The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by bluegospel As I just said, prove this and I'll concede. Otherwise, thank you for your concession.

LOL. There will be no concession, because you're proposing a false dichotomy. Even if my statement is categorically wrong (it's not), yours does not win by default.

But sure, I'll bite. Define "human will."

Originally Posted by ReaperX7 You have also the hardcore zealots of Atheism who attack religion constantly and push anti-religion as an actual religion.

I believe science is full of mistakes, flaws, bias, and misunderstanding, but it gives a good try to paste a picture of whats going on within a reasonable limit, though it claims to be limitless.

The bolded parts are wrong.

Furthermore, I would only have a problem with the "hardcore zealots of Atheism" if their criticisms of religion were invalid. Doing it "constantly" isn't a problem if they could consistently make solid fact-based arguments. Or is there a quota that they can't exceed before you start to disapprove?

Originally Posted by bluegospel As I just said, prove this and I'll concede. Otherwise, thank you for your concession.

The evidence supports the notion that the brain causes the mind, which seems to be what this is ultimately about.

Steven Novella, the Director of Neurology at Yale, laid out nicely what we should predict if the brain causes the mind.

If the brain causes mind, then: 1- Brain states will correlate to mental and behavioral states. 2- Brain maturity will correlate with mental and emotional maturity. 3- Changing the brain’s function (with drugs, electrical or magnetic stimulation, or other methods) will change mental function. 4- Damaging the brain with damage the mind – producing specific deficits that correlate to the area of the brain damaged. 5- There will be no documentable mental phenomena in the absence of brain function. 6- When the brain dies, mental function ends. Three through six are specific to the brain causes mind hypothesis and are not predicted by the mind causes brain hypothesis. There are now countless experiments and cases in which it is clearly demonstrated that doing something to the brain reliably results in a change of the mind. The arrow of causation is clear.

Originally Posted by ReaperX7 For me, I believe God allowed the Big Bang to happen,

Indeed, and soon we will have a God particle, that will explain to all the TRUTH of the WORD of GOD.

HALLELUJAH !!!

While I'm here I think I'll post on determinism again. It is related and I want to clear it up a bit, if not for anyone but myself.

free will - free and independent choice; voluntary decision

determinism - the philosophical doctrine that all events including human actions and choices are fully determined by preceding events and states of affairs, and so that freedom of choice is illusory

fatalism - the philosophical doctrine that all events are predetermined so that man is powerless to alter his destiny

predestination - In theology, the doctrine that all events have been willed by God.

http://dictionary.reference.com/

I would say that everyone can have 100% free will, or 100% determinism/fatalism/predestination if they like, or something in-between. It is your choice

You can do whatever you want to do, taking into account the situations and circumstances around you or you can ignore all that and still do what you want, be it because you believe that your actions do not matter or because your mind is no longer with us.

From a logical standpoint there is a logical gap when trying to integrate the concept of free will and determinism/fatalism/predestination. It exists because the latter are not the opposite of the former. So, the opposite of free will would be possession. Say that you are actually a RC robot, that would be the opposite of free will, where you have absolutely no control over your actions and thus what you do is predetermined. This is of course not the same as the 3 I mentioned earlier. Instead, d/f/p are what I would call parasitic concepts, similar and not unrelated to religion that were developed to enslave your puny mind. They are attempts, like religion, to convince you that you are helpless in this life, and that all you can do is pray and pay and suffer until the non-existent or completely unrelated next one. There is no scientific or logical explanation for why any "preceding events and states of affairs" would limit you to a single possible outcome, except of course a religious or modern science/religion explanation. I challenge anyone to provide a concrete case to disprove this fact.

Also, please stop ignoring reed9's links for transitional fossils. You keep acting like there are none, and he's been trying to make you notice how wrong you are for a while now. Do you know how rare it is for a fossil to be preserved in the right manner, in the right location, so that humans can stumble upon them? Do you know how much more common this process would be for a species that lived three million years, versus the transitional species that eventually got crowded out through natural selection after 10,000 or so? It sounds to me like you'll go to great lengths to ignore mountains of evidence in order to hold on to the notion of your precious god.

The "lists" reed9 linked to are real thing... just, with all due respect, they are NOT the lists of transitional links, they are lists of what THE PUBLISHERS OF THE LISTS BELIEVE to be transitional links.
See the difference? Not all evolutionists agree over these things being truly transitional links. At the very best they are some new species that have certain characteristics, which some scientists recognize as "transitional" while others don't agree.
Then if it is questionable for evolutionists, why should I take them as such?? You might also think twice.

