Evolution: plausible or proven?

[mikeh]

But speculating that some entity was responsible begs the question of how it exists, where and when it exists, how and why it created the universe, how it came to be, who or what created it.. thus for every question, about our universe, to which 'god' is the answer, we are driven, are we not, to ask exactly that question about the god?

your attempts at argument are filled with fallacies of every sort, so you should be careful when tossing out phrases like "beg the question"... and no, we are not "driven" in the direction you suggest... as todd (i think it was) said, some of us don't deny the existence (or possible existence, if you prefer) of metaphysical entities - things such as non-material laws

Would you care to explain to an ignorant materialist, what you mean by 'non-material laws'?

 

Would you care to explain how such laws are testable, in terms of objectively verifiable outcomes?

 

or is this all a matter of faith?

[jdonn]

But speculating that some entity was responsible begs the question of how it exists, where and when it exists, how and why it created the universe, how it came to be, who or what created it.. thus for every question, about our universe, to which 'god' is the answer, we are driven, are we not, to ask exactly that question about the god?

your attempts at argument are filled with fallacies of every sort, so you should be careful when tossing out phrases like "beg the question"... and no, we are not "driven" in the direction you suggest... as todd (i think it was) said, some of us don't deny the existence (or possible existence, if you prefer) of metaphysical entities - things such as non-material laws

I realize Mike just questioned this portion of your post, but I certainly am wondering some things about it.

- Why do you think he should be careful about saying "begs the question" and very similarly about not being "driven" to ask those sorts of questions about god? Are you trying to imply that questions about god's origin aren't worth asking, or can only be answered based on faith, or....what?

- I agree many people don't deny the existance of god, or some god-like thing (most people in fact.) So what? Are you saying that means those sort of questions aren't important? I guess I don't understand your purpose in that comment, it sounds like something that means "we have no particular motivation to question god since many people believe he exists."

- Redundant to last post, but what is a non-material law?

[blackshoe]

When he said "notice", if he meant "see" then he is completely correct (if the sun suddenly vanished, we wouldn't see it vanish for 8 minutes I believe.) If he meant "feel" in the sense of gravity, then I honestly have no idea although I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn there is a similar delay.

The theory of general relativity suggests that gravity propagates at the speed of light.

[PassedOut]

Combine the probabilities of all the things that had to happen to get to where we are today including a universe whose fundamental constants appear tuned for life and, in my opinion, no sincere, educated person can claim that a universe with intelligent life is in any way likely to occur by chance.

And when you combine that with the probability of an intelligent designer arising spontaneously beforehand and our existence is that much more unlikely. I pinch myself to make sure I exist.

[mike777]

Late to the discussion but if we are discussing evolution I hope we all agree evolution of humans in not over......and next we can debate what is does it mean to be human.....in other words how many machine parts or clone parts, and gene therapy can we have and still be......

 

Now if we and the universe are holograms....then...?

 

 

 

 

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/hologram.html

 

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2012...t-hologram.html

[Gerardo]

Tetrachromacy in humans might be an example of evolution in action.

 

Interestingly, seems some kind of previous color blindness is necessary to achieve a tetrachromat.

 

Or, highly probably, I may be talking out of my ass.

[helene_t]

Tetrachromacy in humans might be an example of evolution in action.

 

Interestingly, seems some kind of previous color blindness is necessary to achieve a tetrachromat.

 

Or, highly probably, I may be talking out of my ass.

Interesting. But I doubt that there is much of a reproductive advantage associated with tetrachromacy in humans.

[helene_t]

Gravity is just a theory;

 

If so what do you think keeps us all 'Grounded'

Do we both accept it as a fact that we are "grounded"? After all it could be an illusion.

 

If we accept it as a fact, some of us would like to have a theory that explains why we are grounded. Gravity is, for most purposes, at least to me, the most useful theory. Of course one could argue that it just pushes the question to somewhere else as we can still wonder why gravity is there. But to some of us, it is nevertheless a useful theory, for example because it unifies a lot of phenomena, from water pressure to falling apples to planetary movements. Of course if you don't care for such unification, or if you insist on an "ultimate" explanation, gravity may be useless to you.

