Re: Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
¿Vos no crees que hacer todo en seis días de 24 horas no contradice la evolución?
¿Vos no crees que hacer todo en seis días de 24 horas no contradice la evolución?
Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
- Autor truenos
- Fecha de inicio
Re: Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
para mi no es irrelevante....se supone que el creyente tendr'ia que creer lo dicho en la biblia y no las mentiras seudocientificas, por lo cual el argumento evolutivo contra la creencia en Dios deber'ia estar m'as identificado con el ateismo....una verguenza para los supuestos creyentes desoir lo dicho enb la biblia y prestar oido a teorias formuladas y sioportadas por gente que niega a toda costa la existencia de Dios, por lo mismo, es relevante....
imagino que eres creyente y a la vez, evolucionista....una contradiccion....
para mi no es irrelevante....se supone que el creyente tendr'ia que creer lo dicho en la biblia y no las mentiras seudocientificas, por lo cual el argumento evolutivo contra la creencia en Dios deber'ia estar m'as identificado con el ateismo....una verguenza para los supuestos creyentes desoir lo dicho enb la biblia y prestar oido a teorias formuladas y sioportadas por gente que niega a toda costa la existencia de Dios, por lo mismo, es relevante....
imagino que eres creyente y a la vez, evolucionista....una contradiccion....
Re: Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
No te preocupes. ...
Es simplemente un saludo signo del humor judío.
No te preocupes. ...
Es simplemente un saludo signo del humor judío.
Re: Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
Mira Alber ... que te dejo una "revista" mas --- donde tambien nombran uno de los que he estudiado (Robert Foley- Cambridge) :[h=2]MONDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2009[/h][h=3]Arguing your opponent’s case[/h]
Back in 2003, the Cambridge palaeontologist Simon Conway Morris wrote a book called ‘Life’s Solution, Inevitable humans in a lonely universe’. In many ways, this work marked the culmination of the argument between Morris and the late Stephen Jay Gould over the Burgess Shale and the wider question of whether evolution is random and unpredictable or has some kind of inevitable pattern. Gould had used the Burgess Shale to argue that if you were somehow able to run the tape of life again, the result would look vastly different. Conway Morris had done most of the important research on the Burgess shale and felt peeved that Gould had misrepresented his findings in this way. The result was an ill tempered argument between the two, with Conway Morris pointing to the phenomenon of evolutionary convergence and the ability of evolution to navigate to certain solutions under selection pressure. It now looks like the weight of evidence lies with Conway Morris and that biology has become less Gouldian, although recent experiments by Richard Lenski with populations of bacteria showed the importance both of constraint and historical accident in the course of life’s history. The important point about Conway Morris’s arguments is that they are Neo-Darwinian; rather than introducing some alternate mechanism into the picture he is trying to demonstrate how the deceptively simple rules of evolution can produce the complexity and creativity of life, while being constrained to certain outcomes. This is in contrast to the meaningless empire of accident, so often invoked by materialists and metaphysical naturalists, but which doesn’t tie in at all well with the universe we actually observe.
The arguments of Conway Morris were absorbed and carried further by his colleagues in a series of essays published in ‘The Deep Structure of Biology’. Some of those who had contributed had begun to produce computerised maps of ‘biological adaptive space’. It is clear from looking at these that, out of the space of adaptive possibility, almost nothing works. In other words, the convergence of biological systems can be explained by environmental and physical constraints which act on all life. These restrict the boundless creativity of life to a series of ‘optimal solutions’. In the view of Conway Morris and others, evolution acts like a kind of ‘search engine’ to create more complex ecosystems in which different niches are enabled and filled by new species.
Perhaps a bit embarrassed by Conway Morris’s theological leanings, the contributors were keen to stress that their conclusions were firmly in the neo-Darwinian mould. Robert A Foley, one of Cambridge’s leading lights in evolutionary biology and the Director of the Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, was highly critical of any notions of 'progress'', 'design' and 'purpose' in his contribution, yet he concluded:
'Rather the adaptive process which is driven by selection does have some law like properties that may well - under the right circumstances - lead to more purposive behaviour as a means of increasing or coping with complex adaptive integration and greater complexity and lead to contained directional trends. These characteristics can be said to give evolution a repetitive and, hence, to some extent. inevitable pattern....The final conclusion I would draw is that evolution on other planets - or a rerun of evolution on this one - will lead to many similarities because of the law-like nature of these processes...In a distribution of intelligences in the universe, or on a sample of one, we might speculate that conscious, purpose driven intelligence represents the mode'
On the anniversary of Darwin’s birth, Conway Morris launched into an article criticising the rather dismal atheistic spin which is put on evolution. I suspect he was trying to be provocative and re-instil a sense of wonder but he just attracted a torrent of abuse from the Guardian’s ‘Dawkinsia readership’.
Conway Morris’s rant was picked up by PZ Myers, who penned a scathing review of ‘Life’s solution’ some time ago. Myers's review was particularly dismal, being about 5% science and 95% statement of his personal philosophy. He clearly didn’t read the book as in his post he appears to be arguing on Conway Morris’s side most of the time.
‘I recommend an article in this week's Nature by Shubin, Tabin, and Carroll that argues for an important concept of deep homology. We do see similar structures, such as limbs in insects and invertebrates, that are not at all homologous on a morphological level, but when we examine their molecular genetics, we find similar substrates for both. This is the central idea of deep homology, that we have shared primitives, a set of regulatory networks, that see reuse over and over again in evolution. So while limbs arose independently in insects and vertebrates, when we look more deeply, we find that both use the distal-less developmental pathway. We see convergence because there are common functional demands that channel the solutions of selection, but there are also shared molecular constraints that limit the range of likely solutions.’