To see that mine are not mere words, please, read this link about Tiktaalik I mentioned before, whose "transitional" character appeared to me as something yet to be proved. It seems I'm not the only one feeling that way. It didn't take too long to find one such link. I KNEW I'd find one and I found it.
Why didn't YOU find it? Are you not interested or do you take other people's word for what it is? Then the example above might make you rethink your position.

The link above well explains the problem with pseudo-transitional species: their "transitional character" is not so well established and agreed upon, that it could be honestly included into such list.
There is archeopterix, which some emotional people believe to be "that missing link", while others admit to its being another species of bird -- weird enough, but bird.
Coelacanth -- was believed to have transitional fins. Was proved to have just different fins, yet fins they are and not "half-palms".
And there is indeed a mountain of such evidence. In some cases questionable and uncertain, in other cases certain to NOT be transitional.

This is the real situation I wanted to show.
Just tell me: are you REALLY unaware of what I described? Or were you just waiting to see if I know this or not?

Originally Posted by kostya To see that mine are not mere words, please, read this link about Tiktaalik Are you not interested or do you take other people's word for what it is?

Is that not exactly what you're doing?

Originally Posted by kostoya Then if it is questionable for evolutionists, why should I take them as such?? You might also think twice.

It always amuses me when creationists use the word "evolutionists", as if evolution is some kind of faith.

Tell me kostoya, do you consider yourself a "gravitationist"? I'm guessing you accept the current scientific theory of gravity therefore you must be a gravitationist for sure.

Originally Posted by kostoya The link above well explains the problem with pseudo-transitional species: their "transitional character" is not so well established and agreed upon, that it could be honestly included into such list. There is archeopterix, which some emotional people believe to be "that missing link", while others admit to its being another species of bird -- weird enough, but bird. Coelacanth -- was believed to have transitional fins. Was proved to have just different fins, yet fins they are and not "half-palms". And there is indeed a mountain of such evidence. In some cases questionable and uncertain, in other cases certain to NOT be transitional.

How about an exercise?
Lets take two real numbers, say 0.0 and 1.0. How many "transitional" numbers are there between that pair?

Originally Posted by SL00b But sure, I'll bite. Define "human will."

Human will is quite powerful but limited. It's the capacity to choose something, and to that end to act on it. I've used the very basic example that if you choose to stand or sit, you have the power to do so (in most cases). Yet some of us are limited in that if they choose to stand and touch the ceiling without jumping they cannot. So there are some things we can do, and some things we can't. These are within or without our free will, respectively. The chief difference between human will and God's will is limitation (which in God's case is moot).

Originally Posted by kostya The "lists" reed9 linked to are real thing... just, with all due respect, they are NOT the lists of transitional links, they are lists of what THE PUBLISHERS OF THE LISTS BELIEVE to be transitional links. See the difference? Not all evolutionists agree over these things being truly transitional links. At the very best they are some new species that have certain characteristics, which some scientists recognize as "transitional" while others don't agree. Then if it is questionable for evolutionists, why should I take them as such?? You might also think twice.

I see more unsupported assertions... but I'll give you that not all scientists agree. I bet you think you're making a point there, though. You're not.

Originally Posted by kostya To see that mine are not mere words, please, read this link about Tiktaalik I mentioned before, whose "transitional" character appeared to me as something yet to be proved. It seems I'm not the only one feeling that way. It didn't take too long to find one such link. I KNEW I'd find one and I found it. Why didn't YOU find it? Are you not interested or do you take other people's word for what it is? Then the example above might make you rethink your position.

Radials are "generally" cylindrical. The panderichthys radial bones "might be" bone fragments. Way to milk those statements for all they're worth. The test here would, naturally, to find further panderichthys fossils with the same bone configurations. And that's what makes the panderichthys so interesting, because it validates the original observations found in Tiktaalik. This is what the TheScientist article is actually saying, but I see your blogger decided to pretend it said something else.

