Quote: Original post by d000hg
What exactly would have to happen before you'd question the possibility of outside intervention?

fossillized rabbits in the Precambrian [grin]

Ok, he was talking about evolution, but the point remains. I will accept the possibility of divine intervention when I see some real evidence for it. And given the nature of the topic, where there has been no evidence at all so far, and the vested interests of many parties, it'd have to be pretty solid.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Quote: Original post by d000hg
I'd like to see you perform a scientific experiment to test evolution.

Like this one?

There are also many applications of evolutionary principles outside biology, which have shown the basic idea of variation and selection simply works.

Quote: Original post by d000hg
...scientists can measure gravity to one part in a million, but they only agree on the age of the universe to the nearest few billion years....

is it just me or does this make no sense... first, one in a million is less accurate than two in a billion. And second, you are comparing a easily reproducible event (in the Newtonian sense of the phenomenon) to an unobservable event 14 billion years ago? And third, gravity isn't even that well understood and several anomalous events have been observed that any current theory of gravity cannot account for.

Does that mean that you don't believe in gravity? No, because its obvious that 'gravity' is real, and current theories take a best guess at describing the phenomenon. I've never understood why its such a stretch for some people once 'evolution' is the topic of conversation. Simple organisms "evolve" all the time (see viruses and antibiotic resistant bacteria). Yes, it happens.

The Bible tells me to burn things.

Quote: Original post by Hodgman
Crazy people can say that the bible tells them to do anything...

And so can nominally rational people. There is often as much biblical evidence for the sane beliefs as there is for the insane ones. Unfortunately, the thought process for both the crazy and non-crazy Christian is the same: Accept revealed truth but heavily edit it according to your own prejudices. When one of the prevailing prejudices happens to be the religion-neutral ethical standards of the society the believer lives in, you end up with the "reasonable" Christian, but buying into revealed truth is never reasonable, regardless of the end result of the mental editing process.

Quote: Original post by WillC
If we’re assuming God exists and we’re assuming that he created the life we see around us, then we have to be talking about a really evil nasty piece of work. One that has created a massive amount of suffering on a daily basis for the vast majority of life on earth which is struggling to just to survive.

But wait. If you're going to tally up the volume and magnitude of suffering shouldn't you account for all the other states of being out there before you make your final judgment? Choosing to look at only one aspect of life seems to be a cynic's approach. What about the orgasms, the sunrises, the anticipation and boredom and planning and triumph and all the other stuff that goes with life?

Or would you argue that suffering invalidates all of this?

If so, it seems to me, culturally speaking, that this emphasis on suffering above all else as a measure for validating one's philosophical views is an artifact born of the hypersensitivity of our times. We've grown soft. Yeah, shit hurts. And for some of us it hurts for a long time, maybe even the majority or totality of our time here. But unless that's the only or dominant state of existence for all I don't think it says much about life or the nature of whatever you may or may not believe its purpose is (including the nature of the divine).

Quote:
It seems equally plausible to me that he’s actually pretty pissed off that we’ve got so smart, ‘cus we’re ruining his fun game of watching animals on earth suffer in the struggle for survival.

Which if you seriously take that view would put you in the role of victorious victim. You're getting screwed, but you're adapting, getting stronger and stronger, taking something else's joy in your rising invulnerability to it's whims until... what? The game's over? And then what happens? You're forever free from suffering?

Sounds like heaven to me.

Again, culturally speaking (and by no means a direct swipe at you because this is such a prevailing theme, this meticulous attention to suffering) it's odd to me that its become such a popular belief in some circles that we benefit only from those things that make us feel good.

Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine
I think this quote from Sir David Attenborough sums it up nicely.