Which is exactly what Conway Morris has argued, that certain constraints, be they molecular or environmental , chart the course of evolution. Molecular convergence is one of the most fascinating features of evolution. A good example is provided by Carbonic anhydrases which are zinc enzymes necessary for dealing with carbon dioxide; these accelerate chemical reactions, assist with the construction of bones, allow the storage of carbon dioxide and are used by plants in photosynthesis. Carbonic anhydrases have evolved independently at least 4 times and we can therefore be pretty confident that if there are other organisms in the universe with are dealing with carbon dioxide, they are probably using the same zinc configuration. The appearance of deep regulatory networks seems to fit pretty nicely into the idea of a naturally emerging framework for life. What is not often appreciated is that most of the building blocks we need for more complex features - such as sentience, intelligence and nervous systems - evolved long before these complex organisations emerged. The molecular substrates to make these features all emerged in bacteria and microbes. So for example, the protein for the transparency of the eye's lens has been recruited from bacteria where it was used for a completely different purpose in a different context. Certain things which are optimal for simpler forms of life thereby contrive to provide a building yard for their more complex descendents.
The part of Conway Morris’s article which raised the most derision from the ‘new atheist contingent’ was where he said that:
‘Birds evolved at least twice, maybe four times.’
This was scoffed at by PZ but interestingly Conway Morris has been vigorously defended by Richard Dawkins, who said in a recent comment:
No, he does NOT mean bats, insects and pterosaurs! Of COURSE not. If he had meant that, he would not have said 'maybe' four times but 'at least four times'. He meant BIRDS, the creatures that we all call birds.
His whole book, Life's Solution is a hymn to convergent evolution. His thesis (and it is a very interesting and persuasive thesis, one that I largely agree with until we come to the religious nonsense at the end of the book) is that convergent evolution is far more prevalent than most people realise. In this bird passage, he almost certainly is advancing the thesis that the following statement is false: "Birds are a true clade in that all birds are descended from a single ancestor, and that ancestor would itself have been classified as a bird." There were several groups of feathered dinosaurs. Majority opinion says that only one of these groups has any descendants surviving today, and we call them birds. CM is advancing the interestingly heterodox thesis that some of today's birds are descended from one of those groups of feathered dinosaurs, while others of today's birds are descended from a different group of feathered dinosaurs. He is suggesting that the most recent common ancestor of all today's birds would not have been classified as a bird.
He could be right about that. Among all zoologists, I am probably, along with Conway Morris, the one most sympathetic to that kind of view (now that Arthur Cain is dead). We both love convergent evolution. But I am probably the least sympathetic to Conway Morris's next step, which is to drag God into the story. Convergent evolution, for me, is a wonderful testimony to the power of natural selection. Conway Morris at times seems to agree. But then at other times, he seems to think . . . well, let me put it this way. If you are the betting type, you'd be well advised to put some money on Simon Conway Morris as a future Templeton Prizewinner!
Another critic who unwittingly argues for Conway Morris’s case is Stephen Pinker on Jerry Coynes’s blog who argues:
My own take: 1. Though there’s much we don’t understand about the evolution of human intelligence, nothing about it is especially mysterious. A specific ability to do physics, abstract philosophy, higher math, and the other problems that vexed Wallace never evolved in the first place – they require millennia of accumulated knowledge in a culture, and decades of education and honing in an individual. A more generic ability entertain concepts of number, objects, living things, causality, and so on, and to combine them into lawful generalizations, is patently adaptive, as we see in the ways that all human cultures depend on acquired technological know-how for their survival, outsmarting the fixed defenses of local flora and fauna. While human-level intelligence is species-specific (as are many zoological traits, such as the elephant’s trunk), impressive levels of numerical cognition and cause-and-effect reasoning have evolved several times, including in corvids, cetaceans, cephalopods, and primates.
2. Nor is morality any mystery. Abstract, universal morality (e.g., a Kantian categorical imperative) never evolved in the first place, but took millennia of debate and cultural experience, and doesn’t characterize the vast majority of humanity. More rudimentary moral sentiments that may have evolved – sympathy, trust, retribution, gratitude, guilt – are stable strategies in cooperation games, and emerge in computer simulations.
3. No feature of consciousness has ever been discovered that does not depend 100% on neurophysiology. Stimulate the brain with chemicals or an electrical current, and the person’s experience changes; let a person’s experience vary, and you can measure the changes in chemistry or electrophysiology. When a brain is damaged, the person’s mental life is diminished accordingly, and when the brain’s activity ceases, the mind goes out of existence – Wallace’s séances notwithstanding, no one has found a way to communicate with the dead. The very existence of a subjective correlate of brain activity may not be understood (if it’s an intellectually coherent problem at all, which some would deny), but positing a “soul” simply renames the problem with no insight, and leaves the perfect correlation between consciousness and neurophysiology unexplained.
Or to summarise, human like intelligence and systems of morality emerge as convergent products of the evolutionary process; all of which was the thrust of Life’s Solution. Coyne argues that our big brained intelligence is a one off and that our colossal increase in brain size which began around about 6 million years ago is a unique evolutionary trajectory. This however, is deceptive. The dolphins and porpoises, experienced a vast increase in brain size before ours and have maintained it. Our brain only overtook theirs at some point around one and a half million years ago. What is remarkable is that they show all sorts of similarities in their cognitive landscape to us, including social play, communication, the ability to recognise themselves in mirror (the mirror test) and tool use; this despite an oceanic habitat rather than an arboreal one. The uniqueness of our intelligence is probably a question of degree rather than of kind. For example, a New Caledonian crow has a similar theory of mind to a chimpanzee despite a vastly different brain structure, research into sperm whales shows that diverse social groups can combine to produce a form of culture; this is remarkably similar to elephant societies which have similar practices, despite being in a very ecosystem. With 100 billion earth like planets in our galaxy alone, and with at least 500 billion galaxies in the universe, its fair to say that Robert Foley is probably right and that conscious-driven intelligence has other footholds elsewhere given the right environment.