 

Analogy: Do we both accept evolution as a fact? After all the fossils could have been planted by aliens who use us a guinea pigs, or it could be that some series of miracles wiped out the entire biosphere and replaced it with a slightly different biosphere some 10,000 times during the last billion years, thereby creating an illusion of evolution.

 

If we accept evolution as a fact, some of us would like to have it explained by a theory. Random mutations and natural selection is an attractive idea since it only builds on phenomena we can observe directly in our own time - it does not rely on "miracles" or vastly different conditions in the past. Obviously it just pushes the question - we can still wonder if anything more informed could be said about the mutations that must have taken place than that they are "random", and one can still wonder how it all got started. Nevertheless, it is a useful theory because it unifies all of biology. It is easier to recall facts if we can understand them as opposed to just saying that they happen to appear to be true. And it provides useful predictions such as intermediate forms being likely to be found, species that based on their fossil records appear to be related are likely to have similar junk DNA signatures, fishery management can predict fish to evolve in response to fishery, bacteria being likely to evolve in response to antibiotics etc. To some people this all doesn't matter so natural selection will not be a useful theory to them.

[Little Kid]

In the OP I asked about concrete evidence of the mechanisms generating novel gene traits, not just observed examples of them happening today or the past(eg. citrate metabolising E. coli or the classic example of the speckled moth) or even the mechanisms that "could" do so.

 

However, It seems that little of you seem to be interested in that and rather debate about the theory of evolution itself. Personally I feel that the evidence for this is fairly strong but that it has not yet been investigated to such an extend that all the gaps are filled. Before I get accused of being ignorant creationist again I'll back up my views and provide you with a few thoughts from prominent scientists in the field of evolution. They were asked what they thought to be the "biggest gaps" remaining in evolutionary theory.

 

 

"We still don't know what the last common ancestor of the humans and chimpanzees looked like, where and how it lived, and what processes sent us down our separate evolutionary paths. There are now a few important fossils from Africa in the likely time period of between 7 and 5 million years ago, but for me they have not necessarily brought us close to an answer."

 

Chris Stringer, Department of Paleontology at the Natural History Museum in London

 

 

"The biggest gap in evolutionary theory remains the origin of life itself. We know that life began, probably near volcanically active zones, about 3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago, at a time when tehre was no free oxygen in the atmosphere. In the laboratory it has been possible to replicate such conditions and produce amino acids, primitive membrane-like structures and some of the building blocks of DNA and RNA. More recently, it has been found that, along with protein enzymes, RNA can catalyse chemical reactions, and it has even been possible to construct RNA molecules that can copy parts of themselves. But the gap between such a collection of molecules and even the most primitive cell remains enormous."

 

Chriss Wills, biology professor at University of California, San Diego

 

 

"Which facts of evolution had to be true and which just happened to be true? Did the genetic code have to be digital in order for natural selection to work? Could any other classes of molecules have substituted for proteins? How inevitable was the evolution of sex? Eyes? Intelligence? Language? Consciousness? Was the origin of life itself a common event, and therefore is life common in the universe?"

 

Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford

 

 

"Evolution's biggest gap? Quite simple, old boy." Professor Mortimer leaned back and grinned. "Evolution equals change? Naturally, but that is only one step. What is life? A spectacular tightrope walk on a gossamer thread between the vast regions of crystalline immobolity and chaotic flux. If you don't like that metaphor, try thinking of a pack of cards a mile high with an elephant perfectly balanced on top. And then there is this uncanny self-organisation. Cells to consciousness - impressive isn't it? Darwin got it right, but so did Newton. But then physics had Einstein. Perhaos now it is biology's turn."

