The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by kostya They're sure the victory of evolution has already taken place!

It has taken place, it's called DNA. Even if we had no fossils at all, the DNA evidence is undeniable (so much so that DNA testing is accepted in courts of law to decide the fate of a defendant).
The fact is that the "tree" of life predicted using the few fossils we have lines up nicely with the tree built by DNA sequencing.

And as Sloob already told you before, scientists aren't interested in declaring any one side "victorious". Science is objective, which means that if the DNA evidence contradicted evolution by natural selection then it would still have been a "victory" because we would have weeded out something false from our collective knowledge.

However, DNA confirmed previous predictions. For over 200 years the theory has stood up to scrutiny. Denying it is the same as denying gravity or electromagnetism.

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.

*sigh* ALL SCIENCE IS PROVISIONAL. Everything can be questioned. Science is messy, there are details yet to be worked out.

Your Archaeopteryx example and the decision to remove it from the avian family line is an example of good science, and how things change based on evidence.

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.

Oh my God. A creationist attorney has doubts about evolution!!! I'm shocked, shocked I say. Well that does it. I'm all turned around on the matter.

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.

The existence of transitional fossils is established and agreed upon by real scientists who are experts in the field. Creationist attorneys notwithstanding.

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'm aware of it, it's just that the Discovery Institute is a joke.

Originally Posted by reed9 The evidence supports the notion that the brain causes the mind, which seems to be what this is ultimately about.

I think you've identified precisely what this is about, but this excerpt doesn't sufficiently answer the question.

Originally Posted by reed9 Steven Novella, the Director of Neurology at Yale, laid out nicely what we should predict if the brain causes the mind.

I'm not arguing that the brain isn't a cause, but that it's a secondary cause, and not independent of other causes, of mind. It's obvious that mental states may be altered, damaged or otherwise affected directly through physical applications to the brain, and that states of brain maturity can correspond to mental maturity.

The brain is extremely powerful. But it is subject to mind. I can't prove it. Nor can you or anybody prove otherwise. Yet common sense says that this life--this ability to see and live--is more than just matter.

Originally Posted by bluegospel The brain is extremely powerful. But it is subject to mind. I can't prove it. Nor can you or anybody prove otherwise. Yet common sense says that this life--this ability to see and live--is more than just matter.

Even if common sense did say that, which I do not grant, it's immaterial. There's plenty of examples of true things that defy common sense. Our intuitions are not a reliable guide to truth. If it's obvious that "mental states may be altered, damaged or otherwise affected directly through physical applications to the brain, and that states of brain maturity can correspond to mental maturity", what is so common sense about thinking the brain is subject to the mind (whatever, indeed mind is, which is not at all clear).

Originally Posted by SL00b you've failed to demonstrate a working definition of "soul," much less anything that confirms said definition.

Okay. Imagine having never had any sense of sight, hearing, touching, tasting or smelling, and yet having a language of thought, and being aware. That's your soul. Spirit is the source of these others, and yet more that we do not comprehend.

As far as "confirming" my definition, many testify about the soul, yet defining the soul comes through personal revelation.

Originally Posted by reed9 (whatever, indeed mind is, which is not at all clear).

Brain is the physical thing. Mind is the perception of anything, allegedly, solely through the brain.

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

I saw you demonstrate the opposite. Every word of the nonsense that you posted above came entirely from taking the words of people who said what you already wanted to hear.

Including, of course, the Discovery Institute link that you waved in our faces as support for your position. Which I highlighted as an example.

HINT: everything that you think you know about evolution came from reading creationist websites and is therefore wrong.

Which some scientists recognize as "transitional" while others don't agree.

And this is a typical example.

I'm curious kostya, what is your fundamental point of view? Reading some of your posts I assume you are Christian--you believe the Bible?

Originally Posted by easuter It has taken place, it's called DNA. Even if we had no fossils at all, the DNA evidence is undeniable (so much so that DNA testing is accepted in courts of law to decide the fate of a defendant). The fact is that the "tree" of life predicted using the few fossils we have lines up nicely with the tree built by DNA sequencing. And as Sloob already told you before, scientists aren't interested in declaring any one side "victorious". Science is objective, which means that if the DNA evidence contradicted evolution by natural selection then it would still have been a "victory" because we would have weeded out something false from our collective knowledge. However, DNA confirmed previous predictions. For over 200 years the theory has stood up to scrutiny. Denying it is the same as denying gravity or electromagnetism.

I have no doubt that DNA confirms evolution. Why should it not, if everything else confirms it?
Just it confirms intelligent creation much better in my opinion. You know: intelligent design, highly complicated structure and all that. And since DNA evidence is accepted in courts, I can respect it as well.