Pinker is right with his third point, consciousness appears to be a product of the brain, but a particularly strange one. The ‘hard problem’ , which Pinker has recognised, is why the supposedly indifferent laws of physics and chemistry should contrive to produce a subjective experience from material processes?. Here it is worth recalling that Descartes himself said in the Sixth of his 'Meditations on First Philosophy'.
'I am not present in my body merely as a pilot is present in a ship.... I am most tightly bound to it, and as it were mixed up with it, so that I and it form a unit'.
Reductive explanations of the mind have all failed, the non-reductive physicalism which is in vogue amongst philosophers of mind seems to be the way forward, but as the above quote shows, it is close to what Descartes himself was really arguing; that humans are compounds of mind and body, and it is not natural or proper to them to be anything else.
The howler of the day perhaps comes from P Z Myers. In reaction to Conway Morris’s sense of wonderment - that we, as products of evolution, should be able to do science - he says:
We simply do not hesitate to point out a rational examination of the world of biology does reveal order and pattern! Science wouldn't work if the universe were purely chaotic.
I suppose we might phrase this as the ‘science anthropic principle’. We scientifically observe a universe which has a rational order and beauty to it because that is the only type of universe we could observe scientifically. The mindless Epicurean void the materialist wants to invoke, and which has returned in the guise of the multiverse, is not what we observe. Instead science was built on the expectation that the world is ordered by laws bestowed upon it from the outside by a benevolent creator, and that therefore, if we examine it with a certain scepticism towards both nature and our own intellectual abilities, we are capable of obtaining meaningful facts from it and fitting them into a coherent framework. You can reject the religion but continue with the categories of thinking.
http://bedejournal.blogspot.se/2009/02/arguing-your-opponents-case.html
Mira Alber ... que te dejo una "revista" mas --- donde tambien nombran uno de los que he estudiado (Robert Foley- Cambridge) :[h=2]MONDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2009[/h][h=3]Arguing your opponent’s case[/h]
Back in 2003, the Cambridge palaeontologist Simon Conway Morris wrote a book called ‘Life’s Solution, Inevitable humans in a lonely universe’. In many ways, this work marked the culmination of the argument between Morris and the late Stephen Jay Gould over the Burgess Shale and the wider question of whether evolution is random and unpredictable or has some kind of inevitable pattern. Gould had used the Burgess Shale to argue that if you were somehow able to run the tape of life again, the result would look vastly different. Conway Morris had done most of the important research on the Burgess shale and felt peeved that Gould had misrepresented his findings in this way. The result was an ill tempered argument between the two, with Conway Morris pointing to the phenomenon of evolutionary convergence and the ability of evolution to navigate to certain solutions under selection pressure. It now looks like the weight of evidence lies with Conway Morris and that biology has become less Gouldian, although recent experiments by Richard Lenski with populations of bacteria showed the importance both of constraint and historical accident in the course of life’s history. The important point about Conway Morris’s arguments is that they are Neo-Darwinian; rather than introducing some alternate mechanism into the picture he is trying to demonstrate how the deceptively simple rules of evolution can produce the complexity and creativity of life, while being constrained to certain outcomes. This is in contrast to the meaningless empire of accident, so often invoked by materialists and metaphysical naturalists, but which doesn’t tie in at all well with the universe we actually observe.The arguments of Conway Morris were absorbed and carried further by his colleagues in a series of essays published in ‘The Deep Structure of Biology’. Some of those who had contributed had begun to produce computerised maps of ‘biological adaptive space’. It is clear from looking at these that, out of the space of adaptive possibility, almost nothing works. In other words, the convergence of biological systems can be explained by environmental and physical constraints which act on all life. These restrict the boundless creativity of life to a series of ‘optimal solutions’. In the view of Conway Morris and others, evolution acts like a kind of ‘search engine’ to create more complex ecosystems in which different niches are enabled and filled by new species.
Perhaps a bit embarrassed by Conway Morris’s theological leanings, the contributors were keen to stress that their conclusions were firmly in the neo-Darwinian mould. Robert A Foley, one of Cambridge’s leading lights in evolutionary biology and the Director of the Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, was highly critical of any notions of 'progress'', 'design' and 'purpose' in his contribution, yet he concluded:'Rather the adaptive process which is driven by selection does have some law like properties that may well - under the right circumstances - lead to more purposive behaviour as a means of increasing or coping with complex adaptive integration and greater complexity and lead to contained directional trends. These characteristics can be said to give evolution a repetitive and, hence, to some extent. inevitable pattern....The final conclusion I would draw is that evolution on other planets - or a rerun of evolution on this one - will lead to many similarities because of the law-like nature of these processes...In a distribution of intelligences in the universe, or on a sample of one, we might speculate that conscious, purpose driven intelligence represents the mode'
On the anniversary of Darwin’s birth, Conway Morris launched into an article criticising the rather dismal atheistic spin which is put on evolution. I suspect he was trying to be provocative and re-instil a sense of wonder but he just attracted a torrent of abuse from the Guardian’s ‘Dawkinsia readership’.
