558M-year-old fossils identified as oldest known animal
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
I went to Wikipedia and found this definition: "With few exceptions, animals consume organic material, breathe oxygen, are able to move, reproduce sexually, and grow from a hollow sphere of cells, the blastula, during embryonic development".
So these 'Ediacarans' fall into this category?
The identity of the ediacaran fauna has long been controversial. They don't "look like" modern animals (all of whom descend from forms that appeared later, in the cambrian explosion), so they're hard to place. This is a big, big result if it holds up.
FWIW: this is the Wikipedia article you want to be reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran_biota
Here's a bit more on what they did:
>We applied a new approach (17) to test the lichen, protist, and animal hypotheses by studying biomarkers extracted from organically preserved dickinsoniids. Hydrocarbon biomarkers are the molecular fossils of lipids and other biological compounds. Encased in sedimentary rock, biomarkers may retain information about their biological origins for hundreds of millions of years. For instance, hopanes are the hydrocarbon remains of bacterial hopanepolyols, whereas saturated steranes and aromatic steroids are diagenetic products of eukaryotic sterols. The most common sterols of Eukarya possess a cholesteroid, ergosteroid, or stigmasteroid skeleton with 27, 28, or 29 carbon atoms, respectively. These C27 to C29 sterols, distinguished by the alkylation pattern at position C-24 in the sterol side chain, function as membrane modifiers and are widely distributed across extant Eukarya, but their relative abundances can give clues about the source organisms (24).
Everything after that is easy. I remind myself that every morning. :-)
> [...] However, complex multicellular organisms evolved only in six eukaryotic groups: animals, fungi, brown algae, red algae, green algae, and land plants. It evolved repeatedly for Chloroplastida (green algae and land plants), once or twice for animals, once for brown algae, three times in the fungi (chytrids, ascomycetes and basidiomycetes) and perhaps several times for slime molds and red algae.
1. Multiple forms of life did arise at about the same time, but in the end there was one.
2. Multiple forms of life did arise and ended up cross breeding or doing lateral gene transfers or any number novel things. We are the sum result of the earliest forms of life, but it's not like we have everything mapped out there.
3. The potential for new life is all around us, but can't compete with existing life that has millions of years head start. Regardless of where you pick a point after life is already established, a million years later, when the dinosaurs went extinct, 1901, the problem is the same. Something else is already there has been evolving for ages.
4. New life does periodically arise but it's a drop in the ocean and finding that particular drop isn't easy. Assuming it even survives at all for any length of time.
5. We've already seen independent life, but just haven't recognized it as such.
It reminds me of how everyone is willing to experiment with new neural network training algorithms in the software world, but you need tremendous resistance trying to change parts of POSIX to suck less. It's as if in both nature and computing, there's some conservation in the amount of experimentation we're willing to tolerate.
Each story lives in parts of their brain that are entirely segregated from one another.
Someone once said (not sure the attribution) "never try to reason with someone who has irrational beliefs".
And if it only comes up as a matter in the afterlife, (that is, heaven doesn't like the given individual for acting upon the lie) there's another twist in the bind presented: that is God wants the given individual to live, but to do so requires interfacing with the rules of physical reality, which means accepting the predictive power of the "lie".
My response is simply that we concept of time in religious text is not what we think it is. I think science exists and God also exists. Plenty of scientisits believe in God and science at the same time. Are you going to quote and say they are also irrational? Sigh. I may be an angry engineer but I don’t think you should imply all of us as irrational. Don’t do that. You are insulting everyone who believe in a religion for having belief in “irrational beliefs”.
Definition of irrationality:
> the quality of being illogical or unreasonable.
What part of what I said is irrational? Calling people having faith in religion is holding irrational belief? Irrational is a negative word, not a positive word unless you think we are talking about mathematics.
If you can't handle your beliefs being questioned or called out as irrational without resorting to feeling personally attacked and calling for apologies, then you're not yet prepared to have an honest conversation about whether you're justified in having those beliefs.
No. Not "is". Could be. Big difference.
