Things that make you believe in a God

[woot]

the examples were just a response to Woot's claim that convergence doesn't occur very often, when it fact, it happens everywhere. Just follow our dialogue.

No, it doesn't happen everywhere. You've posted a number of examples, none of which are surprising or relevant. Convergence is common in the fossil record and in extant taxa (but not common enough to call it a universal tendency, which was my point). As I and Creekster have stated, however, this lends not the slightest credibility to your point. I encourage you to address the post in which I criticized your reasoning.

[woot]

This is utter hogwash.

Please explain how this is hogwash. Surely you're not suggesting that SCM's views on this topic are mainstream among paleontologists or biologists?

[woot]

Is there a scientific, natural explanation for love? Is love biological, chemical, instinct; will the formula for love ever be discovered so that we may bottle it? Are you talking about magic as illusion or rather as unexplainable phenomena?

The brain scan of a newly-in-love person is very similar to one that is on cocaine. So maybe we've already "bottled" it.

[tooblue]

The brain scan of a newly-in-love person is very similar to one that is on cocaine. So maybe we've already "bottled" it.

"Similar" being the key word. Cocaine may be bottled as a powder but might mankind ever be able to reduce love to such a state? INSTANT LOVE in a can would be pretty cool. The very idea seems pretty magical though doesn't it?

[Solon]

The Euphorbia of deserts in Africa and southern Asia, and the Cactaceae of the New World deserts have similar modifications (see picture below for one of many possible examples).
Sunflower: some types of Sunflower and Pericallis are due to convergent evolution.

I don't know anything about evolution, but I'm not sure I'm ready to accept a (uncited at that) cut-and-paste job from wikipedia as gospel truth.

List of examples of convergent evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At least woot wrote up an original response.

Carry on, all.

[wuapinmon]

I don't know anything about evolution, but I'm not sure I'm ready to accept a (uncited at that) cut-and-paste job from wikipedia as gospel truth.

List of examples of convergent evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At least woot wrote up an original response.

Carry on, all.

I often insert [edit] into my prose. Maybe he Pierre Menarded it.

[CardiacCoug]

I don't know anything about evolution, but I'm not sure I'm ready to accept a (uncited at that) cut-and-paste job from wikipedia as gospel truth.

List of examples of convergent evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At least woot wrote up an original response.

Carry on, all.

Maybe JackRabbit wrote the wikipedia article.

[Jackrabbit]

I don't know anything about evolution, but I'm not sure I'm ready to accept a (uncited at that) cut-and-paste job from wikipedia as gospel truth.

List of examples of convergent evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At least woot wrote up an original response.

Carry on, all.

He asked for a list, not an original response.

[Jackrabbit]

Please explain how this is hogwash. Surely you're not suggesting that SCM's views on this topic are mainstream among paleontologists or biologists?

It's hogwash because it's by no means a fringe view, like you claim.

[UtahDan]

It's hogwash because it's by no means a fringe view, like you claim.

Flesh your argument out for me if you would. Let's bracket for a moment whether it is supported or whether it is a fringe view or not. Assume for a moment that evolution leads over billions of years to sentient life and that is inevitable.

Therefore, what?

[LA Ute]

Setting aside "spiritual" things....is there one thing that stands out to you to logically tell you that there is a God?

To me...it is looking at the stars and planets, universe.

To see the images, beauty, the order, the immensity of space...blows me away, and just screams that there is a God that is the Master Creator.

So many things....a childs birth/life. Awestruck at the experience. Pretty neat stuff.

Just thought I'd remind everyone of the question with which Borg started this thread. Now we have a debate over evolution, complete with the seemingly obligatory ridicule of opposing viewpoints. I love CUF.

[woot]

It's hogwash because it's by no means a fringe view, like you claim.

Yes it is, I promise. Perhaps you're not aware that it's a wacky fringe view because you haven't read any mainstream books in the field? I can see why you might think it's accepted if all you're reading is religious books on the topic.

But this is a distraction. Please explain what you're actually arguing here. Near as I can tell, you're saying that because similar niches are sometimes filled by similar but phylogenetically distinct organisms, that every niche must be filled by one exact type of creature, therefore humans are inevitable. Is this what you're arguing? If not, please go ahead and finally present your argument. Which niche are you referring to? You do realize that humans are currently filling a great many ecological niches, many of which were already filled by other creatures that are now either extinct or getting there?

[creekster]

Flesh your argument out for me if you would. Let's bracket for a moment whether it is supported or whether it is a fringe view or not. Assume for a moment that evolution leads over billions of years to sentient life and that is inevitable.

Therefore, what?

I haven't read the books he refers to, but my guess is that the argument is something like the inevtiabiulity only arises because the process of evolution on this planet follows certain patterns which, when presented with the pressures that our environment repeatedly and consistently affords, will lead to Adam, so to speak. It is an interesting position, and perhaps I should read it before popping off any more.

I am with LAUte on one thing, however, the original thread question was about what makes YOU, subjectively, believe in God. There is no right or wrong answer here. We should allow all to state their beliefs without ridicule. Shouting down someon'e basis for belief in God here is really not much different than shouting down someone's position opposing religion somewhere else. There are places to shout down things, but perhaps a thread asking for each persons subjective belief is not the best place for it.

Just MO.


p.s. to be clear, I dont think UD was doing that here. I just responded to his post and then kept going.

[woot]

I would like to point out that my only contributions in this thread have been to rebut false scientific claims used to prop up a belief in god. I have not addressed any sincere expressions of belief, and those who've been around a while know that I rarely if ever do.

But getting on with it, I would like to point out that the first book I ever read about evolution was a bit similar to the one that JR read. Mine was "Finding Darwin's God" by Ken Miller. I love Ken Miller. He's a powerful asset against the intelligent design movement because he's a devout Catholic. His book is similar to SMC's in that it contains a great deal of truth, but is mingled with scripture. The difference seems to be that Miller is generally quite explicit about when he goes off the rails. His goal is to explain how he fits his beliefs into an evolutionary world view. Issues I've run into with Simon Conway Morris in the past, and the book that JR read seems to suffer from, is that he doesn't make such distinctions. He provides a lot of straight science, but then proceeds to shoehorn the evidence into his pre-existing religious worldview. Francis Collins is the worst in this regard, but any of it is inexcusable for a scientist in their position. I have long wished such folks would make it clear to their audience when they're going off the rails, but they refuse to do so precisely because they seek to lend an air of scientific credibility to their religious beliefs. It's maddening.

But, if Jackrabbit wants to retreat to the position of taking it on faith regardless of what the evidence says, I will not even consider rebutting him, as is my wont. Since he is currently still arguing a position in which scientific evidence supports his religious beliefs, I find it wholly within the realm of propriety to disabuse him of this notion.

[Surfah]

I would like to point out that my only contributions in this thread have been to rebut false scientific claims used to prop up a belief in god.

Sounds like you're shitting on the thread then.