2 edits
Originally posted by finneganMy discussion of this book The Science of God has pretty much been limited to the probability studies. I have not made a blanket endorsement of everything i have read from Gerald Schroeder.
And though some posters would love to "nip in the bud" any further attempts to show the implausibility of some Evolutionary proposals, I encourage seekers of the truth to not be intimidated by the hyper -protest against probability studies on Evolution.
And that means in either persuasion - pro or con. This is a approximation tool science can use gain insight into the likelihood of these ideas.
Gerald Schroeder again ( we are demanded to discuss the book )
If the fossil record truly records the history of evolution, then undoubtedly an exotic, in the sense of out-of-the-ordinary, mechanism is at work - be it preprogrammed information carried neutrally on the genome. or Lamarckian-type enviromental feedback influencing, even restructuring, the organization of the vast library of information carried on the genome. The answer to the question posed by the journal Science, "Did Darwin get it right?" is supplied by the journal itself: No, Darwin did not get it all right. The same must be said for neo-Darwinian theory. Science may not be capable of adjudication the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature, but it certainly has discovered that nature functions in a way that at time seems most unnatural.
[ The Science of God , G. Schroeder, pg. 114, my bolding ]
What I don't fully understand is "Lamarchian-type". As a former programmer I do understand what he is saying about the problem of preprogrammed information and feedback loops.
I don't need to be grilled about those portions in which I still need study in order to benefit from the general idea proposed. He is saying Evolution as proposed is too smart and not acting in what seems a natural way. IE. Intelligence seems to be a guiding influence if the theory is at all true.
Originally posted by sonshipIt may well be evolution itself is smarter than people understand. We are still learning about DNA and RNA and interactions with the environment and such.
My discussion of this book [b]The Science of God has pretty much been limited to the probability studies. I have not made a blanket endorsement of everything i have read from Gerald Schroeder.
And though some posters would love to "nip in the bud" any further attempts to show the implausibility of some Evolutionary proposals, I encourage seekers of th ...[text shortened]... s a natural way. IE. Intelligence seems to be a guiding influence if the theory is at all true.[/b]
4 edits
Originally posted by sonshipThere is a typo I made in my quote of G. Schroeder's book.
My discussion of this book [b]The Science of God has pretty much been limited to the probability studies. I have not made a blanket endorsement of everything i have read from Gerald Schroeder.
And though some posters would love to "nip in the bud" any further attempts to show the implausibility of some Evolutionary proposals, I encourage seekers of th ...[text shortened]... s a natural way. IE. Intelligence seems to be a guiding influence if the theory is at all true.[/b]
Adjudication should be adjudicating
The quote copied manually, should read -
"Science may not be capable of adjuticating the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature, but it certainly has discovered that nature functions in a way that at times seems most unnatural."
4 edits
Originally posted by sonhouse
It may well be evolution itself is smarter than people understand. We are still learning about DNA and RNA and interactions with the environment and such.
It may well be evolution itself is smarter than people understand.
I leave room for a "maybe". But then again, what actually is "smart" in "smarter" - Intelligence ?"
Self repairing cells for example, how can self repair not reveal PLAN, PURPOSE ??
We are still learning about DNA and RNA and interactions with the environment and such.
Of course they are studying more, researching more.
Scientist - "God, You're fired. What you can do we have found out we can do without You. You're out of a job."
God " Oh? What do you have in mind?"
Scientist - "We can now create life."
God - "Okay, how do you propose to do that without Me?"
Scientist - "First we get some dirt ..."
God - " Get your own dirt. "
A Chinese scientist was discussing with Western scientists the doubts some Chinese researchers have on Darwin's theory of Evolution by their considerations of fossils found.
A western scientist asks him how he could question the Authorities in China.
He replied in essence:
"Oh, in China we are allowed to question Evolution. We are just not permitted to question the central government. But in America, you are allowed to question the government. You just are not allowed to question Evolution."
Makes you wonder - Who'se free anyway?
[From a talk given by the Dr. Stephen Meyer author of "Signature in the Cell" - I saw on some Youtube video ]
Originally posted by sonshipWhat makes you think you are "not allowed" to question evolution? Is anyone persecuting you because you reject the theory of evolution?It may well be evolution itself is smarter than people understand.
I leave room for a "maybe". But then again, what actually is "smart" in "smarter" - [b]Intelligence ?"
