God's purpose

[jimbob]

This isn't a spelling bee, but that should be Homo Floresiensis and Denisovans.

Yup, I was careless and pushed for time on my phone...

 

[Navigator]

Let's use words the way they're commonly used. I'm a little disappointed that I thought I was discussing evolution with someone who genuinely had some knowledge about it and wanted to learn more and discuss informed opinions, and now I find out you think it's just something expanded on and taught by atheists, so it can't be trusted.

Why are you twisting my words then Pup?

I have made it clear that my impressions of hard atheists and how they use the theory of evolution to hold up their belief that humans are nothing special, make the theory suspect. Humans are obviously something special.

You attempt to link me with theoretical material which will convince me that humans are nothing special.

And then you complain when I say 'no thanks'.

(even the JW who knocked on my door the other week and wanted to leave behind some reading material didn't complain when I said 'no thanks.')

Now if you were to tell me that the theory of evolution doesn;t say any such thing and that hard atheist just choose to interpret it that way, then I would say 'well great!.'

Perhaps the problem here is that you cannot really believe that some atheists are as much liars as some theists, but whatever.

Just a reminder, I have never said evolution was bull. It is fascinating stuff but doesn't compel me to believe it can only work without intelligent design.

This is because it is a theory which describes the workings of something which could still be a simulation.

Obviously it has it uses but I have seen enough of the theory to recognize the intelligence of the process therein and I have also explained why humans have an obvious purpose in relation to the universe and form they occupy.

 

[Jodie]

All or nothing! No middle ground of a combination of the two?

An analogy. Assume you are a passenger in a self-driving car. The car was designed and made to get you from your starting point to your destination. But it seems that there is an unforeseen event (as happened with a big truck making a turn across the car's path) that input from the driver is required.

With evolution, the path is set (programmed if you want) to produce the stars, planets and galaxies. And for a planet such as Earth to evolve life, and ultimately intelligent life. This is a totally deterministic universe requiring no input from God once he starts the process. He might as well not exist, and he has no purpose since man has no free will and he knows everything that will happen. (Some people do believe this to be the case.)

But what if God is either not able to pre-program the entire universe from t=0 to t=infinity, or he does not wish to pre-program in order to give man free will?

He would then require one or maybe more strategies. Intervene now and then to guide the process, or rewind time and make an undetectable correction.

Darwin explained evolution by natural selection. This explanation does not exclude God as much as many atheists would like to think it does. Can you or anyone else provide evidence that says that subtle (or should I say non-detectable) intervention has not taken place?

I think you would first have to prove that God thinks like a human in order to guess at his motivations. What if God isn't what we think he is? As in the biblical man with the long white beard sitting up in heaven on a throne type God? I can't get past that point to even guess at whether this existence is all preprogrammed or happenstance.

The only conclusion that I could draw is that everything you see is one big synergistic organism and we just do our little individual part to contribute to a greater whole, just like my gut bacteria has no idea that I need to go get groceries. Those same groceries will eventually make their way into my gut and for all my e-coli know, that food they process is manna from heaven.

 

[Pup]

Why are you twisting my words then Pup?

I have made it clear that my impressions of hard atheists and how they use the theory of evolution to hold up their belief that humans are nothing special, make the theory suspect.

This seemed something new, a new admission that you distrusted evolution not because you'd studied it and found it lacking, but because you didn't like the kinds of people who taught it. It was "taught according to strong atheist alphas and as such it can't be trusted..."

I thought we were discussing the elements of the theory and that perhaps, by explaining it better, I could show that what you thought were mistakes, really weren't. That your conception of evolution used to be common, but had changed in the 20th Century. That "advanced" really wasn't a stand-alone word and needed a modifier, but if you added a modifier so I understood what you were asking, I'd probably agree.

Now it seems that everything I said was wasted, because it was all about me and others as people, not about the actual evidence or logic behind the theory.