'Your assumption is that the order in the universe arises from causality and physical law. His assumption is that the order in the universe arises from purpose, i.e. he believes in teleology'
By way of contrast, it is much harder to rationally get to theology without starting with teleology (though not impossible). So most atheists simply reject teleology out of hand, and then go on to conclude that theism must be irrational. It's not.
---
[1] Of course I have no idea whether or not this is actually true. I'm just presuming. But it's a plausible presumption that is true of many religious people even if it happens not to be true in this particular case.
It's a case of a mind trained into a kind of cul-de-sac with no way out. For some people this keeps them on the straight and narrow, for others it runs them smack into a wall. But it is certainly irrational to believe in a Divine Omnipotent Creator who plays crude tricks on you.
Really? What is it?
Rationality rests on implication.[1] The system we're talking about literally has "GOD -> anything" as an axiom, so it's useless for reasoning. If GOD -> (A -> B) for all A, B, and "->" then you can literally "prove" that anything implies anything else, or that everything implies God, but you can't disprove anything at all. Saying that there's a part of the system that can change anything about the system is essentially saying that there's no system at all. "Black is white and you get run over at the next zebra crossing."
If you believe that God will play tricks on you then you have nothing external to rely on. Again, this can be good or bad for a given person depending on their context. It's useless for reasoning, but you don't actually have to e.g. believe in Dinosaurs to reach God, so in that sense having no ability to rationalize can be a benefit if it prevents spiritual doubts. But many people instead are simply trapped in impoverished world-models. To wit: the Universe as revealed by scientific investigation redounds to the Glory of God far more than, say, the concepts of "young-earthers", or people who believe God a trickster.
[1] This is actually the one article of faith at the foundation of reason and rationality: that the Universe is comprehensible in terms of causation. The OP's father's god-image is jealous of even this wane and paltry rival.
No, the system we're talking about has purpose as an axiom and God as a (perfectly rational) conclusion.
I'm sorry, but I don't see that.
The quote was:
> "God is so powerful that he can do anything including placing all that evidence there to test our faith"
To me, that reads as "God, therefore anything". Specifically all evidence of X is evidence of God, even (and especially) if X contradicts God.
I don't see that it says, "Purpose, therefore God."
For what it's worth, responding to a sidereal comment of yours, I agree with you that "teleology, i.e. the assumption that existence has purpose, is not irrational".
It doesn't. I'm extrapolating. I'm saying that it is possible that such a conclusion can be arrived at rationally, for example, but starting from teleology as an assumption. Because this is possible, you cannot rationally conclude that a person is irrational just because they believe in God. They might be irrational, but they might not. To settle the question you'd need additional data.
I agree and indeed I did something like that: I built a model of God based on the assumptions that feedback exists and time is eventually transcended by humans or other sentients through technology or other means. I eventually discarded that model, but it was arrived at rationally.
> Because this is possible, you cannot rationally conclude that a person is irrational just because they believe in God.
I agree[1], however, I didn't do that. OP's father isn't irrational because he believes in God, he is irrational because he thinks God makes fake fossils. It's a concept of God so foolish as to disprove itself. If it were possible to mock God this would surely be the way to do it. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has more dignity.
[1] I am rational and I believe in God, so it would be hypocritical of me to claim that a person is irrational just because they believe in God.
You can't know that without knowing how he arrived at that conclusion. You cannot judge the rationality or irrationality of conclusion simply by looking at the conclusion. When you do so, you are making the exact same mistake that atheists make when they look at you and decide that you must be irrational simply because you believe in Satya Sai Baba.
> You can't know that without knowing how he arrived at that conclusion.
In this case we do know how he arrived at that conclusion and we know that it was due to a form of reasoning that obviates itself, that his reasoning is irrational, that he is, in fact, not reasoning by his own admission.
I can't say whether or not this religion is working for OP's father, but I can (and do) say that it is irrational, because it is irrational in its structure. Anyway, he doesn't have to reason correctly because (his) God(-image) does not require it, He is content with irrational faith.
One of the many aspects of Baba's instruction is that one who loves God should rejoice when passing by any house of worship, be it a Church, Mosque, Synagogue, Temple, or an altar of unhewn stone. God is One.
Please do not think that I disrespect religion, and I apologize for giving that impression.
