A question for evolutionist

[Schneibster]

Jebus will tell him soon.

 

[Mashuna]

For Gods sake that was 10 months ago! I've done a lot of personal studying since then and I have realized that Behe is A LOT more intelligence then I initially pegged him as being. His arguments are very well thought out and in my opinion very convincing and make a fantastic case against the Darwinism hypothesis.

Are they as convicing as this one?

For instance how did humans get along before their teeth evolved? How did they eat before their teeth evolved allowing them to chew? They would have starved to death a long time ago.

 

[Lonewulf]

Free Will. Unless you think that being robots stripped of independent thinking is a perfect state.

A rather subjective opinion one way or the other, neh? Being that the only people that can give an opinion are human beings, I call biasedness to the question.

The universe just doesn't care if we're robots or people with free will. I figure the universe doesn't care about much, honestly. This is even if you buy into the idea of "free will", and aren't a determinist, as I am. But that's an argument for another time.

We're a bunch of insignificant lifeforms on a pale blue dot, trying to justify an universe that gives a crap about us to drive the demons away, and further projecting our ideals of "perfection" onto this uncaring universe.

It's ludicrous, and amusing, all at the same time.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

A rather subjective opinion one way or the other, neh? Being that the only people that can give an opinion are human beings, I call biasedness to the question.

The universe...

The question was asked within a context of Christian theology, that was how I was answering and thus how the Universe feels or whatever really isn't germane.

I'm not a determinist, nor do I ascribe to free will as expressed by theologians so I would wind up tangenting too if I were to continue the discussion.

My personal opinion of why there is pain and suffering in the world is that most animals have a nervous system that reacts to stimuli an some of those ractions to stimuli are what we call pain... prolonged pain being suffering. That might be a reductionist viewpoint but I don't find engaging in philisophical questions to be very interesting anymore.

 

[Lonewulf]

The question was asked within a context of Christian theology, that was how I was answering and thus how the Universe feels or whatever really isn't germane.

Even within the context of Christian Theology, it is funny how many fall into the trap that God *must* feel and think like humans, and agree with them on certain issues... including on what perfection is, and how free will is preferable. Get what I mean?

Even within Christian Theology, God doesn't really care what humans think. His will is law, and his ideas are his own.

 

[athon]

Even within Christian Theology, God doesn't really care what humans think. His will is law, and his ideas are his own.

En contraire, this is one of - if not the - core issue of personal theistic beliefs; the personality of the deity. It's the assumptions of how God feels towards humans which drive Chrisitians on, and lies beneath their actions such as praying and absolving themselves of sin. God cares very much about what humans think, hence the nature of sin itself being an affront to God.

This personality, though, varies from person to person. And all personalities reflect human emotions, values, needs and desires. Nearly every analogy I hear Chrisitians use is based on a family relationship, usually the 'father - son, pride - punishment' one. This is not a distant, uncaring God. The nature of his personality varies incredibly yet the one thing most variations have in common is that God does indeed care what humans think of him.

Athon

 

[Lonewulf]

En contraire, this is one of - if not the - core issue of personal theistic beliefs; the personality of the deity. It's the assumptions of how God feels towards humans which drive Chrisitians on, and lies beneath their actions such as praying and absolving themselves of sin. God cares very much about what humans think, hence the nature of sin itself being an affront to God.

In some contexts, he cares. But he doesn't care if you think that sin is "no big deal". Can't justify yourself out of hell, though you can beg your way out of it.

This personality, though, varies from person to person. And all personalities reflect human emotions, values, needs and desires. Nearly every analogy I hear Chrisitians use is based on a family relationship, usually the 'father - son, pride - punishment' one. This is not a distant, uncaring God. The nature of his personality varies incredibly yet the one thing most variations have in common is that God does indeed care what humans think of him.

Athon

As long as they think the right thing. Otherwise, damnation.

But it depends on the theology, and the individual belief. Calvinists, for instance, may disagree with you on some points.

 

[Belz...]