Is that not accurate? What's inaccurate about it? I don't want to twist your words and didn't realize I was.

Humans are obviously something special.

You attempt to link me with theoretical material which will convince me that humans are nothing special.

Well, that's the theory of evolution as it stands today. I wanted to show that I was accurately reporting modern mainstream science, not going off on my own quirky interpretation.

If you just want to reject it because you don't like the people involved, well, reject away. Knowledge about science wouldn't matter.

Though I'd suggest at least getting the people right. Theists and soft atheists probably make up the majority of teachers/writers on evolution. I have no way of knowing the religious beliefs of the people who wrote those pages, but that's the point. One can't tell. The science is the same. A biologist who was Christian, Jewish, hard atheist, or soft atheist would describe the current theory of evolution the same way, just as a Christian, Jewish, hard or soft atheist astronomer would describe the solar system the same way, regardless.

Perhaps the problem here is that you cannot really believe that some atheists are as much liars as some theists, but whatever.

Huh? Who's lying?

Really, it doesn't matter, because I'm done. If we're discussing facts, evidence, information and science, I'll do it all day, because it's fun to share information, and the basis behind the modern theory of evolution is something I enjoy discussing.

If it becomes clear that the person I'm talking with thinks such stuff can't be trusted because it's taught by people like me, then we've left the science building and are in the courtyard where the mean girls hang out.

I'm going back into the science building.

 

[Emily's Cat]

4/3rds of Americans don't understand fractions you know.

Wow, what a sorry state... I though the proportion would be higher

 

[Emily's Cat]

You are obviously misrepresenting what I have written.

No... I really don't think I've misrepresented anything that you've written.

My point had everything to to with the particular species called 'ape' and in that regard, yes, we are indeed a special kind of ape. Not just the same in the way a dog and a wolf are the same. We are more evolved than any other ape.

By your logic, chimpanzees are special kinds of apes. Gorillas are also special kinds of apes. Every species within a genus or a family is a special kind of that animal. Heck, every species is a special kind of something. There's a reason that the root words for species and special are the same

We are not more evolved.

"More evolved" assumes a hierarchy to evolution, where there is none. Which was the entire second half of my post:

The error in your approach, as I see it, is that the designation of "special" presupposes that there's a hierarchy to evolution - that there's a "better than", or a "more evolved" state. There's no hierarchy. It assumes that humans are "more evolved" than chimpanzees or cats or cockroaches. We're not.

We've simply evolved along a different path that passed on different traits, and those traits benefit us as a species very well. But we're not "better evolved" or "more evolved" than any other animal in existence.

 

[Navigator]

Darwin explained evolution by natural selection. This explanation does not exclude God as much as many atheists would like to think it does.

I agree with this but only in relation to my experience with atheists and their use of the theory in order to bolster their particular outlook on life in regard to either their lack of belief in god(s) or their belief that god(s) do not exist.

Having not read anything the old fosil wrote I cannot say if any of the reasons Darwin developed the theory had anything to do with his own outlook in that regard.

However, it is easy enough to see that science in itself is not any kind of way of determining whether or not god(s) exist and cannot be used for that purpose. Any scientists who try to do so are essentially barking up the wrong tree and misusing science.

Like I said, I don't know if Darwin was one such type of scientist mixing personal belief with scientific evidence and then proclaiming 'god does not exist' but certainly many atheists do give that impression.

Can you or anyone else provide evidence that says that subtle (or should I say non-detectable) intervention has not taken place?

The argument being that 'God does things in the background, undetectable for that'?

One can set the machine into motion, insert consciousness into the simulation, subtly tweak the programs so that the consciousness within it remains unaware of your existence and then observe how a whole planet of conscious beings - especially the special being called 'Human' reacts to the predicament and handles the experience.

Obviously the question of GOD hasn't gone away but how to explain the actions of the 'undetectable being' remaining hidden?