 

Simon Conway Morris, professor in Department of Earth Sciences at University of Cambridge

[jdonn]

However, It seems that little of you seem to be interested in that and rather debate about the theory of evolution itself. Personally I feel that the evidence for this is fairly strong but that it has not yet been investigated to such an extend that all the gaps are filled.

Everyone will agree with you that the theory of evolution has gaps that so far aren't filled, whether they believe in evolution or not. It won't make for a very interesting discussion...

[Little Kid]

Everyone will agree with you that the theory of evolution has gaps that so far aren't filled, whether they believe in evolution or not. It won't make for a very interesting discussion...

 

I never claimed it would, but hardly anybody seems to want to discuss what I would have liked to discuss. The most interesting part for me, was just ignored by most. I just wanted to provide some feedback on what the discussion for msot did seem to revolve around, at least to the extent I could make sense of some of the posts.

[mikeh]

In the OP I asked about concrete evidence of the mechanisms generating novel gene traits, not just observed examples of them happening today or the past(eg. citrate metabolising E. coli or the classic example of the speckled moth) or even the mechanisms that "could" do so.

 

However, It seems that little of you seem to be interested in that and rather debate about the theory of evolution itself. Personally I feel that the evidence for this is fairly strong but that it has not yet been investigated to such an extend that all the gaps are filled. Before I get accused of being ignorant creationist again I'll back up my views and provide you with a few thoughts from prominent scientists in the field of evolution. They were asked what they thought to be the "biggest gaps" remaining in evolutionary theory.

 

 

"We still don't know what the last common ancestor of the humans and chimpanzees looked like, where and how it lived, and what processes sent us down our separate evolutionary paths. There are now a few important fossils from Africa in the likely time period of between 7 and 5 million years ago, but for me they have not necessarily brought us close to an answer."

 

Chris Stringer, Department of Paleontology at the Natural History Museum in London

 

 

"The biggest gap in evolutionary theory remains the origin of life itself. We know that life began, probably near volcanically active zones, about 3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago, at a time when tehre was no free oxygen in the atmosphere. In the laboratory it has been possible to replicate such conditions and produce amino acids, primitive membrane-like structures and some of the building blocks of DNA and RNA. More recently, it has been found that, along with protein enzymes, RNA can catalyse chemical reactions, and it has even been possible to construct RNA molecules that can copy parts of themselves. But the gap between such a collection of molecules and even the most primitive cell remains enormous."

 

Chriss Wills, biology professor at University of California, San Diego

 

 

"Which facts of evolution had to be true and which just happened to be true? Did the genetic code have to be digital in order for natural selection to work? Could any other classes of molecules have substituted for proteins? How inevitable was the evolution of sex? Eyes? Intelligence? Language? Consciousness? Was the origin of life itself a common event, and therefore is life common in the universe?"

 

Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford

 

 

"Evolution's biggest gap? Quite simple, old boy." Professor Mortimer leaned back and grinned. "Evolution equals change? Naturally, but that is only one step. What is life? A spectacular tightrope walk on a gossamer thread between the vast regions of crystalline immobolity and chaotic flux. If you don't like that metaphor, try thinking of a pack of cards a mile high with an elephant perfectly balanced on top. And then there is this uncanny self-organisation. Cells to consciousness - impressive isn't it? Darwin got it right, but so did Newton. But then physics had Einstein. Perhaos now it is biology's turn."

 

Simon Conway Morris, professor in Department of Earth Sciences at University of Cambridge

If these quotes truly represent your concerns.. well, I owe you an apology. I must have misunderstood you. I see NO example of any supporter of evolution as ever having posted the opinion that the current version of the darwinian theory is in a final or complete state, or that issues of extreme importance remain to be resolved.

 

I had understood that you were concerned with 'flaws' in the current theory, in the sense of 'errors' or the existence of facts that contradicted the current theory... but if all you meant were that there remain (many) areas for further investigation... heck, we agree! And IF on exploration, the theory needs revision, great... and IF it needs abandoning for another theory altogether.. also great! in the sense that we will have learned even more about this fascinating topic.

