ant wrote:

Quote:
And it's an oversimplification not by you,but by others to think it somehow to be just religiously based unreasonableness to have trouble believing it.




I think that is very possible and probably likely.

Hi ant, I wouldn't deny that but am just saying there does seem to be serious evidential problems also.Artificial breeding of dogs stretches the genetic possibilities and if too selective seems negative in effect. Genetic information rules it seems and substantial new information seems required from somewhere,to get other than a canine. Getting a Pegasus from Dobbin would require specific new information for wings from somewhere, and I'm sceptical about the prowess of mutations to perform the feat.
So it's definitely not all science and no religious belief but I suppose the naturalist might have similar problems in terms of true objectivity for different reasons.
Francis Collins would accommodate both, though as Robert pointed out it presents theological problems from a Christian framework.I'm inclined to think the information needs to be there from the start,not just for theological reasons, but would respect Collins and accept that he is not pushing an atheist agenda so that's very much in favour of the theory if we want to view the objectivity aspect.

Francis Collins would accommodate both, though as Robert pointed out it presents theological problems from a Christian framework.I'm inclined to think the information needs to be there from the start,not just for theological reasons, but would respect Collins and accept that he is not pushing an atheist agenda so that's very much in favour of the theory if we want to view the objectivity aspect.

I have been wanting to read Collins.
Maybe he's qualified to talk about "life" and it's origins


The best explanation from someone with an atheistic worldview is that consciousness arose from a primordial soup.
It HAD to have because given enough time anything can happen.

Evidence ? NONE.
But it's better than believing in the alternative!

ant wrote:I have been wanting to read Collins.
Maybe he's qualified to talk about "life" and it's origins

I've listened to a couple of online talks by him, and he seems to be good at lucid explanation in common language as Dawkins is also.
The advances in knowledge of biological information in recent years is staggering really, and they are still finding out new and interesting things.

Flann wrote:Hi ant, I wouldn't deny that but am just saying there does seem to be serious evidential problems also.

The term "serious" is based on an assumption. Why do you say there are "serious" problems rather than just problems? Isn't any problem that you don't see a resolution to a "serious" problem?

Flann wrote:Genetic information rules it seems and substantial new information seems required from somewhere

There are plenty of specific examples of new information being created by the process of evolution. Sea squirt hearts to monkey TRIM5 proteins, yeasts and abalone and maize and ciclids. It isn't just limited to polyploidy. Not only do we know how various increases in information happen, we have evidence of it happening.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/e ... ution9.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfybuMJVWj0

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 100914.php

The best explanation from someone with an atheistic worldview is that consciousness arose from a primordial soup.
It HAD to have because given enough time anything can happen.

Evidence ? NONE.

The objection you seem to have is this; abiogenesis represents going from point A to point B. You accept that evolution brings us from point B to point Y. But then you reject the notion that consciousness was developed by the same process(point Y to point Z).

You say there is no evidence from point A to point Z, and yet you linked a video that summarized a great deal of evidence from B to Y. There is evidence that abiogenesis happened(A to B), and also that evolution gave rise to consciousness(Y to Z).

You also misunderstand the reference to probability. Repeat it as a straw man if you wish, but you score no points.

ant wrote: The best explanation from someone with an atheistic worldview is that consciousness arose from a primordial soup.
It HAD to have because given enough time anything can happen.

Evidence ? NONE.
But it's better than believing in the alternative!

So, you do accept the fact that evolution of humans happened, or not? It's still not clear. Sounds like you don't. Or was God necessary for consciousness and everything else evolved?

Dexter wrote:

ant wrote: The best explanation from someone with an atheistic worldview is that consciousness arose from a primordial soup.
It HAD to have because given enough time anything can happen.

Evidence ? NONE.
But it's better than believing in the alternative!

So, you do accept the fact that evolution of humans happened, or not? It's still not clear. Sounds like you don't. Or was God necessary for consciousness and everything else evolved?

No..,
the inference to the best explanation is that nothing created consciousness.

"nothing" is always both the most elegant and simple explanation you can pull out of a hat - along with logic and reason.

and "nothing" is natural.
and we like to keep our explanations naturalistic

so it makes sense that "nothing" is a part of nature.

ant wrote: No..,
the inference to the best explanation is that nothing created consciousness.

"nothing" is always both the most elegant and simple explanation you can pull out of a hat - along with logic and reason.

and "nothing" is natural.
and we like to keep our explanations naturalistic

so it makes sense that "nothing" is a part of nature.

So you're dippin', duckin', dodging again.

Do you consider it a fact that humans evolved from primitive organisms, or not?

Dexter wrote:

ant wrote: No..,
the inference to the best explanation is that nothing created consciousness.

"nothing" is always both the most elegant and simple explanation you can pull out of a hat - along with logic and reason.

and "nothing" is natural.
and we like to keep our explanations naturalistic

so it makes sense that "nothing" is a part of nature.

So you're dippin', duckin', dodging again.

Do you consider it a fact that humans evolved from primitive organisms, or not?

This line of questioning is becoming absurd.

I'm beginning to get the feeling you want me to kneel in front of a picture of Darwin and swear my allegiance to the theory.

Why must I continue to explain myself about evolution?

I'm not joking - it's in the archives. do a search.
I've spoken about this a couple of times already.
It's been a while now, but I have.

Do I have to explain once a year now or what??

You also misunderstand the reference to probability.

ant wrote: This line of questioning is becoming absurd.

I'm beginning to get the feeling you want me to kneel in front of a picture of Darwin and swear my allegiance to the theory.

Why must I continue to explain myself about evolution?

I'm not joking - it's in the archives. do a search.
I've spoken about this a couple of times already.
It's been a while now, but I have.

Do I have to explain once a year now or what??

Someone else help me out. Does anyone know ant's position on evolution? Just trying to make some progress in these discussions, then we could get to the core of any disagreements.