From my own observations of the data, the phrase 'hidden in plain sight' goes some way to explaining this concept. Everything we know of as being conscious is an aspect of GOD and thus we humans are aspects of GOD but due to the particular nature of our experience - the only beginning we remember is one which has no memory of anything prior and as far as we are concerned we are 'human' - then part of our response as humans is to find ways of explaining WHY we exist (thus 'ideas of gods') whereas evolution's theories only deal with ideas related to things which can be observed as physically existing and no question of "WHY" is necessary in relation to that.

Science of itself is more than just the theory of evolution though and through it applications we can as humans, obtain reason as we progress in understanding and knowledge.

The idea the theory of evolution produces is that everything is all just a mindless accident and this tempts the individual to see no significant reason for being, but even so, reason is evident in the way we naturally use our position and our abilities to create reason for being...we are doing the only things we can with what we have.

That in itself does not prove or disprove the existence of god(s). The idea that we are the gods and altogether we are the God (at least in relation to this planet) and not just 'we' the human being, but all of consciousness...'all critters great and small'...hidden in plain sight...

Then there is another aspect of this - the Gaia idea. That in itself can explain why - if there is a 'god' it is 'hidden' - as a planet as well as being responsible for the creation of all living things on the planet and being the very consciousness within all living things on the planet...essentially the being where all the human ideas of god (including the abrahamic male alpha idea of god) originate from.

Now how is the use of any science able to ascertain if the actual planet is a living conscious being?

 

[Navigator]

This seemed something new, a new admission that you distrusted evolution not because you'd studied it and found it lacking, but because you didn't like the kinds of people who taught it. It was "taught according to strong atheist alphas and as such it can't be trusted..."

I thought we were discussing the elements of the theory and that perhaps, by explaining it better, I could show that what you thought were mistakes, really weren't. That your conception of evolution used to be common, but had changed in the 20th Century. That "advanced" really wasn't a stand-alone word and needed a modifier, but if you added a modifier so I understood what you were asking, I'd probably agree.

Now it seems that everything I said was wasted, because it was all about me and others as people, not about the actual evidence or logic behind the theory.

Is that not accurate? What's inaccurate about it? I don't want to twist your words and didn't realize I was.

Are you not using even the more modern up to date theory you speak of here as a means of saying (as a hard atheist) that GOD does not exist?

If so, then yes, I would question that and suspect the data is tught from that position Pup.

If not, then sure - As I said, I will find time to have a read up on the link you gave regarding what you referred to as " Punctuated equilibrium"

Well, that's the theory of evolution as it stands today. I wanted to show that I was accurately reporting modern mainstream science, not going off on my own quirky interpretation.

If you just want to reject it because you don't like the people involved, well, reject away. Knowledge about science wouldn't matter.

Though I'd suggest at least getting the people right. Theists and soft atheists probably make up the majority of teachers/writers on evolution. I have no way of knowing the religious beliefs of the people who wrote those pages, but that's the point. One can't tell. The science is the same. A biologist who was Christian, Jewish, hard atheist, or soft atheist would describe the current theory of evolution the same way, just as a Christian, Jewish, hard or soft atheist astronomer would describe the solar system the same way, regardless.

Well if that is all you are saying, what is the fuss about the theory anyway? I don't quite understand your position on this.

Huh? Who's lying?

Really, it doesn't matter, because I'm done. If we're discussing facts, evidence, information and science, I'll do it all day, because it's fun to share information, and the basis behind the modern theory of evolution is something I enjoy discussing.

If it becomes clear that the person I'm talking with thinks such stuff can't be trusted because it's taught by people like me, then we've left the science building and are in the courtyard where the mean girls hang out.

I'm going back into the science building.

Like I asked. 'What then is the fuss?' How come the theory of evolution is applicable as a device to argue against the thread topic even?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If I gassed you with helium to kill you, and the doctors said you died of natural causes, does that mean that no intervention took place? Helium or argon gassing leaves no detectable trace that I am aware of.