Anything that helps one cross the ocean of illusion and reach the safe shore of Eternity is good.
If a belief system helps you reach God then it is good even if it's irrational.
Second, physical laws are not "just" descriptions and models based on observation. Any finite data set is consistent with an infinite number of theories. To whittle down that infinite set you need additional assumptions. Some people choose teleology, some don't. But there's no rational argument one way or the other.
Purpose is not something that exists outside of the minds of creatures that can harbor intent. It is inherently subjective, and is often intersubjective. We generally agree on the purpose of the specialized tools we create, but not because the purpose is an inherent property of the tool. Even if the universe was created by a race of gods or pixies or what have you, the purpose they had for it would not necessarily be shared by us.
Actually physical laws are just descriptions and models. To whittle them down you must remove additional assumptions, not add. The fewer assumptions needed to explain the evidence, the better the model. There may be additional data out there that ends up poking holes in our models, in which case we respond by revising the model. Some of the better models we've come up with have actually made surprisingly accurate predictions.
It is rational to base your beliefs on consistent and verified observations, rather than our fanciful imagination.
That's right.
> Now you're saying that this God character doesn't follow from this "purpose" and that invoking that idea is suddenly a straw man outside of this discussion?
Yes, but you left out a very important caveat: I would restate this and add one word:
"... this God character doesn't necessarily follow from this "purpose" ..."
I'm not taking a position on whether or not God does follow from teleology, only that he might. Sorting out whether he does or not is a very thorny problem which is ridiculously beyond the scope of an HN comment.
All I'm saying is that, because God might follow from teleology, you cannot (rationally) dismiss out of hand someone who believes in God as being irrational no matter how irrational their conclusions may seem to you at first glance. Quantum mechanics is pretty frickin' bizarre too. It is possible that they have come to their beliefs in a perfectly rational manner, but starting from an assumption (like teleology) that you simply do not accept despite the fact that you can't actually prove that it is false, at least not rationally :-)
Can you prove that? Can you falsify it?
> it is unfalsifiable, and for some reason you think that makes it rational to believe in
No, it is (at least potentially) rational to believe in it despite the fact that it is unfalsifiable, not because it is unfalsifiable.
We should merge this thread with:
It helps a lot of people deal with existential despair and thereby get through the day. That's not useless.
Only if teleology is false, which you cannot prove rationally. If teleology is in fact true, then assuming it is true can be very useful for figuring out what is true.
Generalized: "If my wild idea about X is true, then assuming it is true is useful for figuring out what is true."
This is the definition of irrationality. If you want to be rational, you don't start with your conclusion and work backwards from there.
The fact that teleology is unfalsifiable is not the reason it is (potentially) rational to believe it. Russell's teapot is unfalsifiable, but it is not rational to believe in it. However, consciousness (for example) is also unfalsifiable. A conscious being cannot be experimentally distinguished from a philosophical zombie. It is nonetheless not irrational to believe in consciousness.
So since we agree that the unfalsifiability of an idea does not make it rational to believe in it, then it should also be clear that the statement "you can't prove it is false" is not an argument in favor of your idea.
(merging threads on your request)
Can you prove that? Can you falsify it?
I made an argument for it. I used the example of tools that we make for specific purposes. Do you not agree that those purposes are not an intrinsic property of the tools? If you don't agree with that, I'm interested in knowing where you believe the example fails.
Just to level set, when I say that I think my Fathers beliefs are irrational, I don't mean that in a derisive way, I simply mean they are not fact based or not based on logical reasoning. That is sort of the basis for faith I think. But I am not being disrespectful, I simply choose a different path that is science based.
So his God is a deceiver. It's impossible to know the truth about anything in that universe. Because you don't know, can't know, when God is putting a finger on the scale.
That sort of reasoning reminds me of:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Q7. So if God directed evolution, why not just say he created everything at once?
Mainly because all the evidence suggests otherwise. If God created the universe suddenly, he created it in a state that is indistinguishable from true age. If he did create it that way there must be a reason, otherwise God is a liar. Whatever that reason may be, a universe that is exactly like one that is old should be treated as if it were old.
Source: my childhood.