OK. I don't pretend to have more information than I do, but neither do I have enough time to study every turn of evolution theory and every piece of evidence in order to check it all myself and in the end come to the same conclusions as I already have.
So I thank everyone for his personal point of view, something which I appreciate far more than links and redirections.
Just with these links it is never a dialogue but footballing one another from one authority to another. But it is not authorities who make decisions about what we should believe, it has to be ourselves.
So I wanted to read personal points of view instead of external links and you were kind enough to share yours.

I know evolution is fiction and I also care to weed out something false from our collective knowledge, so here
is one noble goal we have in common . But I hope you will take care of that.
And I will discuss the Bible with them who're interested.

Originally Posted by bluegospel I'm curious kostya, what is your fundamental point of view? Reading some of your posts I assume you are Christian--you believe the Bible?

I believe the Bible and apply it in everyday life. My fundamental point of view is that God gave us his Word so that we could find guidance in most important areas of life. That his Word is as it is said to be in 2Timothy 2:16,17. And of course, that his Word is Truth.

Originally Posted by kostya I have no doubt that DNA confirms evolution. Why should it not, if everything else confirms it?

The fact that everything we know confirms it is why we have confidence it's true. I linked earlier to examples of things which, if discovered, would disconfirm it. It's not our fault the evidence supports our position and not yours.

OK. I don't pretend to have more information than I do, but neither do I have enough time to study every turn of evolution theory and every piece of evidence in order to check it all myself and in the end come to the same conclusions as I already have.

Yup, religious thinking in a nutshell. I don't know what it says, I don't want to find out, and my certainty will be unchanged no matter what the evidence or truth of the matter. Thank you for demonstrating why I loathe religion.

Originally Posted by bluegospel As far as "confirming" my definition, many testify about the soul, yet defining the soul comes through personal revelation.

And here is where we fundamentally part ways in how we think about things. I will never ever ever accept anything through personal revelation. The whole idea of doing so is abhorrent to me. I think it's a terrible thing, self-centered and arrogant, and runs counter to every notion of open-mindedness, curiosity, thoughtfulness, and wonder.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Okay. Imagine having never had any sense of sight, hearing, touching, tasting or smelling, and yet having a language of thought, and being aware. That's your soul. Spirit is the source of these others, and yet more that we do not comprehend.

Does that mean only humans have souls? It is always amusing when people automatically assume they're superior to everything else. If a "soul" exist, then (IMO) every living thing should have it.

If a "soul" exist, then (IMO) every living thing should have it.

IMO, if "souls" exist (which is highly doubtful), they should "exist" in anything sentient, be it carbon-based life as we know it, or anything else (even a sentient AI).

Originally Posted by dugan Every word of the nonsense that you posted above came entirely from taking the words of people who said what you already wanted to hear.

We all are looking for something we want to hear or to find. This is not wrong, this is our nature. Just it is important to make sure that what you're looking for is to your benefit and not otherwise.

HINT: everything that you think you know about evolution came from reading creationist websites and is therefore wrong. And this is a typical example.

Not only . There are various sources, and since you were kind enough to admit to existence of people who're saying what I "like to hear", then I will say there are such ones among evolutionists, too. They, too, sometimes say what I like to hear.
And the conclusions -- they are mine to make.

Originally Posted by kostya I have no doubt that DNA confirms evolution. Why should it not, if everything else confirms it? Just it confirms intelligent creation much better in my opinion. You know: intelligent design, highly complicated structure and all that. And since DNA evidence is accepted in courts, I can respect it as well. OK. I don't pretend to have more information than I do, but neither do I have enough time to study every turn of evolution theory and every piece of evidence in order to check it all myself and in the end come to the same conclusions as I already have. So I thank everyone for his personal point of view, something which I appreciate far more than links and redirections. Just with these links it is never a dialogue but footballing one another from one authority to another. But it is not authorities who make decisions about what we should believe, it has to be ourselves. So I wanted to read personal points of view instead of external links and you were kind enough to share yours. I know evolution is fiction and I also care to weed out something false from our collective knowledge, so here is one noble goal we have in common . But I hope you will take care of that. And I will discuss the Bible with them who're interested.

kostoya, complexity is not necessarily caused by intelligence. The functioning of a termite hive is extremely complex, as is the structure itself yet the creatures who built it are devoid of any form of higher intelligence, let alone sentience.

Our very own bodies are an example of several smaller systems "duct taped" onto one another to form a complex and functioning super-system. However it is inefficient, extremely fragile, and has certain key systems placed close together when they should clearly be as independent from each other as possible (example: reproductive and urinary systems should not share the same "plumbing" - it's like making a hospital share the same facilities as a sewage treatment plant).
This is not the hallmark of a good engineer. It is exactly the kind of thing you would expect to happen in a system that changes slowly over time, where certain initial "features" can no longer be removed or relocated.

If you want to claim that your god created life, at the very very least you have to admit he/she is a terrible engineer. Yet you still claim he/she has infinite wisdom and knowledge. This just doesn't add up.