Conway Morris’s rant was picked up by PZ Myers, who penned a scathing review of ‘Life’s solution’ some time ago. Myers's review was particularly dismal, being about 5% science and 95% statement of his personal philosophy. He clearly didn’t read the book as in his post he appears to be arguing on Conway Morris’s side most of the time.‘I recommend an article in this week's Nature by Shubin, Tabin, and Carroll that argues for an important concept of deep homology. We do see similar structures, such as limbs in insects and invertebrates, that are not at all homologous on a morphological level, but when we examine their molecular genetics, we find similar substrates for both. This is the central idea of deep homology, that we have shared primitives, a set of regulatory networks, that see reuse over and over again in evolution. So while limbs arose independently in insects and vertebrates, when we look more deeply, we find that both use the distal-less developmental pathway. We see convergence because there are common functional demands that channel the solutions of selection, but there are also shared molecular constraints that limit the range of likely solutions.’
Which is exactly what Conway Morris has argued, that certain constraints, be they molecular or environmental , chart the course of evolution. Molecular convergence is one of the most fascinating features of evolution. A good example is provided by Carbonic anhydrases which are zinc enzymes necessary for dealing with carbon dioxide; these accelerate chemical reactions, assist with the construction of bones, allow the storage of carbon dioxide and are used by plants in photosynthesis. Carbonic anhydrases have evolved independently at least 4 times and we can therefore be pretty confident that if there are other organisms in the universe with are dealing with carbon dioxide, they are probably using the same zinc configuration. The appearance of deep regulatory networks seems to fit pretty nicely into the idea of a naturally emerging framework for life. What is not often appreciated is that most of the building blocks we need for more complex features - such as sentience, intelligence and nervous systems - evolved long before these complex organisations emerged. The molecular substrates to make these features all emerged in bacteria and microbes. So for example, the protein for the transparency of the eye's lens has been recruited from bacteria where it was used for a completely different purpose in a different context. Certain things which are optimal for simpler forms of life thereby contrive to provide a building yard for their more complex descendents.
The part of Conway Morris’s article which raised the most derision from the ‘new atheist contingent’ was where he said that:
‘Birds evolved at least twice, maybe four times.’
This was scoffed at by PZ but interestingly Conway Morris has been vigorously defended by Richard Dawkins, who said in a recent comment:No, he does NOT mean bats, insects and pterosaurs! Of COURSE not. If he had meant that, he would not have said 'maybe' four times but 'at least four times'. He meant BIRDS, the creatures that we all call birds.
His whole book, Life's Solution is a hymn to convergent evolution. His thesis (and it is a very interesting and persuasive thesis, one that I largely agree with until we come to the religious nonsense at the end of the book) is that convergent evolution is far more prevalent than most people realise. In this bird passage, he almost certainly is advancing the thesis that the following statement is false: "Birds are a true clade in that all birds are descended from a single ancestor, and that ancestor would itself have been classified as a bird." There were several groups of feathered dinosaurs. Majority opinion says that only one of these groups has any descendants surviving today, and we call them birds. CM is advancing the interestingly heterodox thesis that some of today's birds are descended from one of those groups of feathered dinosaurs, while others of today's birds are descended from a different group of feathered dinosaurs. He is suggesting that the most recent common ancestor of all today's birds would not have been classified as a bird.
He could be right about that. Among all zoologists, I am probably, along with Conway Morris, the one most sympathetic to that kind of view (now that Arthur Cain is dead). We both love convergent evolution. But I am probably the least sympathetic to Conway Morris's next step, which is to drag God into the story. Convergent evolution, for me, is a wonderful testimony to the power of natural selection. Conway Morris at times seems to agree. But then at other times, he seems to think . . . well, let me put it this way. If you are the betting type, you'd be well advised to put some money on Simon Conway Morris as a future Templeton Prizewinner!
Another critic who unwittingly argues for Conway Morris’s case is Stephen Pinker on Jerry Coynes’s blog who argues:My own take: 1. Though there’s much we don’t understand about the evolution of human intelligence, nothing about it is especially mysterious. A specific ability to do physics, abstract philosophy, higher math, and the other problems that vexed Wallace never evolved in the first place – they require millennia of accumulated knowledge in a culture, and decades of education and honing in an individual. A more generic ability entertain concepts of number, objects, living things, causality, and so on, and to combine them into lawful generalizations, is patently adaptive, as we see in the ways that all human cultures depend on acquired technological know-how for their survival, outsmarting the fixed defenses of local flora and fauna. While human-level intelligence is species-specific (as are many zoological traits, such as the elephant’s trunk), impressive levels of numerical cognition and cause-and-effect reasoning have evolved several times, including in corvids, cetaceans, cephalopods, and primates.
2. Nor is morality any mystery. Abstract, universal morality (e.g., a Kantian categorical imperative) never evolved in the first place, but took millennia of debate and cultural experience, and doesn’t characterize the vast majority of humanity. More rudimentary moral sentiments that may have evolved – sympathy, trust, retribution, gratitude, guilt – are stable strategies in cooperation games, and emerge in computer simulations.
3. No feature of consciousness has ever been discovered that does not depend 100% on neurophysiology. Stimulate the brain with chemicals or an electrical current, and the person’s experience changes; let a person’s experience vary, and you can measure the changes in chemistry or electrophysiology. When a brain is damaged, the person’s mental life is diminished accordingly, and when the brain’s activity ceases, the mind goes out of existence – Wallace’s séances notwithstanding, no one has found a way to communicate with the dead. The very existence of a subjective correlate of brain activity may not be understood (if it’s an intellectually coherent problem at all, which some would deny), but positing a “soul” simply renames the problem with no insight, and leaves the perfect correlation between consciousness and neurophysiology unexplained.