[blackshoe]

The fact that there are "gaps" in the theory of evolution does not suggest that the Creationists are any more likely to be right.

[kenberg]

In the OP I asked about concrete evidence of the mechanisms generating novel gene traits, not just observed examples of them happening today or the past(eg. citrate metabolising E. coli or the classic example of the speckled moth) or even the mechanisms that "could" do so.

 

 

You are unsatisfied with the responses. There are, I think, reasons. The original post and some of your subsequent comments contain words I don't know and make references to arguments that I don not know the details of. My first impression was that while this might well be over my head I might still find it interesting. But in response to posts you say "I got those examples off the top of my head (knowing little about biological evolution)" and "I must confess however that my mathematical analysis skills are not so advanced and that I can't quite intuitively make sense of the article."

 

So if biological arguments (which I also know little about) and mathematical arguments (here I have more knowledge) don't move you then it's really a little disingenuous to phrase your original post as if you were asking for a really scientific discussion.

 

 

I am more than happy to acknowledge (hell, I insist) that I lack the training to intelligently discuss the various technical aspects of evolution. I perhaps know slightly more (very slightly) about quantum mechanics. In both cases, I put my general trust in the scientific process and accept the general consensus as likely to be the best explanation available for the facts at hand. No doubt I, or anyone, could find aspects of quantum theory that seem unlikely from a common sense viewpoint. To list these as objections, and then rule out mathematics and physics as counter arguments, doesn't seem right. Same for evolution.

[luke warm]

But speculating that some entity was responsible begs the question of how it exists, where and when it exists, how and why it created the universe, how it came to be, who or what created it.. thus for every question, about our universe, to which 'god' is the answer, we are driven, are we not, to ask exactly that question about the god?

your attempts at argument are filled with fallacies of every sort, so you should be careful when tossing out phrases like "beg the question"... and no, we are not "driven" in the direction you suggest... as todd (i think it was) said, some of us don't deny the existence (or possible existence, if you prefer) of metaphysical entities - things such as non-material laws

Would you care to explain to an ignorant materialist, what you mean by 'non-material laws'?

 

Would you care to explain how such laws are testable, in terms of objectively verifiable outcomes?

 

or is this all a matter of faith?

sorry, i posted on this in another thread (it's hard to keep them together in my mind - probably my theistic training interferes)

I realize Mike just questioned this portion of your post, but I certainly am wondering some things about it.

- Why do you think he should be careful about saying "begs the question" and very similarly about not being "driven" to ask those sorts of questions about god? Are you trying to imply that questions about god's origin aren't worth asking, or can only be answered based on faith, or....what?

i think i answered this in my response to him - begging the question is a logical fallacy, and he needs to be careful when he accuses someone of fallacious argumentation, given his posts... that's all

- I agree many people don't deny the existance of god, or some god-like thing (most people in fact.) So what? Are you saying that means those sort of questions aren't important? I guess I don't understand your purpose in that comment, it sounds like something that means "we have no particular motivation to question god since many people believe he exists."

no josh, i was replying to his statement that we are "driven" to such ends... read it again

- Redundant to last post, but what is a non-material law?

answered in the other thread

[hotShot]

I really hate it when scientists are vague or inaccurate.

 

The strength of scientific theories is that they can be used to transfer knowledge gained at one spot to conclusive explain what has not been observed at another spot.

It is great whenever fossils or even living beings are discovered that are missing links in the chain of ancestors of existing species. Each finding strengthens the concept of evolution. Not having found remains of the the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees yet, is sad, but hardly a thread to the theory of evolution, since comparisons of the genome show a close relation.

 

Evolution theory explains the development of multitude of species, it was never intended to explain the origin of life. This is like blaming the theory of gravity for not explaining electricity.

The theories that are used to explain the origin of molecules needed for cells are just chemistry. There is indeed no experimental prove that a cell can evolve that way, but that is an expected result. Chemists know that the formation of a cell from a "soup of ingredients" is highly unlikely. Nature had several millions or even a billion years to do that. It will hardly happen in a scientists lifetime.