I'm pretty sure they'd both leave behind signs that would point to a lack of oxygen, which would lead investigators to consider reasonable causes of suffocation.

 

[Navigator]

"More evolved" assumes a hierarchy to evolution, where there is none. Which was the entire second half of my post:

Assuming a hierarchy isn't in itself a bad thing. There is simply no denying the evidence that humans are far different than any other ape and indeed, the fact that we name things and collect significant data and every other thing which we do so differently from other apes shows clearly that in nature - specifically in human nature, hierarchy exists as a reality and is not necessarily for that - a bad thing either.

Not saying that the notion of hierarchy cannot be used for good or for evil purposes, but only that it exists as a reality - even in relation to the social structures of all the various species on the planet.

I bet even you could name those aspects of the critter kingdom which have hierarchies...not because humans have named them such, but because humans have observed them as being real things.


Tell me who is the head of the:

Bees
Wolves
Elephants
Chickens


See? Hierarchy structures are evident in nature (evolution) and to think otherwise is simply not seeing the wood for the trees.

Pecking order is a natural outcome of this process.

 

[ynot]

Assuming a hierarchy isn't in itself a bad thing. There is simply no denying the evidence that humans are far different than any other ape and indeed, the fact that we name things and collect significant data and every other thing which we do so differently from other apes shows clearly that in nature - specifically in human nature, hierarchy exists as a reality and is not necessarily for that - a bad thing either.

Not saying that the notion of hierarchy cannot be used for good or for evil purposes, but only that it exists as a reality - even in relation to the social structures of all the various species on the planet.

I bet even you could name those aspects of the critter kingdom which have hierarchies...not because humans have named them such, but because humans have observed them as being real things.

Tell me who is the head of the:

Bees
Wolves
Elephants
Chickens

See? Hierarchy structures are evident in nature (evolution) and to think otherwise is simply not seeing the wood for the trees.

Pecking order is a natural outcome of this process.

You're dancing too far away from the music.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I would most appreciate Navigator's answer but anyone can play.

Theoretical scenario . . .
An atheist has caused the deaths of some people and is about to cause the deaths of more. You have the ability to cause the death of the atheist to prevent her from causing more deaths of these people that include children, women and members of your own family. Would causing the death of the atheist be good or evil?

ETA - There is no other way to prevent the atheist from causing the deaths than causing her death.

My answer:

In this case, killing the atheist is an "evil" act that produces a less-evil outcome. The action of killing is, on my scale, immoral. The net effect, however, is a reduction in the net immorality of the group. That doesn't make it a good action though - an evil act done for excellent reason can be excused and mitigated, but it never becomes a good act. A lesser evil is still an evil

 

[Emily's Cat]

When all is said and done, the facts informed me.

What facts are those?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The purpose of humanity is to pass on our genes. Same purpose of everything else alive.

Amen

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well biologists must only focus on the form rather than how differently the form works for humans than for all the other apes and biologist mustn't have noticed that all other family related animals are all too similar to one another, except for the humans re the apes.

No, they're not all so similar to each other, and humans so very different. They're all very different from one another in about the same degree to which humans differ from other apes.

You're focusing on only one or two characteristics, and ignoring all the multitude of other characteristics at play. Gorillas and chimpanzees are just as different from each other as we are from them. We are vastly different in terms of only a couple of characteristics: intelligence and language... and we're not even that far apart in terms of language. Both can be taught to understand and communicate in sign language - they lack the same physical constructions needed for complex linguistics, and they lack a formal method of passing down learned things, but they possess the capacity for language just as we do. Gorillas are far different from humans in terms of strength, chimpanzees are far different from humans in terms of climbing.

If you cherry pick the suite of characteristics, you can say that any animal is far different to all others in its family, simply because it has some characteristic the others don't. That's what you've been doing: cherry picking what characteristics you focus on in order to try to make a case that humans are far, far different... "more evolved" and have a "purpose" that other animals lack. None of those things are true.