Or to summarise, human like intelligence and systems of morality emerge as convergent products of the evolutionary process; all of which was the thrust of Life’s Solution. Coyne argues that our big brained intelligence is a one off and that our colossal increase in brain size which began around about 6 million years ago is a unique evolutionary trajectory. This however, is deceptive. The dolphins and porpoises, experienced a vast increase in brain size before ours and have maintained it. Our brain only overtook theirs at some point around one and a half million years ago. What is remarkable is that they show all sorts of similarities in their cognitive landscape to us, including social play, communication, the ability to recognise themselves in mirror (the mirror test) and tool use; this despite an oceanic habitat rather than an arboreal one. The uniqueness of our intelligence is probably a question of degree rather than of kind. For example, a New Caledonian crow has a similar theory of mind to a chimpanzee despite a vastly different brain structure, research into sperm whales shows that diverse social groups can combine to produce a form of culture; this is remarkably similar to elephant societies which have similar practices, despite being in a very ecosystem. With 100 billion earth like planets in our galaxy alone, and with at least 500 billion galaxies in the universe, its fair to say that Robert Foley is probably right and that conscious-driven intelligence has other footholds elsewhere given the right environment.
Pinker is right with his third point, consciousness appears to be a product of the brain, but a particularly strange one. The ‘hard problem’ , which Pinker has recognised, is why the supposedly indifferent laws of physics and chemistry should contrive to produce a subjective experience from material processes?. Here it is worth recalling that Descartes himself said in the Sixth of his 'Meditations on First Philosophy'.'I am not present in my body merely as a pilot is present in a ship.... I am most tightly bound to it, and as it were mixed up with it, so that I and it form a unit'.
Reductive explanations of the mind have all failed, the non-reductive physicalism which is in vogue amongst philosophers of mind seems to be the way forward, but as the above quote shows, it is close to what Descartes himself was really arguing; that humans are compounds of mind and body, and it is not natural or proper to them to be anything else.
The howler of the day perhaps comes from P Z Myers. In reaction to Conway Morris’s sense of wonderment - that we, as products of evolution, should be able to do science - he says:
We simply do not hesitate to point out a rational examination of the world of biology does reveal order and pattern! Science wouldn't work if the universe were purely chaotic.
I suppose we might phrase this as the ‘science anthropic principle’. We scientifically observe a universe which has a rational order and beauty to it because that is the only type of universe we could observe scientifically. The mindless Epicurean void the materialist wants to invoke, and which has returned in the guise of the multiverse, is not what we observe. Instead science was built on the expectation that the world is ordered by laws bestowed upon it from the outside by a benevolent creator, and that therefore, if we examine it with a certain scepticism towards both nature and our own intellectual abilities, we are capable of obtaining meaningful facts from it and fitting them into a coherent framework. You can reject the religion but continue with the categories of thinking.
http://bedejournal.blogspot.se/2009/02/arguing-your-opponents-case.html
Re: Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
No sé si sea el caso, pero ciertamente aplica la ironía y hasta el sarcasmo... siendo que usualmente ahí es a donde Ud. nos remite a informarnos. .. como si las fuentes que nosotros le traemos fueran irrelevantes.
No sé si sea el caso, pero ciertamente aplica la ironía y hasta el sarcasmo... siendo que usualmente ahí es a donde Ud. nos remite a informarnos. .. como si las fuentes que nosotros le traemos fueran irrelevantes.
Re: Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
Entretanto los supuestos descubridores tienen tiempo suficiente para ganar dinero y publicidad a costa de la sociedad que da credibilidad a supuestos hallazgos cientificos pasan 40 o 50 o más años en ser examinado en forma seria y responsable por tecnología forense. ¿Hay sentido critico con la evidencia que se presenta? Evidentemente no lo hay. No es tolerable tal tardanza. No es de profesionales. La tardanza es por motivos dogmáticos, financieros y comerciales sujetos a la imposición autoritaria del criterio de patrocinadores y jefes de equipos que predomina en esa comunidad de paleontologos. Los verdaderos cientificos buscan siempre poner a prueba sus teorías, pero eso es casi imposible obtenerlo de ustedes.
Entretanto los supuestos descubridores tienen tiempo suficiente para ganar dinero y publicidad a costa de la sociedad que da credibilidad a supuestos hallazgos cientificos pasan 40 o 50 o más años en ser examinado en forma seria y responsable por tecnología forense. ¿Hay sentido critico con la evidencia que se presenta? Evidentemente no lo hay. No es tolerable tal tardanza. No es de profesionales. La tardanza es por motivos dogmáticos, financieros y comerciales sujetos a la imposición autoritaria del criterio de patrocinadores y jefes de equipos que predomina en esa comunidad de paleontologos. Los verdaderos cientificos buscan siempre poner a prueba sus teorías, pero eso es casi imposible obtenerlo de ustedes.
Re: Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
No le he respondido a lo de los neandertales, porque francamente discutir si tenían o no tenían pelo es algo que no me quita el sueño. Por lo que sé, cuidaban de sus heridos y enfermos por lo que su estructura social sería más cercana a una tribu humana que a una manada de gorilas.
No me tapo los ojos a un posible cambio de paradigma. Más de una vez le he dicho que lo aceptaría. Lo que ocurre es que hasta ahora no hay ningún estudio serio y mucho menos un cúmulo de evidencia crítica que sugiera que en un futuro cercano se vaya a desestimar la teoría de la evolución.
Estimado: Una conferencia por muy magistral que sea, no conforma un cambio de paradigma, especialmente si el tema es la apariencia del Neanderthal. De paso aprovecho para decirle que es la primera vez que usted me la menciona. Del Cráneo 5 es decir más o menos lo mismo. Un caso interesante con una datación complicada, pero hasta dónde sé (y espero que usted esté mejor informado) el caso no ha dado para mucho más, excepto un par de artículos efectistas.
No le he respondido a lo de los neandertales, porque francamente discutir si tenían o no tenían pelo es algo que no me quita el sueño. Por lo que sé, cuidaban de sus heridos y enfermos por lo que su estructura social sería más cercana a una tribu humana que a una manada de gorilas.
