Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong (now this is weird)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong ^

[chessplayer]

What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants?

[kosta50]

Your acknowledgment of the existence of the supernatural is a step in the right direction. Keep walking that path

LOL, dear FRiend, that's why I placed "/s" for sacrcasm.

Nature is nature; it seems entirely self-contained and self-suffciient, conforming to itself, and not adding or substracting anything from itself.

[betty boop]

In other words, an eternal system.

How do you get from "a closed system, that perpetuates itself, where nothing can be added or subtracted without changing what it is," to an "eternal" system? I would think an eternal system would be the "open" one, practically by definition (for such a system would not be time delimited).

The closed system that you describe need not be eternal. And it wouldn't be, if it had a beginning. And presumably anything that has a beginning has an end also.

But of course, here we are speaking from within the category of time that human beings are accustomed/habituated to by observation and experience — 4D spacetime. What is in eternity — in timelessness — is not "in" 4D spacetime, nor can it ever be a direct perception of the human mind.

So, having said that, why should I find your "cosmology" preferable to the Christian one — which actually takes such temporal distinctions seriously, and makes them explicit?

[betty boop]

Also what do Christians say regarding her claim that only one in five people who "died and came back" seem to have experienced a Near Death Experience?

Why would Christians want to bother with such a stupid question? NDEs are not a matter of statistics. At least not to the people they happen to. That's the part you ever seem to want to leave out of consideration.

As for your other questions, I suspect they are disingenuous. For as a former orthodox Christian, you presumably have read the Holy Scriptures yourself, and thus ought to be able for form your own view of the New Earth, New Heaven, and post-apocalyptic events in general.

[spunkets]

"But it seems you miss the point: How do universal laws come into existence in the first place? Why is it the nature of energy to be a conserved constant?

I answered this and most of the other questions which were posed again. I wondered why the questions were posed again.

The answer is that energy can neither be created, or destroyed, even through the point of the big bang. The answer to the problem is the equivalent of understanding the statement: A=A. A can not ever be zero, then all of a sudden it becomes something other than zero, because then A is not consistent with itself. If A is zero at any time, then it's zero always.

I know there's no problem understanding the concept with regard to the invisible "the prime mover" that's a spirit that exists in a sea of absolutely nothing, so it's simply a matter of refusing to believe that anything else can exist without being created by the prime mover from absolutely nothing. To do so causes the A that represents the prime mover to be less than A and thus A≠A.

There is a fundamental contradiction between the existence of energy and a real instance of the claimed prime mover.

[ColdWater]

“About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.”

Einstein

[ColdWater]

To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

Eienstein

[ColdWater]

Why do you write to me “God should punish the English”? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.

Einstein

[P-Marlowe]

LOL, dear FRiend, that's why I placed "/s" for sacrcasm.

Sacrcasm????

I thought you were just kidding.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

If there’s any validity to this theory (which I very much doubt), shouldn’t we all be born looking like decrepit octogenarians? Because after all the generations of damage the human race should have deteriorated a lot more, no?

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

Evolutionary degradation. Nice paradox anyway.

[shibumi]

Since the last post in which you replied to MHGinTN was inspired by her response to a post I made, but not directed at anything I said, I will not take offense at these comments:

"What could be more self-righteous and egotistic then to pretend to be a (self-appointed) spokesperson for God himself?"

"And who decides what is a "genuine" question? The self-appointed, self-rigthoeus, God's press secretary?"

I would, however, like to call attention to the fact that you have yet to respond or comment regarding the two other observations I made.

First, in reference to your question about trusting in faith healing to cast out demons or using antibiotics to kill bacteria in pneumonia, I pointed out that you made the assumption that these two options were mutually exclusive.

I see absolutely no contradiction in praying for healing while at the same time using the intellect given to us by God to apply our learning to the situation. If the illness was cured, why would you care which method effected the cure?

Second, this last morning, I responded to your post which said:

"If we left everything to religion, we would still be living in the 1st century chasing "demons" out of lepers."

My response was - "With that statement you have demonstrated a far more narrow view of what religious people do and think than we (religious people) ever supposed of the scientific community.

People who truly live their faith are on a never ending quest to uncover the wonderful way God has formed the universe."

I realize that these two comments were not specific questions, but rather observations. I will not hold you to qui tacet consentire videtur but I would ask you to consider the possibility that your line of argument is logically flawed by the most elementary of fallacies, the converse fallacy of accident, commonly known as the "some=all" fallacy.

Because some creationists are also Biblical literalists does not mean that all are.

Because some healers use faith and casting out of demons exclusively does not mean that all do.

Because religion has been used in some instances to suppress knowledge, does not mean that suppression is religion's central tenent, or even a common one.

What I truly find astounding is that someone such as yourself, who (I infer through your comments) believes in demonstrable causality and the verifiability of conclusions could ascribe to an evolutionary doctrine which is at best quite thin on evidence, and at worst, an obvious attempt to justify human hubris on a grand scale.

[Quix]

EXCELLENT POINTS, AS USUAL.

THX.

[kosta50]

I pointed out that you made the assumption that these two options were mutually exclusive.

I didn't reply to that specific comment because (1) I am under no obligation to reply to every comment and (2) because they are mutually medicine and prayer are exclusive.

Prayer may make people feel good and hopeful that God, in his mercy, will intervene in someone's illness. Sometimes, that's all that'poor "standard of care"  because it is unreliable and unpredictable.

I see absolutely no contradiction in praying for healing...