Self repairing cells for example, how can self repair not reveal PLAN, PURPOSE ??
[quote]
We are still learning about DNA and RNA and interactions w ...[text shortened]... y the Dr. Stephen Meyer author of "Signature in the Cell" - I saw on some Youtube video ][/b]
Have you thought about an answer to my question on the previous page of this thread?
Originally posted by sonshipI believe Stephen Meyer is american which clearly disproves the apparent claim he was trying to make with that little story.
"Oh, in China we are allowed to question Evolution. We are just not permitted to question the central government. But in America, you are allowed to question the government. You just are not allowed to question Evolution."
Makes you wonder - Who'se free anyway?
[From a talk given by the Dr. Stephen Meyer author of "Signature in the Cell" - I saw on some Youtube video ]
Of course he put it in a story and then you quoted him saying it all in an effort to provide deniability. You will say that it wasn't you that said it, Stephen will say it wasn't him that said it, and the Chinese man will say it was just a joke.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe Stephen Meyer is american which clearly disproves the apparent claim he was trying to make with that little story.
From recollection, Stephen Meyer was talking about a meeting of scientists he attended in China. He was relating the conversaion and what the Chinese scientist said when asked about Chinese skepticism of Darwin.
No, I did not say "ALL Chinese scientists are skeptical." I recall that this particular Chinese scientist was concerning some things the fossils indicate..
The Chinese scientist said (according to Meyer) that they were allowed to question Evolution in China but they were not allowed to question the central government. Sorry if you don't like it.
And you should stop being paranoid that everyone who is not an Evolutionist in total is out to cheat you. I think you project a lot.
I am not RJHinds. I do not refer to "EVILutionists". I believe some people are honestly persuaded. Accept it that some of us honestly are NOT persuaded.
Or, I believe there is a limit to how much we can extrapolate evidence for natural selection.
Of course he put it in a story and then you quoted him saying it all in an effort to provide deniability. You will say that it wasn't you that said it, Stephen will say it wasn't him that said it, and the Chinese man will say it was just a joke.
I am not sure I understand what this means, having read and re-read it.
There is nothing sneaky going on. From memory I am relating something I heard in a Youtube hosted by Dr, Stephen Meyer, who tends to like to be light hearted at times.
He is very much a "Let's all loosen up a bit" kind of guy.
Originally posted by sonshipRecent work on chemical evolution. That is the term for figuring out how life got here before life was here, where chemicals had to go from simple to complex somehow:I believe Stephen Meyer is american which clearly disproves the apparent claim he was trying to make with that little story.
From recollection, Stephen Meyer was talking about a meeting of scientists he attended in China. He was relating the conversaion and what the Chinese scientist said when asked about Chinese skepticism of Darwin.
...[text shortened]... ike to be light hearted at times.
He is very much a "Let's all loosen up a bit" kind of guy.
http://phys.org/news/2016-04-links-brewed-primordial-puddles.html
Simple chemicals producing complexes a lot like RNA.
This is the Miller experiment taken to the next level.
Originally posted by sonhouseI am doing you the courtesy of reading it now.
Recent work on chemical evolution. That is the term for figuring out how life got here before life was here, where chemicals had to go from simple to complex somehow:
http://phys.org/news/2016-04-links-brewed-primordial-puddles.html
Simple chemicals producing complexes a lot like RNA.
This is the Miller experiment taken to the next level.
Originally posted by sonshipYes, I assumed something like that was the case.
From recollection, Stephen Meyer was talking about a meeting of scientists he attended in China. He was relating the conversaion and what the Chinese scientist said when asked about Chinese skepticism of Darwin.
It remains the case that Stephen Mayer, himself and american, questions evolution disproving the claim.
It also remains the case that Stephen Mayer related the conversation with the intent of suggesting that the claim was true, but put it in that way so as to provide deniability.
It also remains the case the sole reason you related the story in this thread was to also suggest that the claim is true but to try and maintain deniability.
And you should stop being paranoid that everyone who is not an Evolutionist in total is out to cheat you. I think you project a lot.
I do think you are dishonest. I also think that in this case you wish to say that questioning evolution is not acceptable in america but you just don't have the guts to come out and say it and stand behind the assertion. I think you are a coward who hides behind quotes of others.