No me tapo los ojos a un posible cambio de paradigma. Más de una vez le he dicho que lo aceptaría. Lo que ocurre es que hasta ahora no hay ningún estudio serio y mucho menos un cúmulo de evidencia crítica que sugiera que en un futuro cercano se vaya a desestimar la teoría de la evolución.
Re: Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
Ps. No es una doctrina. Es una teoría científica. Por favor no use esas tretas… desdicen de usted.
No es fanatismo. En ninguno de los dos artículos que trajo Kugens se analizaba la existencia o no del grupo de dinosaurios emplumados.
Ps. No es una doctrina. Es una teoría científica. Por favor no use esas tretas… desdicen de usted.
Re: Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
Lo que no creo es que fue en seis días de 24 horas…. Tampoco creo que la Tierra tiene 6000 años ni que el diluvio fuera universal.
Re: Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
Te faltó lo más relevante y es que la propia Kugens me dijo que no leía Wiki, sólo lee ciencia y papers científicos. Por eso mi sorpresa cuando puso lo de la Wiki. Yo no creo que sus aportes sean irrelevantes, pero si uso la wiki por ser de fácil acceso y generalmente con una información pertinente. Los ejemplos que le he puesto pocos son de wiki.
Re: Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
El hecho que la evolución encaja bien y en toda la forma de percibir el humano (meramente animal) y "el sentido de la vida" ...o mejor dicho. ..la falta de algún sentido de la vida que no sea gozar disfrutar y relajarse y sacar todo posible de la corta vida que tiene un humano (filosofia de Bentham y Mills) ... con el comunismo de China (donde proviene el engaño de dinosaurios plumados) esta en perfectas líneas con los experimentos de los científicos sovjeticos donde intentaron cruzar humanos con monos.
Intentos que fallaron. ..
Nuestro ansestro común y pariente más cercano No se deja llevar a ser humano o semi humano ...
Pero en fin. ..
Existe algo que se suele denominar : intención del mandante o el autor de algun escrito.
El hecho que la evolución encaja bien y en toda la forma de percibir el humano (meramente animal) y "el sentido de la vida" ...o mejor dicho. ..la falta de algún sentido de la vida que no sea gozar disfrutar y relajarse y sacar todo posible de la corta vida que tiene un humano (filosofia de Bentham y Mills) ... con el comunismo de China (donde proviene el engaño de dinosaurios plumados) esta en perfectas líneas con los experimentos de los científicos sovjeticos donde intentaron cruzar humanos con monos.
Intentos que fallaron. ..
Nuestro ansestro común y pariente más cercano No se deja llevar a ser humano o semi humano ...
Pero en fin. ..
Existe algo que se suele denominar : intención del mandante o el autor de algun escrito.
Re: Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
A ver... DE DONDE SABE QUE CUIDABAN A SUS ENFERMOS Y SUS HERIDOS?
Otra vez con sus espantapajaros... no sugiero que una conferencia proponga un cambio de paradigma... lo que digo es que no se toma el tiempo de evaluarlas...
A ver... DE DONDE SABE QUE CUIDABAN A SUS ENFERMOS Y SUS HERIDOS?
Re: Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
Que sea una teoria no descarta que sea una doctrina... le recomiendo ampliar su lexico
Que sea una teoria no descarta que sea una doctrina... le recomiendo ampliar su lexico
Re: Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
por eso le digo que hablo por mí y no por ella. Es una recomendación irónica que yo le haría a su pregunta
yo le remitiría IRONICAMENTE a Wikipedia... dado que Ud. le da tanta autoridad como para ilustrar, pero descarta las otras fuentes que se le presentan.
por eso le digo que hablo por mí y no por ella. Es una recomendación irónica que yo le haría a su pregunta
yo le remitiría IRONICAMENTE a Wikipedia... dado que Ud. le da tanta autoridad como para ilustrar, pero descarta las otras fuentes que se le presentan.
Re: Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
Creo que debió, al menos por cortesía, haber manifestado esto antes y no prometer que me respondería.
le voy a volver a poner aquí la conferencia en la que baso cómo lucirían los neanderthales
vamos, no tenga miedo de verla. sobre todo ahora que hace mención de que la estructura de los neanderthales se asemeja más a una tribu humana. Harold Dibble aborda no solo los sitios mismos de los enterramientos, sino los gazapos ocurridos durante las excavaciones y cómo se propagaron los mitos sobre los comportamientos de estos bichos, y también en base a qué descarta que las fosas donde se encontraron los cuerpos hayan sido ya no solo ceremoniales, sino siquiera intencionales. ...
Vera amigo, yo lo que siempre siempre digo, es que NO NOS QUEDA OTRA QUE APELAR A LOS MAGISTERIOS...y le reitero, en caso de la ciencia yo voto por los "herejes del mainstream"... me parece que la ciencia se beneficia más de ellos , que los que se comportan como borregos siguiendo al hato
otra de las cosas que siempre digo, que uno de las ¨desventajas¨de debatir conmigo es mi memoria fotográfica pues esto me hace bastante coherente en las cosas que digo .. en el mensaje 1878 del thread "razones para ser ateo" digo textualmente:
mensaje que Ud. siquiera puede argumentar que no leyó pues como se puede apreciar lo respondió en el mensaje 2094 del mismo hilo ... en el que refirió
el caso es que siempre apelaremos a autoridades .. Ud. aunque tengo muchos conocimientos , jamás podrá más que valorar LO QUE LE DICEN y apostará por una u otra autoridad.