Quote:
My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And , 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each &#111;ne of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'.<!–QUOTE–></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE><!–/QUOTE–><!–ENDQUOTE–><!–QUOTE–></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE><!–/QUOTE–><!–ENDQUOTE–><br><br>Well, at the risk of being dumped in the same bin as the creationists (please, shoot me now) I have to say that I come to a different view looking at the same evidence. I think it's very useful to look at the motivational power of negative circumstances. That a child becomes blind because of a parasite is horrible if you stop right there. After all, aren't there some implicit assumptions about equality in terms of life and pursuit of happiness? The child is innocent in the moment, nevermind who he or she will grow up to be.<br><br>Yet I wonder how this situation motivates this hypothetical person in life and all the other people who perceive his or her situation. What strengths and abilities does this handicap give someone who we should see as disadvantaged? See if we're stuck in a cotton-candy philosophy that tells us that we're special, that nothing will ever happen to us and that we have the right to whatever it is that we want &#111;n this earth <i>by din of simply wanting it,</i> I think we're in for a lot of bitterness and disappointment. Such a universe will appear meaningless and cruel because it runs so contrary to our comfort. <br><br>Nevermind that we haven't decently answered the question of why each of us is here.<br><br>I can't speak to a Biblical view of God because I don't believe in that, but I do believe in seeking meaning in what is. In my own life, when my own suffering causes me to decry my situation something in me pops up and counters, "what makes you think that this is wrong? Because it hurts? There are things that feel great that are awful and things that feel horrible that have made you what you are now."<br><br>I can't help but wonder if we lived in some parallel universe where we never experienced hardship, never had to rely &#111;n &#111;ne another and never needed anything from anyone just how much we'd give a crap about what's going &#111;n in the lives of those around us.

Quote: Original post by Hodgman

Quote: Original post by d000hg
I'd like to see you perform a scientific experiment to test evolution. They are not in the same league at all.

Ok -- here's one. Get 2 adults, get them to have a child. Compare the parents DNA to the childs DNA.
Does the child have DNA from both parents (and perhaps a few random mutations too)? If so, evolution just occurred.

Here's another one: put 50 species of insects in a toxic environment. Wait 3 months to see which species survived the hostile environment. Did some species survive while others didnt? If so, natural selection just occurred. Are the new generations of these insects more resilient to this environment than the original specimens? If so, generational evolution just occurred.

Neither of those is evolution. Changes in DNA during reproduction is proof of mutation only, not beneficial mutation. Proof that strong individuals have an advantage over weaker ones is not a proof of evolution.

Like I say, this doesn't mean evolution is bunk, anymore than cosmology is bunk. But it's not experimental in the same way as gravity. With gravity you set up a prediction, perform some tests and measure the result... cause and effect. With evolution/cosmology, you try to figure out what already happened and fit a theory to it. Maybe you can still make predictions that allow searching in your data... but you are not performing an experiment.

Quote: Original post by d000hg
Neither of those is evolution. Changes in DNA during reproduction is proof of mutation only, not beneficial mutation. Proof that strong individuals have an advantage over weaker ones is not a proof of evolution.

Evolution does not have good mutations and bad mutations; there are just mutations. The mutations that survive get to propagate, those that don't, don't.
Is dog breeding evolution, or would you discount it as just being "selective mutation"?
What about "Are the new generations of these insects more resilient to this environment than the original specimens? If so, generational evolution just occurred."?
What about the link itachi posted (more info on that experiment here, including proof of adaptation)?

Quote: Like I say, this doesn't mean evolution is bunk, anymore than cosmology is bunk. But it's not experimental in the same way as gravity. With gravity you set up a prediction, perform some tests and measure the result... cause and effect.

Yes, it is the same. Otherwise it would not be a scientific theory. Stop closing your eyes/ears.
As for cosmology, do you think we just build space telescopes to collect random data, or could it be possible different instruments are built to experimentally test specific theoretical predictions?

Quote: With evolution/cosmology, you try to figure out what already happened and fit a theory to it ... but you are not performing an experiment.

I've already told you that this is false, to no effect. If you're happy deluding yourself, fine. Otherwise, there is always google. While you're at it, you should read the link ChaosEngine posted, as it can probably correct all your myths better than we can.