 

[ynot]

Are you not using even the more modern up to date theory you speak of here as a means of saying (as a hard atheist) that GOD does not need to exist?

FTFY

 

[Pup]

Are you not using even the more modern up to date theory you speak of here as a means of saying (as a hard atheist) that GOD does not exist?

I would say that evolution and natural selection show how animals got to be as they are, without needing a god to create them. That's one of the obvious questions one must answer, if one hypothesizes there is no god.

Others in this thread are already explaining how they could reconcile god with evolution. Theists do that in a million ways, because so many theists accept evolution, including teaching it. The theory doesn't prove there is no god, it just shows there could be no god.

Well if that is all you are saying, what is the fuss about the theory anyway?

I wonder the same thing. Conservative Christians get really upset over it and other gullible people apparently copy their fear. It contradicts a literal reading of Genesis, of course, but a lot of Christians already read parts of the Bible metaphorically.

Despite Christian attempts over the years to fight it on Biblical grounds, it's become standard mainstream science these days, refined and tweaked after 150 years of fossil discoveries, not to mention genetics and DNA which weren't even known to Darwin but haven't contradicted his original work.

One could say, what was the fuss over heliocentrism, which is also standard mainstream science today. But it had a poor start too, from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

"Religious opposition to heliocentrism arose from Biblical references such as Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 which include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place."
...
Galileo wrote a letter to Castelli in which he argued that heliocentrism was actually not contrary to biblical texts, and that the bible was an authority on faith and morals, not on science. This letter was not published, but circulated widely.

By 1615 Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the Roman Inquisition by Father Niccolo Lorini, who claimed that Galileo and his followers were attempting to reinterpret the Bible...

Yet despite all his power, the pope couldn't stop belief in an accurate scientific premise from being accepted by virtually everyone in a few hundred years. "The dogs bark but the caravan [science] moves on," as the saying goes.

Like I asked. 'What then is the fuss?' How come the theory of evolution is applicable as a device to argue against the thread topic even?

Good question, but I'm not going to wade back through all these pages and see how this tangent started.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Edited to add: darn it, it's so hard to write about natural selection without implying that animals are trying, Lamarckian-style, to breed themselves better. We all know, I hope, that zebras don't try to have stripes, or wolves don't try to have human-friendly pups. There's a variation in offspring, and more of the fittest ones, on average, will survive. The next generation will also have random variation, with the average maybe a bit more toward the previous generation's success, and again the fittest on average will survive. Multiply by a thousand generations, more or less, and the change in the average might be obvious and genetically "breed true," assuming the environment is stable and hasn't selected differently.

Just wanted to be clear I wasn't saying that animals were trying to evolve to exploit a new niche. They can't help it.

{{{P****}} It's sooooo hard to do. ETA - I don't know why it starred over your name. That was supposed to be the internets-version of a hug, with your name in it

I like to think of it as one big complicated feedback-based multi-layered pachinko machine.

 

[ynot]

Why are you twisting my words then Pup?

Rubbish. You twist your own words to avoid revealing what you really believe because you don't want to admit you're a theist. You also don't provide explanations when asked to clarify your words.

Obviously it has it uses but I have seen enough of the theory to recognize the intelligence of the process therein and I have also explained why humans have an obvious purpose in relation to the universe and form they occupy.

If evolution has “intelligent process” and humans have “intelligent purpose” within that process, then it follows there's an intelligence behind the process and purpose (aka “Intelligent designer/creator”).

Just a reminder, I have never said evolution was bull. It is fascinating stuff but doesn't compel me to believe it can only work without intelligent design.

To believe evolution can't and doesn't work without an intelligent designer is saying “evolution is bull”. You have admitted you “recognize” an intelligent designer. That's the same as admitting you believe there is one.

 

[ynot]

What facts are those?

Apparently they are "enlightened" facts that can only be seen and understood by the "enlightened"