Also, you should read your own link, because it refers to another National Geographic article where they found the genes that express themselves in digit development in sharks, and the genetics indicate only a very small tweak to go from fins to fingers: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...hark-gene.html

Originally Posted by kostya The link above well explains the problem with pseudo-transitional species: their "transitional character" is not so well established and agreed upon, that it could be honestly included into such list. There is archeopterix, which some emotional people believe to be "that missing link", while others admit to its being another species of bird -- weird enough, but bird. Coelacanth -- was believed to have transitional fins. Was proved to have just different fins, yet fins they are and not "half-palms". And there is indeed a mountain of such evidence. In some cases questionable and uncertain, in other cases certain to NOT be transitional.

I've never heard of any claim to archaeopterix being "another species of bird." It's a feathered dinosaur, representing an important step in the middle of the transition between dinosaur and bird. It was recently in the news as a genetic study kicked it out of the bird lineage altogether... but it was replaced by another transitional dinosaur/bird very similar to it, so it's not like the theory of transition was invalidated. If anything, it was further confirmed. But then, one of the places where the fossil record has been particularly rich is in feathered dinosaurs. http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dino...archaeopteryx/

As for the coelacanth, we've got a lot of information on those, as it turned out the thing wasn't extinct after all, and we've actually seen it move in ways suggestive of limbs, as it alternates fin movements much like how a horse trots: http://animals.nationalgeographic.co...sh/coelacanth/

Originally Posted by kostya This is the real situation I wanted to show. Just tell me: are you REALLY unaware of what I described? Or were you just waiting to see if I know this or not?

I was wondering which horribly biased, scientifically irresponsible sources you were using to inform your opinions, so that's a question at least partially answered. You'd do better to get your science from scientific sources in the future.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Human will is quite powerful but limited. It's the capacity to choose something, and to that end to act on it. I've used the very basic example that if you choose to stand or sit, you have the power to do so (in most cases). Yet some of us are limited in that if they choose to stand and touch the ceiling without jumping they cannot. So there are some things we can do, and some things we can't. These are within or without our free will, respectively. The chief difference between human will and God's will is limitation (which in God's case is moot).

LOL... so human will is a conscious act to move the body? This is turning out easier than I thought.

That brings me right back to my simple test, then. Cut the nerves connecting the brain to any part of your body, and then see if you can move it. If you can, I'll concede that the brain is not in control, and that opens up the idea of a "soul" doing the work as a possibility worth investigating.

Originally Posted by dugan Is that not exactly what you're doing?

I doubt that you read my post carefully... but you will see now the answer. Just read on.

... And this phrase:

Originally Posted by reed9 There are plenty of them, but even with NONE, the evidence from other areas is overwhelming.

may be explanation of why they keep those lists, although the species are not exactly transitional.
They're sure the victory of evolution has already taken place!
They publish those species not as some VERY IMPORTANT evidence of evolution, which must be carefully verified and presented, but just as a working example illustrating the theory already proved 101%. This attitude is often visible in other "evidence" as well.

Of course, not all scientists agree with this approach. Now read carefully.
WHY IS IT that their fellow-evolutionists would not agree to recognize species as "transitional"? Why wouldn't they just hold their tongue and celebrate the victory?
Clearly, because they believe in the existence of REAL transitional species and expect these to be found. And as they know WHAT a real transitional species must be, they don't want to accept anything else.
Now since these questionable "transitional species" don't satisfy some earnest believers in evolution, why should I accept them as "transitional"?
And whose opinion should I trust sooner: of the ones who easily recognize fossils as transitional, or those "hard to please"? I naturally suggest the latter are more earnest in their study.

So I hope you see now, I'm not "just taking other people's words".

Originally Posted by SL00b I've never heard of any claim to archaeopterix being "another species of bird." It's a feathered dinosaur, representing an important step in the middle of the transition between dinosaur and bird. It was recently in the news as a genetic study kicked it out of the bird lineage altogether... but it was replaced by another transitional dinosaur/bird very similar to it, so it's not like the theory of transition was invalidated. If anything, it was further confirmed. But then, one of the places where the fossil record has been particularly rich is in feathered dinosaurs. http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dino...archaeopteryx/

My mistake, I apologise. The point was it was not a link.

Originally Posted by SL00b Radials are "generally" cylindrical. The panderichthys radial bones "might be" bone fragments. Way to milk those statements for all they're worth. The test here would, naturally, to find further panderichthys fossils with the same bone configurations. And that's what makes the panderichthys so interesting, because it validates the original observations found in Tiktaalik.

That fin of Tiktaalik shown on the photo also "might be" anything you want, with all due respect. And I agree, it won't hurt to find some more to see what it actually is.