Professor of Mathematics and Christian John Lennox had a fairly good quote saying that he doesn’t believe as a “God of the gaps” but a “God of the whole thing”, in that a Christian doesn’t believe that science being able to explain mechanisms diminishes God in any way, because if a God is in control/sustaining the universe then pretty much everything that science explains can be simultaneously brought about by God.
The whole young earth thing is strangely popular in America but not really strongly held in general mainstream Christianity or (I believe) in mainstream Judaism. There is plenty of scholarship going back thousands of years (back to Augustine circa 4th century AD, or even Phillo of Alexandria in 1st C) who believed that the author of Genesis didn’t intend the first few chapters to be read as attesting literal time periods or mechanisms but convey theological truths about God and humanity.
So while fundie YEC people would probably have a problem with this finding, generally mainstream believers and Christian scientists have no problem with this as just being a step in a process that God causes to occur to intentionally bring about life including humans.
>The whole young earth thing is strangely popular in America but not really strongly held in general mainstream Christianity or (I believe) in mainstream Judaism.
I’m not American, so it has always been weird to me how the early earth thing is widely associated with Christianity, I mean, I have no doubt there must be people really believing on it. But from a non American and non Protestant Christian point of view it is just weird. But my guess is that it must be associated with “Sola Scriptura” and the free and individual interpretation of the Bible some Protestants believe in.
Also I never said Christianity is not weird, at least not from a non mystical point of view.
Chesterton mentions it:
"Now the first thing to note is that if we take it merely as a human story, it is in some ways a very strange story...
...Relatively speaking, it is the Gospel that has the mysticism and the Church that has the rationalism. As I should put it, of course, it is the Gospel that is the riddle and the Church that is the answer. But whatever be the answer, the Gospel as it stands is almost a book of riddles..."
I really recommend reading The Everlasting Man from Chesterton, if you are interested on understanding (not trying to change your beliefs or anything, you can read it just to get a better understanding of Christians beliefs).
I’m more curious what people psychologically get out of taking the bible literally. It wouldn’t make me happy.
This very morning in my church discussion group, we each had a list of questions to discuss our perspective on. This particular gal had the question, "What's your favorite traditional Christian symbol?" Her answer was "the Jesus fish, and the evolved Jesus fish with legs". They are not incompatible given how our denomination tries to understand God.
If I recall correctly the common explanations I found were that humans did in fact live alongside dinosaurs, and that dinosaurs lived and died within the first few days of their creation for whatever reason.
One article I read on a christian website also said that the dating of dinosaur fossils by scientists was incorrect because bones don't have timestamp labels on them so there's no way one could know.
In regards to "I wonder how people reconcile such discoveries backed by scientific validation" I think it's quite often simply unsubstantiated rejection.
If I'm god, and I'm creating a planet for humans, and I made humans the curious beings that they are, would I:
a) Create an earth that is boring with no history to dig into and explore
b) Create a rich and storied history with things for them to wonder at
Now, I mean, if I was god I would chose option b. Even in the alternate reality where I would personally chose option a I don't see any reason to think that the actual god couldn't have chosen option b.
I'm not religious or well versed in Christianity, but I'm not aware of any reason why option b is inconsistent with the bible (the one possible exception is the flood story, but that is easily explained away by god fixing the earth afterwards).
Even if your explanation for why there are fossils etc. sounds sort of reasonable, if you grant this reinterpretation of the Christian creation myth, you've established that the goalposts can be moved, and from there you can find a way to move them for just about anything. Imagine we uncover a convincing, contemporaneous writing of Jesus' proclamation that he is merely a human. You could say, "Well God put that writing there to test our faith."
Yes. It's a fine line. None the less faith is faith regardless of how well you rationalize it.
I mentioned this possibility to an atheist friend of mine and it stopped him in his tracks.
Note: I'm also not heavily religiou by any means. But the odds of there being things beyond our imagination and beyond our knowledge are extremely possible.
As a side note, I find it kinda funny that Elon Musk can says (paraphrasing) "we live in a world created by someone / something we cannot see and we ultimately cannot understand" and no one gets upset. But isn't that presumption the basis of most theoism-based religions? No offense, but Some Musk states the obvious and that suddenly profound. Maybe I'm missing something?