I think it is time to turn the tables here and have some of my questions answered by you.
Notice I will go one at a time instead of bombarding you with about 30 at once and when all are not answered instantly proclaiming a victory.
Q: How did humans survive before we evolved the uvula...you know that little dangly thing in our throats that prevent food from going down our breating passage and causing us to choke to death...

Attacking strawmen is fun!

 

[Belz...]

Ah, the good ol' irreducible complexity argument.

Here is a pretty good refutation of this concept in general.
Here is an abstract that cites the uvula as evidence of evolution.
And that was only 5 minutes of research on the internet. I'm sure someone can do better.

However, if you are willfully ignorant about the theory of evolution (which I am not saying you are, I haven't read many of your posts though I suspect this is the case) and you want to pile up a few strawmen for a nice bonfire, there's nothing I can give you.

Gosh, I love nerds, too.

Sadly, it's just an avatar. 'Boose actually looks like this:

Crap.

 

[vacognition]

This is a very fascinating question and gets to the heart of the problem with Darwinism. There are so many aspects and features of the human body that are required for living and if they didn't exist, humans could not live. For instance how did humans get along before their teeth evolved? How did they eat before their teeth evolved allowing them to chew? They would have starved to death a long time ago.

For all the other comments on this thread, this is actually a specific example of an interesting question: how does evolution give us complicated systems (like swallowing). Because this question is often used as an argument for creationism or ID, people sometimes get so used to beating it back that they give very cursory answers.

It _is_ a question about evolution. It is not support for ID, because that suggests that ID and evolution are locked in some binary struggle. Even if evolution turned out to be wrong, that doesn't make any other "hypothesis" right.

I realize that decent explanations have been worked out for some of these complex systems that don't seem obviously reducible. But I don't know many of them. And for how many of these systems is has a story been worked out.

What can others on the forum say about these issues?

 

[Paulhoff]

For instance how did humans get along before their teeth evolved?
How did humans survive before we evolved the uvula?
How does evolution give us complicated systems (like swallowing)?.

The next time someone says that there are no stupid questions, quote this, and say, "Yes Virginia, there are stupid questions".

Paul

 

[slyjoe]

For all the other comments on this thread, this is actually a specific example of an interesting question: how does evolution give us complicated systems (like swallowing). Because this question is often used as an argument for creationism or ID, people sometimes get so used to beating it back that they give very cursory answers.

They generally give it cursory answers because it has been demonstrated so many times.

It _is_ a question about evolution. It is not support for ID, because that suggests that ID and evolution are locked in some binary struggle. Even if evolution turned out to be wrong, that doesn't make any other "hypothesis" right.

I would suggest it is not a question about evolution. To me, it is more a question that asks "how does evolution explain (insert body part here)" with the view that the (insert body part here) just magically showed up.

I realize that decent explanations have been worked out for some of these complex systems that don't seem obviously reducible. But I don't know many of them. And for how many of these systems is has a story been worked out.

A little research into creationism will fill you in on what they think is "irreducible" - with the eye being the most often example trotted out. Did you have specific complex systems in mind?

 

[Juustin]

I've noticed in a lot of his posts, Jesus Freak takes a page right out of Behe's book of debate tactics:

1. State your position, challange anyone to show you evidence disproving it.

2. Run away quickly before they can speak.

3. Later say "I've challenged X amount of scientists to prove me wrong, and I have yet to hear a single argument."

 

[SunTsu]

I must apologise but Dustin is temporarily unavailable.....

...he is now frozen in time staring at a carton of orange juice with concentrate written on the side.

Luckily you didn't tell them the true story. He was actually sitting on the toilet with a strained expression when someone told him the word on the orange juice carton was CONCENTRATE.

 

[noblecaboose]

*crickets*

 

[Flo]

*crickets*

Be patient. It takes time writing those 20 minutes essays ...

 

[Schneibster]

Somebody needs to make a thread entitled, "A evilution for questionist" pretty soon before this one goes away and the opportunity to make the jest is lost forever.