There is nothing sneaky going on. From memory I am relating something I heard in a Youtube hosted by Dr, Stephen Meyer, who tends to like to be light hearted at times.
And why are you relating it? Are you just that bored that you relate random quotes from a YouTube video you once watched, or did you intend to say something?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I assumed something like that was the case.
It remains the case that Stephen Mayer, himself and american, questions evolution disproving the claim.
It also remains the case that Stephen Mayer related the conversation with the intent of suggesting that the claim was true, but put it in that way so as to provide deniability.
It also remains the ca ...[text shortened]... relate random quotes from a YouTube video you once watched, or did you intend to say something?
It remains the case that Stephen Mayer, himself and american, questions evolution disproving the claim.
I see what you mean. However, you would have to ask Stephen Meyer what COST it has been to his professional livelihood because he does question Evolution.
Whether the claim the Chinese scientists made is totally true or not, it is telling of his perception of the situation. The label Creationists has caused many a educated persons to be blackballed in academic circles.
See Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed. Rather in your case, probably don't see it will be your course of action.
It also remains the case that Stephen Mayer related the conversation with the intent of suggesting that the claim was true,
That does it. I am going to find the video and inquisitive minds can make up their own minds about it.
Thanks, for encouraging me to go find that YouTube.
It also remains the case the sole reason you related the story in this thread was to also suggest that the claim is true but to try and maintain deniability.
Yea, yea.
I do think you are dishonest. I also think that in this case you wish to say that questioning evolution is not acceptable in america but you just don't have the guts to come out and say it and stand behind the assertion. I think you are a coward who hides behind quotes of others.
Yea, yea, I don't have the guts to agree that questioning Evolution may blackball a educated person from landing a job or publishing a paper with a popular science journal.
I don't have the guts to go down on record to write that.
Say on Oh Brave One ! Say On!
There is nothing sneaky going on. From memory I am relating something I heard in a Youtube hosted by Dr, Stephen Meyer, who tends to like to be light hearted at times.
And why are you relating it? Are you just that bored that you relate random quotes from a YouTube video you once watched, or did you intend to say something?
What else could I say? Oh, just what I said before - How much we can extrapolate the evidence for natural selection, concerns me.
Does some change in finch beaks, black and brown moths, corn growing, dog breeding, flea experiments, taken to an extreme mean millions of species of organisms and plants were produced from a evolutionary process with no goal, no purpose, and no plan ?
Originally posted by sonshipWhat is the significance of this being a Chinese scientist? There are Christians in China too you know and they did not get their Christianity from divine inspiration so much as from western missionaries.I believe Stephen Meyer is american which clearly disproves the apparent claim he was trying to make with that little story.
From recollection, Stephen Meyer was talking about a meeting of scientists he attended in China. He was relating the conversaion and what the Chinese scientist said when asked about Chinese skepticism of Darwin.
...[text shortened]... ike to be light hearted at times.
He is very much a "Let's all loosen up a bit" kind of guy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html
Mind you, while 58 million Christians is a large number, it is not a large proportion of the population and I suggest there is an element of hype and hyperbole in this odd article.
1 edit
Originally posted by finnegan
What is the significance of this being a Chinese scientist? There are Christians in China too you know and they did not get their Christianity from divine inspiration so much as from western missionaries.
In some notable cases they did. But that is another discussion.
How did God advance particular enlightenment to Chinese Christians quite apart from the enfluence of Western missionaries ?
Believe me. Some of them did and have gone much further than western Christianity.
Watchman Nee is a case in point.
But to the problem at hand. Twhitehead has not convinced me that probability studies of the likelihood of the Evolutionary mechanism are on general principle useless and nonsensical. I look forward to a case by case consideration of them on this Forum in the future.
No, he has not silenced belief that such rationals are wrong out of the shoot and should not be given a second thought.
4 edits
Here is the video I referred to I do believe. And the discussion on the Chinese founded fossils is kind of begins around 19:00
Corrections: The talk was NOT in China. It was held in Washington DC
The visiting leading speaking paleontologist was from China and a known skeptic there of Darwinian explanations.
My apologies for misspeaking that the talk was in China.
There's a juicy confession for twhitehead.
The specific conversation that I recalled and commented on is at approximately between 21:33 and 24:15 and the question was put to him by a geologist.
The video is called -
Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design