 

The mutations assumed for evolution can happen without any purpose. The theory states that if a mutation leads to an advantage over other specimens of the original species over time the population of the "old genome" will get smaller while the population of the "new genome" will grow.

The theory is not designed to answer question about chemical alternatives, or the purpose of mutations.

 

The number of unsolved problems in science is endless, and for a lot of interesting questions, science will not provide an answer any time soon. There is lot of room for religion and/or philosophy to provide concepts and beliefs.

 

Just ask yourself how your "free will" is transformed into cell chemistry to create the nerve impulse to control the muscles.

[jdonn]

Lukewarm, this is why I so often have difficulty having discussions with you. Unless prompted all you do is ask questions. So sometimes I prompt, and you are certainly happy to answer questions asked of you, but I would say over 90% of the time (such as all 3 cases above) I either have no idea what your answer means, or am quite sure it is completely meaningless. So then I am faced with the choice of stopping (which I invariably do though perhaps after more time), or getting into some detailed debate about some off-topic semantic point in which case original interesting point of the debate gets completely obscured.

 

For example, I have no idea what you mean when you say "begging the question is a logical fallacy." Nor do I think it matters since it's just an expression. And even if you could show me what you mean, I would have no idea why you don't answer what it seems obvious to me was originally meant instead of objecting to a question because you perceive a fallacy in the technical wording.

 

Then when you say "no josh, i was replying to his statement that we are "driven" to such ends... read it again" I don't even know what to think. I read it again and my natural reaction is this: Ok, so why didn't you answer my question? What I just read again was exactly the same as I recall from reading it the first time.

 

Then when I ask about nonmaterial laws, you list some in another thread (though not explaining what any of them mean - maybe an example?) but I can't see how any of what you listed has anything to do with your post in which you used that term.

 

So how can I possibly continue such a discussion? This seems to always happen when I engage with you.

[Winstonm]

You can engage with me, Josh. I don't think we've finished our crop circle, yet. :P

[luke warm]

Lukewarm, this is why I so often have difficulty having discussions with you. Unless prompted all you do is ask questions. So sometimes I prompt, and you are certainly happy to answer questions asked of you, but I would say over 90% of the time (such as all 3 cases above) I either have no idea what your answer means, or am quite sure it is completely meaningless. So then I am faced with the choice of stopping (which I invariably do though perhaps after more time), or getting into some detailed debate about some off-topic semantic point in which case original interesting point of the debate gets completely obscured.

 

For example, I have no idea what you mean when you say "begging the question is a logical fallacy." Nor do I think it matters since it's just an expression. And even if you could show me what you mean, I would have no idea why you don't answer what it seems obvious to me was originally meant instead of objecting to a question because you perceive a fallacy in the technical wording.

 

Then when you say "no josh, i was replying to his statement that we are "driven" to such ends... read it again" I don't even know what to think. I read it again and my natural reaction is this: Ok, so why didn't you answer my question? What I just read again was exactly the same as I recall from reading it the first time.

 

Then when I ask about nonmaterial laws, you list some in another thread (though not explaining what any of them mean - maybe an example?) but I can't see how any of what you listed has anything to do with your post in which you used that term.

 

So how can I possibly continue such a discussion? This seems to always happen when I engage with you.

i'm sorry josh (really)... i'll try

Why do you think he should be careful about saying "begs the question" and very similarly about not being "driven" to ask those sorts of questions about god? Are you trying to imply that questions about god's origin aren't worth asking, or can only be answered based on faith, or....what?

i didn't take mike's 'begs the question' remark to be just an expression, i read it as him trying to point to a hole in another's argument... looked at that way, i was objecting to him pointing out logical fallacies to another

I agree many people don't deny the existance of god, or some god-like thing (most people in fact.) So what? Are you saying that means those sort of questions aren't important? I guess I don't understand your purpose in that comment, it sounds like something that means "we have no particular motivation to question god since many people believe he exists."

