Wayne what would intelligent alien life mean for your belief in God?

Hellfire, this tread is going into the HOF, mabye not quite on the level of the original 'Hello' tread, or anything that the shredmachine started, but I say again, hellfire, this tread drew The Big Boss of SI into the fray.

 

Git some, Carter, git some!

 

Unless socco is right in which case I wouldn't believe a word an "extra" terrestrial said. Matt 24:24

 

Ok. So let’s talk about sickle cell anemia being caused by a mutation. We don’t know what the exact cause of the mutation is, but we can acknowledge that these things could have happened, and could be perhaps caused by something such as radiation. Sickle cell is a defect in the red blood cell, in which these cells are inferior, thus the mutation is not beneficial. Furthermore, a “new species” has not formed by this mutation (it is still in a human, and to a lesser extent it is a red blood cell). It seems that the observed mutations are bad, and if there are good mutations, how can one distinguish that it is a mutation rather than a recessive or repressed trait that has now been revealed? I would suggest that because of the complexity of the DNA code, any alterations would be faulty and not have positive outcomes, and certainly not create new species.

Let me provide an illustration. The DNA code that makes up the genes is a very complex, sequence of information and intelligence that contains all the instructions necessary for an organism to develop all the subsystems that support its life and functionality. I would say that it pales any piece of software developed by man. Let’s suppose someone randomly changes a random character in a complex human program. The likelihood that this program will execute or even compile is zero or near zero. Add to that whether the change will “improve” the program again is unlikely, or perhaps more likely zero. Still, even if the program were to be improved, it still would be a program that is of the original kind. The reason I say this is that I have done research with a paradigm “Genetic Programming” which uses concepts, such as gene crossover, mutation, etc., to modify information sets and then evaluate them with a fitness function (basically performs survival of the fittest) as a means to alter an information set with the deliberate intent to improve it. These are the mechanisms the macro-evolutionary theory proposes as the origin of the species. However, I can tell you from my experience that even if I take information set of say “type A” and improve it via this random, yet controlled deliberate “evolutionary process”, it is still an information set of “type A”.

The bottom line again is that while we may observe mutations, these have not been observed to create new species. Again, where are the transition forms?

One more point-- The breeding of dogs is a faulty argument, as they are still dogs and what the breeding is doing is refining, amplifying or “bringing out” qualities that already exist in the DNA code of the dog species as a whole. They are still Mastiffs and Chihuahuas are still both dogs.

 

Hey man, I appreciate your thoughts and just thought I would point out some potential philosophical ramifications of this:

If it were to be true that the creator were the blind watchmaker, as suggested, this superior being should not become the subject of any praise or worship. On the contrary, this being should be despised and held with contempt. Why would I say this? Because any being that would create life as we know it given the pain and suffering experienced by all, some more than others, and the consequential unfairness without any means of reconciliation is evil or perhaps irresponsible at best.

This contrasts an alternative creator that offers the hope of redemption and reconciliation based on His characteristic of mercy and grace. Here, the pain and suffering have a greater purpose and are redeemed, and to use an accounting concept, the books are reconciled. I don't want to over simply this, and acknowledge that it takes faith to trusts this, but any god that does not have this in His cache is not getting my praise.

In my estimation, there is no middle ground, otherwise the creator proposed in #4 should be loathed and hated.

Just thought I'd point this out.

 

While I respect your opinion, I think you may be deflating the level of evidence we have for the existence of macroevolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
We don't just believe in macroevolution, just because we apply those same concepts and see repeatable results in microevolution. Microevolution is one of the many ways the theory of evolution has been scientifically proven. I think the religions of the world get too hung up on the evolution thing. When I look at the bible, torah, and quran less literally, I find they actually end up being less contradictory to proven scientific theories. The devout religious among us attack concepts like evolution by using the "if we don't know everything, we know nothing" argument. The evidence cannot all be dismissed, simply based on the fact that we have more to learn. If you believe a deity can create all life from scratch, why is it so hard to believe a deity could create the process for evolution? Maybe this "god" just created the rule book and put all the right pieces in place, and the universe is just evolving as a result of those elements.

 

Define what your idea of an "alien" would be. Would they have to be a race from another star?


2 Corinthians 11:14

 

I have a more serious question for Wayne the Insane....

Can you even get up on a wave? Maybe make a turn? This is the most ridiculous thread ever!!!!

 

noun
1.
a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization (distinguished from citizen ).
2.
a foreigner.
3.
a person who has been estranged or excluded.
4.
a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial.

I believe #4 is what we are discussing here. Living creature not from Earth.

 

Any of youse ever read Arthur C. Clark's "Childhood's End?" Remember the Overlords?

 

I hear you man and appreciate your thoughtful response. My issue was the broad brush assertion that "evolution is a fact", and the derogatory references to people who have not swallowed it whole, hook, line and sinker. There are many aspects to the theory, that, in which I am agreement with your words, "we have more to learn."

Keep in mind, the plausibility that a deity created the original species that evolved into what now exists would not be accepted scientifically, because it would violate the adherence to naturalistic materialism. In other words, the moment a supernatural explanation is suggested, it is rejected, even if the evidence could be viewed to support it. And one would most likely would not receive any NSA grants to pursue it, and their tenure would be in serious jeopardy. That is just the philosophy and semantics of the matter.

As far as the "rule book", being scientifically minded like you, I also see incredible order and brilliance in how the physical universe is mathematically ordered. I personally choose to attribute (credit) this to an unfathomable mind somewhere. Others may choose to look at it another way, but it works for this pilgrim.

Peace man.

 

Whoa, well said cdog.