benevolent plan for me...

 

However, to date, evolution wins the plausiblity test hands down...

 

I'm not speaking for anyone else, but the reason that I get rather worked up in arguments about evolution is that religious fundamentalists scare me...

 

They're irrational.

They do stupid things.

They have all sorts of weird hang ups that make no sense.

 

More simply put, my attachment is not to evolution per see, but rather to the scientific method. It gets really frustrating dealing with people who are too stupid or too close minded to be able to deal with it...

Well said.

[Codo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

 

I know, it is nice to use such cool tools and to know such nice theories.

But what exactly has this to do with God and religion?

Nothing.

 

Who says that God must use the easiest way?

Actually, why should he?

 

Who says that we should use the easiest way?

 

You may belive in Occams razor or you don't.

I belive that it is a useful tool to built hypothesises, not more.

 

For a start:

You watch two stars flying away from the earth, both with close to lightning speed, one to the left, one to the right. What is the easiest hypothesis about their speed compared to each other? 2xC?

And is this hypothesis right? No.

 

Occams razor is no explanation for anything, it is just a tool to find a first hypothesis.

[Codo]

They're irrational.

They do stupid things.

They have all sorts of weird hang ups that make no sense.

 

More simply put, my attachment is not to evolution per see, but rather to the scientific method. It gets really frustrating dealing with people who are too stupid or too close minded to be able to deal with it...

 

Yes, that is why I really hate atheists who are this way. I know some, I guess you too.

And dump theists are horrible too. I know some. I guess you too.

 

I have no idea what is worse.

 

Unluckily even some fundemental idiots are quite intelligent. Else they would be no problem.

[Winstonm]

Unluckily even some fundemental idiots are quite intelligent. Else they would be no problem.

 

I believe I can speak from some degree of expertise on this subject: I was reared in a rather strict, fundamentalist Evangelical Christian environment and have not only seen over and over firsthand this type person but was myself this type of person until I could no longer find a rational denial.

 

The problems from my viewpoint are not ones of intelligence or lack thereof - the problems are most entirely psychological in nature and thus harder to deal with than simple stupidity.

 

The intelligent religious fundamentalist has to redirect logical thought through a bias filter that strains rational thoughts and allows passage of only a plausible-to-self denial of rationality. You can observe this phenomenon by the way they process information, using a defensive posture when reading a contradictory concept, looking only for ways to poke holes in the theory rather than trying to learn the greater lessons of the theory and acknowledging its imperfections.

 

To claim there is an equivalent scientific bias is another example of a self-rationalized myth, as the basis of the sciences is questioning rather than answering - there can be no bias without preconceived beliefs.

[Al_U_Card]

I'm not speaking for anyone else, but the reason that I get rather worked up in arguments about evolution is that religious fundamentalists scare me...

 

They're irrational.

They do stupid things.

They have all sorts of weird hang ups that make no sense.

 

More simply put, my attachment is not to evolution per see, but rather to the scientific method. It gets really frustrating dealing with people who are too stupid or too close minded to be able to deal with it...

The key being to take what suits your purpose and leave the rest. If nothing they have to offer is of use then so be it. There is usually something of merit if you look hard enough. ;)

[hrothgar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

 

I know, it is nice to use such cool tools and to know such nice theories.

But what exactly has this to do with God and religion?

Nothing.

 

Who says that God must use the easiest way?

Actually, why should he?

 

Who says that we should use the easiest way?

 

You may belive in Occams razor or you don't.

I belive that it is a useful tool to built hypothesises, not more.

 

For a start:

You watch two stars flying away from the earth, both with close to lightning speed, one to the left, one to the right. What is the easiest hypothesis about their speed compared to each other? 2xC?

And is this hypothesis right? No.

 

Occams razor is no explanation for anything, it is just a tool to find a first hypothesis.

Well, to start with...

 

What we (meaning humanity) is attempting to do is to create a working hypothesis about how we all got here. This is in no way equivalent to making assumptions about how God works.

 

You yourself are admitting that Occam's Razor is a useful tool to build hypotheses. It seems strange that you are so opposed to applying it in this specific case.

 

As to your example about stars...

 

Bodies with a large amout of mass rarely move at relativistic speeds.

You're confusing stars and photons...

Very different things...

 

As is lightning (Blitz) and light