no, that isn't what i meant... yes, certainly questioning any aspect of God's existence is allowed, and some even are important... my response to mike didn't mean that such questions aren't allowed or important, i was objecting to his statement that we are "driven" to answer such questions... some might be, some might not be... i can prove (at least to my satisfaction) that God is eternal and i can prove (again, to my satisfaction) that christianity is internally consistent (important for the "but why *your* god" arguments... you'll have to take my word that such internal consistency is important)... but these questions are separate, or should be treated separately, from one another... each takes a very long time to argue

Redundant to last post, but what is a non-material law?

law of entropy, laws of logic, law of identity

 

i apologize again if my posts have irritated you... you're right that i prefer to ask questions, usually it's because i want to know the answer (not always - sometimes asking the question can show where something "hurts")

[jdonn]

Why do you think he should be careful about saying "begs the question" and very similarly about not being "driven" to ask those sorts of questions about god? Are you trying to imply that questions about god's origin aren't worth asking, or can only be answered based on faith, or....what?

i didn't take mike's 'begs the question' remark to be just an expression, i read it as him trying to point to a hole in another's argument... looked at that way, i was objecting to him pointing out logical fallacies to another

Um...so what? It seems obvious to me he was merely saying if you say 'i believe blah blah blah happened because of god', then one will automatically wonder things about this god. Perhaps not everyone will, but at least anyone who is intellectually curious, or one who doesn't want to concede that his belief is completely based on faith.

 

I actually take a little humor in you objecting to another's argument as a logical anything, since as far as I'm concerned you are on record as refusing to answer the question "is your belief in god logical?", which I have long taken to mean you can not say it is.

 

I agree many people don't deny the existance of god, or some god-like thing (most people in fact.) So what? Are you saying that means those sort of questions aren't important? I guess I don't understand your purpose in that comment, it sounds like something that means "we have no particular motivation to question god since many people believe he exists."

no, that isn't what i meant... yes, certainly questioning any aspect of God's existence is allowed, and some even are important... my response to mike didn't mean that such questions aren't allowed or important, i was objecting to his statement that we are "driven" to answer such questions... some might be, some might not be... i can prove (at least to my satisfaction) that God is eternal and i can prove (again, to my satisfaction) that christianity is internally consistent (important for the "but why *your* god" arguments... you'll have to take my word that such internal consistency is important)... but these questions are separate, or should be treated separately, from one another... each takes a very long time to argue

I find this a mildly objectionable form of nitpicky wordsmithing. It's just another way to say the same thing as the 'begs the question' part. If god is posited, there will be questions about him.

 

Redundant to last post, but what is a non-material law?

law of entropy, laws of logic, law of identity

What can I even say. I complained that I didn't know what all these meant (granted I have some idea and I could also look them up, so no big deal), and that they seemed to me to, although literally answering the question, have nothing to do with the context in which you used the term. And your cure for that was to exactly repeat the same answer?

 

i apologize again if my posts have irritated you... you're right that i prefer to ask questions, usually it's because i want to know the answer (not always - sometimes asking the question can show where something "hurts")

I don't particularly mind that you tend to ask questions instead of offering opinions, since I have been fair to point out you answer questions too. What is irritating is your answers so often seem to me to be any of:

- A response that takes the question far too literally and ignores the intended point.

- A complete diversion from the point.

- A bunch of fancy words that might as well have been tossed with salad tongs.

It's not like I think I'm some magically good poster, but I believe one would have to admit people always understand me clearly and know my opinion, as well as the basis for it. I am aware of your general views, but always eventually become tired of trying to find out the basis of them.