What happened to "Thy will be done?" Some here think it's too much of me  to ask for proof, yet it's not too much to expect God to change his mind because they feel he should?

Besides, why would Christians be afraid of dying? Why would they want to live here, in this sinful world, when they could be with God? Why not just have faith that God will do the right and accept his will without nagging him for favors? 

People who truly live their faith are on a never ending quest to uncover the wonderful way God has formed the universe."

I responded to that comment in #679 

"Why would religious people strive to 'uncover' anything? isn't the Bible enough? Besides, the NT states that all you have to ask and it will be revealed. You don't need to research, dig and uncover. Are all the answers to be found in the Bible? Isn't what's in the Bible exactly and as much as God wanted us to know? The Bible only commissions that believers preach the Gospel and baptize."

I will not hold you to qui tacet consentire videtur 

That's very kind of you, especially since I don't have time or desire to respond to everyone's comments. I try my best to answer everyone's direct questions, however. So, don't mistake my silence with agreement.

I would ask you to consider the possibility that your line of argument is logically flawed by the most elementary of fallacies, the converse fallacy of accident, commonly known as the "some=all" fallacy.

Could you provide specific examples where I equate some with all? I try to avoid sweeping generalizations.

What I truly find astounding is that someone such as yourself, who (I infer through your comments) ... could ascribe to an evolutionary doctrine which is at best quite thin on evidence

First, there is plenty of evidence for evolutionary doctrine. Second, there is very little doubt that species evolve. 

[kosta50]

How do you get from "a closed system, that perpetuates itself, where nothing can be added or subtracted without changing what it is," to an "eternal" system?

Because that which is unchanging is eternal.

[betty boop]

I have three cites from you, purporting to be from Einstein.

Can you tell me where in his writings these particular statements appears?

[kosta50]

Why would Christians want to bother with such a stupid question? NDEs are not a matter of statistics

Well, then what do you call 1 in 5?

For as a former orthodox Christian, you presumably have read the Holy Scriptures yourself, and thus ought to be able for form your own view of the New Earth, New Heaven, and post-apocalyptic events in general

Orthodox Christianity has a slightly different view of that, which is why I asked. You see, in the East, the soul is believed judged immediately after death (particular judgment), and remains either in a state of paradise or hell, awaiting the resurrection of the bodies and the Final Judgment.

In Eastern Orthodoxy, the Book of Revelation is never read liturgically or spoken of in the church. It might as well not exist. Constantinople considered it "questionable" until the 9th century and then agreed to include it in the canon for reasons that are not entirely clear to me. But it is clear that it forms no part of orthopraxis and has no liturgical role.

Frankly, the concept of "new heaven" is even more puzzling. Why would new heaven be necessary?

But I see you have already prejudged my question as suspiciously "disingenuous," so we move on.

[shibumi]

"I am under no obligation to reply to every comment"

No, you are certainly not obliged. However,your voluminous responses on this (and other threads) would lead one to believe that silence was implying either consent or confoundment. (But, of course, I knew better than to think you consented! <;^)

" because they are mutually medicine and prayer are exclusive.

Despite that rather tortured construction, I perceive that you are merely gainsaying my statement, without offering reason for your attitude.

"What happened to "Thy will be done?"

It's still there, right alongside "Ask and it shall be given to you." The two statements together form the true prayerful petition, an optimistic, humble request, with resignation to the greater vision and benevolent will of The Father.

"Sometimes, that's all that'poor "standard of care" because it is unreliable and unpredictable."

I'm not trying to be contentious, but that's another tortured construction which I'm having trouble figuring out. Surely you don't mean to imply that medical science is 100% reliable and predictable?

"Besides, why would Christians be afraid of dying?"

In general, most of the Christians I know are not afraid of death. The experience of dying, itself, may be quite unpleasant, but the aftermath is something we actually look forward to.

"Why would they want to live here, in this sinful world, when they could be with God?"

Because there are so many dear souls such as yours that Our Father in Heaven would not have us leave here for lost.

"Why would religious people strive to 'uncover' anything? isn't the Bible enough?

The Bible has many levels of meaning and many surprises, including a primer in hyperdimensional geometry and physics. The Word found in the text gives specificity and form to the whole of God's creation, and opens the adventure of exploring that creation to the man with an open mind.

"The Bible only commissions that believers preach the Gospel and baptize."

That's like saying that a PhD in Mathematics only knows how to add.

""Could you provide specific examples where I equate some with all? I try to avoid sweeping generalizations."

Every time you speak from a pejorative view of Christians who believe that God created the universe, you generalize. You have generalized about Biblical beliefs, the nature of prayer, the attitude of believers ..... in fact, generalization is the most prevalent thing found in your writing.

For the sake of making the point, however:

"If we left everything to religion, we would still be living in the 1st century chasing "demons" out of lepers."

This is a sweeping generalization that suggests that all religions base remediation of illness on faith healing, and that all people who use prayer and faith in their lives are religious zealots who eschew any other possible remedies. It also denies the reality that many if not most of today's believers utilize both prayer and medical science.

" First, there is plenty of evidence for evolutionary doctrine. Second, there is very little doubt that species evolve."

Thank you for making it clear that the object of your faith in evolution is a "doctrine." As for the doubt, well, I suspect paucity only in your kaffeklatch."

[shibumi]

Sorry, I inadvertently left you off the last ping - to#697.

[Quix]

EXCEEDINGLY WELL PUT.

THX.

. . . without offering reason . . .

SOP.

Understandably.

[metmom]

pwnd