Creo que debió, al menos por cortesía, haber manifestado esto antes y no prometer que me respondería.
le voy a volver a poner aquí la conferencia en la que baso cómo lucirían los neanderthales
vamos, no tenga miedo de verla. sobre todo ahora que hace mención de que la estructura de los neanderthales se asemeja más a una tribu humana. Harold Dibble aborda no solo los sitios mismos de los enterramientos, sino los gazapos ocurridos durante las excavaciones y cómo se propagaron los mitos sobre los comportamientos de estos bichos, y también en base a qué descarta que las fosas donde se encontraron los cuerpos hayan sido ya no solo ceremoniales, sino siquiera intencionales. ...
Vera amigo, yo lo que siempre siempre digo, es que NO NOS QUEDA OTRA QUE APELAR A LOS MAGISTERIOS...y le reitero, en caso de la ciencia yo voto por los "herejes del mainstream"... me parece que la ciencia se beneficia más de ellos , que los que se comportan como borregos siguiendo al hato
otra de las cosas que siempre digo, que uno de las ¨desventajas¨de debatir conmigo es mi memoria fotográfica pues esto me hace bastante coherente en las cosas que digo .. en el mensaje 1878 del thread "razones para ser ateo" digo textualmente:
mensaje que Ud. siquiera puede argumentar que no leyó pues como se puede apreciar lo respondió en el mensaje 2094 del mismo hilo ... en el que refirió
el caso es que siempre apelaremos a autoridades .. Ud. aunque tengo muchos conocimientos , jamás podrá más que valorar LO QUE LE DICEN y apostará por una u otra autoridad.
Re: Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
Lo cierto es que las representaciones de los aspectos de los distintos bichos , son usadas para apalancar las distintas propuestas. Así pues presentan neanderthales sin pelos, y vestidos de pieles, con socialisaciones tribales y hasta controlando el fuego en hogueras...... TODO ESTO SIN SOPORTE EVIDENCIAL ALGUNO, ... y lo cierto es que uno, simple mortal.. NO SE DA CUENTA DE ESO SINO QUE LO CREEMOS ACR´ITICAMENTE..... ESTO EN EL CASO DE LOS EVOLUCIONISTAS (QUE EN ALGUN MOMENTO LO FUI de hueso colorado).
Lo cierto es que las representaciones de los aspectos de los distintos bichos , son usadas para apalancar las distintas propuestas. Así pues presentan neanderthales sin pelos, y vestidos de pieles, con socialisaciones tribales y hasta controlando el fuego en hogueras...... TODO ESTO SIN SOPORTE EVIDENCIAL ALGUNO, ... y lo cierto es que uno, simple mortal.. NO SE DA CUENTA DE ESO SINO QUE LO CREEMOS ACR´ITICAMENTE..... ESTO EN EL CASO DE LOS EVOLUCIONISTAS (QUE EN ALGUN MOMENTO LO FUI de hueso colorado).
Re: Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
decir mentiras pseudocientificas es un argumento algo fuerte que me imagino sabes como defender..
por que tendria que ser contradictorio, como lo mencione alguna vez, en ningun lugar de la biblia se dice que los animales hayan sido creados con la anatomia/fisiologia que los conocemos, se dice que "de acuerdo a su genero y especie" o algo asi, pero tampoco se menciona cual es, entonces porque no cabe la posibilidad de que todas las criaturas hayan sido creadas en otro "stage" y hayan por medio de la evolucion llegado hasta lo que son ahora? . No hay que olvidar que el metodo de clasificaciion de los animales es una creacion humana que puede estar equivocada... o acaso la clasificacion es correcta pero la evolucion no? le crees mas a uno que a otro a pesar de que ambas cosas han sido credas usando las mismas metodologias?
decir mentiras pseudocientificas es un argumento algo fuerte que me imagino sabes como defender..
por que tendria que ser contradictorio, como lo mencione alguna vez, en ningun lugar de la biblia se dice que los animales hayan sido creados con la anatomia/fisiologia que los conocemos, se dice que "de acuerdo a su genero y especie" o algo asi, pero tampoco se menciona cual es, entonces porque no cabe la posibilidad de que todas las criaturas hayan sido creadas en otro "stage" y hayan por medio de la evolucion llegado hasta lo que son ahora? . No hay que olvidar que el metodo de clasificaciion de los animales es una creacion humana que puede estar equivocada... o acaso la clasificacion es correcta pero la evolucion no? le crees mas a uno que a otro a pesar de que ambas cosas han sido credas usando las mismas metodologias?
Re: Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
Puedo ver que tiene que ver la "caída" de Adán y Eva con la venida de Cristo. Lo que no logro ver es en que afecta su existencia fuera del relato del Génesis con la venida de Cristo. Si lo que se quiere decir es que para que el hombre sea pecador el sine qua non es la existencia de Adán y Eva, entonces veo que el mensaje de la Biblia sigue en la oscuridad y no ha sido entendido.
No cabe duda que Juan tuviese Genesis 3 en mente, lo que me parece altamente especulativo es asegurar que hace una exégesis exclusiva de Genesis 3. Esa es una interpretación, a mi juicio, añadida. Pero dejando a un lado esta trivialidad, nótese que lo hecho por el diablo es traer el pecado y que la venida del hijo de Dios es para deshacer el pecado. Notese que la problemática (en el texto Joanico, no en el paulino) no es obra de Adán, sino del diablo. Esto es muy importante para la interpretación. No que lo dicho por Juan contradiga lo dicho por Pablo, sino el centro de énfasis.
No estoy dando a entender que Adan y Eva no existieron, que el relato es una fábula o que no es verídico. Lo que si estoy afirmando es que ese razonamiento que supuestamente sirve bien al creacionismo es falaz, ademas de irresponsable.