[luke warm]

I actually take a little humor in you objecting to another's argument as a logical anything, since as far as I'm concerned you are on record as refusing to answer the question "is your belief in god logical?", which I have long taken to mean you can not say it is.

no i haven't, josh... of course my belief in God is logical, but i tried to explain that one can logically conclude that God is eternal... from there one would need to prove that *my* God (the christian God) is logical, and that leads to the internal consistency thing

I agree many people don't deny the existance of god, or some god-like thing (most people in fact.) So what? Are you saying that means those sort of questions aren't important? I guess I don't understand your purpose in that comment, it sounds like something that means "we have no particular motivation to question god since many people believe he exists."

no, that isn't what i meant... yes, certainly questioning any aspect of God's existence is allowed, and some even are important... my response to mike didn't mean that such questions aren't allowed or important, i was objecting to his statement that we are "driven" to answer such questions... some might be, some might not be... i can prove (at least to my satisfaction) that God is eternal and i can prove (again, to my satisfaction) that christianity is internally consistent (important for the "but why *your* god" arguments... you'll have to take my word that such internal consistency is important)... but these questions are separate, or should be treated separately, from one another... each takes a very long time to argue

I find this a mildly objectionable form of nitpicky wordsmithing. It's just another way to say the same thing as the 'begs the question' part. If god is posited, there will be questions about him.

well... okay

Redundant to last post, but what is a non-material law?

law of entropy, laws of logic, law of identity

What can I even say. I complained that I didn't know what all these meant (granted I have some idea and I could also look them up, so no big deal), and that they seemed to me to, although literally answering the question, have nothing to do with the context in which you used the term. And your cure for that was to exactly repeat the same answer?

i thought you wanted examples of what i meant when i use the term... it means that abstract entities (laws) exist... for example, the law of non-contradiction exists whether or not there is anyone around to label it as such

i apologize again if my posts have irritated you... you're right that i prefer to ask questions, usually it's because i want to know the answer (not always - sometimes asking the question can show where something "hurts")

I don't particularly mind that you tend to ask questions instead of offering opinions, since I have been fair to point out you answer questions too. What is irritating is your answers so often seem to me to be any of:

- A response that takes the question far too literally and ignores the intended point.

- A complete diversion from the point.

- A bunch of fancy words that might as well have been tossed with salad tongs.

It's not like I think I'm some magically good poster, but I believe one would have to admit people always understand me clearly and know my opinion, as well as the basis for it. I am aware of your general views, but always eventually become tired of trying to find out the basis of them.

i tend to take things literally, true, but i don't think i divert from the point... if i do, i'll try to improve

[PassedOut]

of course my belief in God is logical, but i tried to explain that one can logically conclude that God is eternal... from there one would need to prove that *my* God (the christian God) is logical, and that leads to the internal consistency thing

Although you can perhaps apply logic to evaluate the consequences of a belief in god, you can't really say that the belief itself is logical without either (1) shifting the meaning of the word "logic" or (2) starting from other premisses themselves not logical.

 

It is easy to create a formally consistent system with no basis in reality.

[luke warm]

of course my belief in God is logical, but i tried to explain that one can logically conclude that God is eternal... from there one would need to prove that *my* God (the christian God) is logical, and that leads to the internal consistency thing

Although you can perhaps apply logic to evaluate the consequences of a belief in god, you can't really say that the belief itself is logical without either (1) shifting the meaning of the word "logic" or (2) starting from other premisses themselves not logical.

 

It is easy to create a formally consistent system with no basis in reality.

maybe you're right, but i haven't found it to be easy to do so while maintaining consistency

[shintaro]

:)

 

There must be Evolution however was it responsible for George W ???

 

 

:P

[PassedOut]

of course my belief in God is logical, but i tried to explain that one can logically conclude that God is eternal... from there one would need to prove that *my* God (the christian God) is logical, and that leads to the internal consistency thing

Although you can perhaps apply logic to evaluate the consequences of a belief in god, you can't really say that the belief itself is logical without either (1) shifting the meaning of the word "logic" or (2) starting from other premisses themselves not logical.

 

It is easy to create a formally consistent system with no basis in reality.

maybe you're right, but i haven't found it to be easy to do so while maintaining consistency

You are too modest.