1. El pecado es una creencia teológica y no una científica. El mensaje de Génesis 3 es contundente. La humanidad se rebeló contra Dios. El De Genesis 3-11 es contundente, la humanos nos rebelamos contra Dios, los ángeles se rebelaron contra Dios y las naciones se rebelaron contra Dios. Es irrelevante pues si Adán y Eva se llamaban Adán y Eva, si eran originalmente muñecos de barro, porcelana, si Dios los hizo brotar mágicamente del polvo de la tierra o si fueron el producto de la mano de Dios moldeándolos por el tiempo a la manera del origen de las especies. Como sea que se quiera creer o imaginar, lo cierto es que la humanidad pecó. Ese es el mensaje del texto.
2. Una cosa es la evolución y otra muy distinta es aprovechar el descubrimiento para validar una posición atea. El naturalismo jamás puede negar o afirmar la existencia de Dios, precisamente porque oblitera cualquier cosa que se refiera a lo sobrenatural. Pero es igualmente ridículo rechazar la vacuna contra la malaria alegando que el médico que la descubrió es tan ateo como el que me la va a aplicar. Una cosa es que se haya descubierto un patrón, otra es que ese patrón en la naturaleza se use para atacar una creencia religiosa.
3. Que un evolucionista niegue la existencia de Adán y Eva (como estrategia pueril para invalidar la noción teológica de pecado ) no demuestra que la evolución es falsa. De la misma manera, la creencia de que Adán y Eva fueron creados no es suficiente para demostrar que la evolución es falsa, Mucho menos que sin esta pareja el pecado no existiría. (Ya sabemos gracias a Juan, que el primer pecador es una entidad llamada "el diablo").
4. Apocalipsis 21:8 no incluye "cristianos que creen en la evolución, creacionistas, físicos cuánticos o biologos ".
Puedo ver que tiene que ver la "caída" de Adán y Eva con la venida de Cristo. Lo que no logro ver es en que afecta su existencia fuera del relato del Génesis con la venida de Cristo. Si lo que se quiere decir es que para que el hombre sea pecador el sine qua non es la existencia de Adán y Eva, entonces veo que el mensaje de la Biblia sigue en la oscuridad y no ha sido entendido.
No cabe duda que Juan tuviese Genesis 3 en mente, lo que me parece altamente especulativo es asegurar que hace una exégesis exclusiva de Genesis 3. Esa es una interpretación, a mi juicio, añadida. Pero dejando a un lado esta trivialidad, nótese que lo hecho por el diablo es traer el pecado y que la venida del hijo de Dios es para deshacer el pecado. Notese que la problemática (en el texto Joanico, no en el paulino) no es obra de Adán, sino del diablo. Esto es muy importante para la interpretación. No que lo dicho por Juan contradiga lo dicho por Pablo, sino el centro de énfasis.
Esta conclusión no es convincente. El relato de la creación de Adán y Eva es la forma pre-científica de señalar a Dios como el autor de la existencia humana. La evolución no se había postulado cuando se escribió Genesis o toda la Biblia en su totalidad. Así que no tiene sentido comparar la teoría de la evolución con el mensaje de la Biblia. De hecho, la Biblia llama a la humanidad ADAM, Adan y Eva son personajes del relato de Génesis 2 y sin embargo a la pareja tambien se le llama Adam (humanidad). A la luz de Ezequiel 18, cada ser humano es responsable de su propio pecado aun cuando la humanidad como conjunto o unidad es pecadora. No se requiere la existencia de Adán y Eva para reconocer que todos pecamos y estamos destituidos de la gloria de Dios.
No estoy dando a entender que Adan y Eva no existieron, que el relato es una fábula o que no es verídico. Lo que si estoy afirmando es que ese razonamiento que supuestamente sirve bien al creacionismo es falaz, ademas de irresponsable.
1. El pecado es una creencia teológica y no una científica. El mensaje de Génesis 3 es contundente. La humanidad se rebeló contra Dios. El De Genesis 3-11 es contundente, la humanos nos rebelamos contra Dios, los ángeles se rebelaron contra Dios y las naciones se rebelaron contra Dios. Es irrelevante pues si Adán y Eva se llamaban Adán y Eva, si eran originalmente muñecos de barro, porcelana, si Dios los hizo brotar mágicamente del polvo de la tierra o si fueron el producto de la mano de Dios moldeándolos por el tiempo a la manera del origen de las especies. Como sea que se quiera creer o imaginar, lo cierto es que la humanidad pecó. Ese es el mensaje del texto.
2. Una cosa es la evolución y otra muy distinta es aprovechar el descubrimiento para validar una posición atea. El naturalismo jamás puede negar o afirmar la existencia de Dios, precisamente porque oblitera cualquier cosa que se refiera a lo sobrenatural. Pero es igualmente ridículo rechazar la vacuna contra la malaria alegando que el médico que la descubrió es tan ateo como el que me la va a aplicar. Una cosa es que se haya descubierto un patrón, otra es que ese patrón en la naturaleza se use para atacar una creencia religiosa.
3. Que un evolucionista niegue la existencia de Adán y Eva (como estrategia pueril para invalidar la noción teológica de pecado ) no demuestra que la evolución es falsa. De la misma manera, la creencia de que Adán y Eva fueron creados no es suficiente para demostrar que la evolución es falsa, Mucho menos que sin esta pareja el pecado no existiría. (Ya sabemos gracias a Juan, que el primer pecador es una entidad llamada "el diablo").
4. Apocalipsis 21:8 no incluye "cristianos que creen en la evolución, creacionistas, físicos cuánticos o biologos ".
Re: Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
Ni los propios científicos creen en la evolución, pero algunos creyentes sí....
Ni los propios científicos creen en la evolución, pero algunos creyentes sí....
Re: Si eres EVOLUCIONISTA no puedes ser cristiano
Pero dime, por qué crees en la evolución?
Pero dime, por qué crees en la evolución?