Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Calling it nonsense however does not make it go away. As the likely apocraphil story of LaPlace goes our Theories and Science work perfectly well without any god hypothesis. So why include one. The existence of a a controlling mind behind the inception or maintenance of Evolution is simply unevidenced at this time.
By all means point out that “Random” is just a place holder for our ignorance of causal chains. But that does not warrant us to even begin to assume that just because we do not know the cause of something – therefore god did it. This is just your usual god of the gaps trick where you try to evidence got by vaguely waving your hands at gaps in our current knowledge.
As with my last post which you ignored - you are attempting to shift the burden of proof here. It is not up to us to show there is no purpose - at least in the sense of a mind behind the process with a plan and purpose - but it is up to you to show there IS one. Again your god of the gaps tricks does not apply here. Just because we have no explanation for the presence of the universe and our place in it - this does not mean - therefore there is a god and it has a plan for us and we therefore have a purpose.
There is no burden to shift . . . it is your unjustified and unwarranted default that lacks ANY basis in science whatsoever given the KNOWN attributes of our reality . . . THAT is the issue. Ignoring the significance and scope of those KNOWN attributes to pretend that there is some neutral undefined basis pr reason to doubt the existence of God is disingenuous and unjustified, period. The arrogance of assuming "No God" because of the myriad (and often absurd) unvalidated attributes people assign to God is unconscionable. You are free to attack and reject those added attributes . . . but NOT the existence of God or a guided evolution, period. Not knowing means not knowing . . . it does not mean accepting YOUR preferences as the default AS IF they are the scientifically validated positions and other views have the burden of proof.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 10-26-2012 at 10:10 AM..
There seems little point in going over the materialist default argument yet again, but this is just what I mean when I say you are reading from an old textbook. You have been updated on this, this has been shown to be the scientific view and based on sound logic and you still will not listen and insist that you are the only one reading from the correct textbook.
For the benefit of anyone who hasn't seen this laughably simple case set out.
(1) 'Nature' is what we see around us
(2) investigation shows the way things work, chemically, biochemically and physically without any need to postulate any other input.
(3) That is all that is needed to establish that there is a material universe (materialist naturalism)
(4) given that there are unexplained areas, since there is not a shred of credible evidence for a supernatural -divine element (aka 'God') in nature, materialism is the valid default theory and any 'God' input needs to be proved by the person propounding that claim - the burden of proof is on the theist.
To take the more particular argument further, to assume a 'God' a priori is, therefore, logically (and scientifically) invalid. To try to get 'God' on the table by calling the making of life a 'minimal attribute of 'God' is invalid if not deliberate bamboozlement. To fish around in the undoubted unknowns, unexplaineds, Quantum and the murky waters of Woo for gaps for God is invalid if not deliberate bamboozlement and to accuse science of having only 'beliefs' about materialism while claiming to have a theory soundly based on science is invalid if not deliberate bamboozlement.
There seems little point in going over the materialist default argument yet again, but this is just what I mean when I say you are reading from an old textbook. You have been updated on this, this has been shown to be the scientific view and based on sound logic and you still will not listen and insist that you are the only one reading from the correct textbook.
This thread is about evolution and there is no scientific basis whatsoever for asserting that mathematical randomness is the REAL driver of mutations.
Quote:
For the benefit of anyone who hasn't seen this laughably simple case set out.
(1) 'Nature' is what we see around us
This not just laughably simple . . . it is laughable, period. This ignores its KNOWN attributes as if they don't enter into understanding WHAT it IS relative to us. This ploy is deliberate and designed to pretend there is therefore no basis for God as the default enabling the unjustified and tenacious demand for "proof" of a God over and above what we already KNOW about Nature. This is prompted by disdain for the ADDED attributes of religions and has no bearing on the already KNOWN attributes from science.
Quote:
(2) investigation shows the way things work, chemically, biochemically and physically without any need to postulate any other input.
SOME of the ways. Pretending that our ignorance is nothing more than "Gaps for God" is disingenuous because it is the KNOWN attributes that establish there IS a God relative to us. The gaps are just gaps and undermine ANY silly claims of "No God."
Quote:
(3) That is all that is needed to establish that there is a material universe (materialist naturalism)
This is the problem with pretending to define Nature by ignoring its KNOWN attributes and then asserting their non-existence as the basis for your "No God" default.
Quote:
(4) given that there are unexplained areas, since there is not a shred of credible evidence for a supernatural -divine element (aka 'God') in nature, materialism is the valid default theory and any 'God' input needs to be proved by the person propounding that claim - the burden of proof is on the theist.
Repeatedly invoking the "supernatural" BS because religions BELIEVE in such a rdiciulous concept is more of your association with negative or fraudulent or discredited nonsense to try to obfuscate and obscure the real issues involved, Arequipa. These "tricks" of yours are probably the reason you keep trying to find "tricks" in my views. It is called projection.
Quote:
To take the more particular argument further, to assume a 'God' a priori is, therefore, logically (and scientifically) invalid.
Again with the misuse of "logical" . . . you really need to take a course in logic. Logic has zero to do with the basis of premises because they are taken as givens. The KNOWN attributes are scientific evidence for the existence of a God relative to us and cannot be ignored despite your concerns about any ADDED attributes in religions or whatever.
Quote:
To try to get 'God' on the table by calling the making of life a 'minimal attribute of 'God' is invalid if not deliberate bamboozlement. To fish around in the undoubted unknowns, unexplaineds, Quantum and the murky waters of Woo for gaps for God is invalid if not deliberate bamboozlement and to accuse science of having only 'beliefs' about materialism while claiming to have a theory soundly based on science is invalid if not deliberate bamboozlement.
This must be more projection, especially your obsession with bamboozlement. God's existence is premised on the KNOWN attributes established by science . . . NOT the unexplaineds despite your constant mantra of "Gaps for God." My hypotheses that seem to trouble you so ARE based on sound science . . . they are just
NOT verified experimentally yet given our technological limitations. My beliefs about God will probably never be verified . . . but they are sufficiently convincing to ME based on my personal experiences. Try to keep those THREE components of my views separate. It will make the discussion clearer for lurkers.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 10-26-2012 at 11:26 AM..
So very well summarized, AREQUIPA. The point oft made by, for example, Mystic, is that the inexplicable is necessarily the default meant-to-remain-that-way explanation, i.e.: that only a God-force entity (Noting that Mystic readily and sensibly agrees there is no white-bearded guy sitting up on a cloud impatiently listening for our every listless and greedy prayer...) could have organized the massively complex universe. Nope. Not necessary. That is unless you need a massive & hyper-logical intellect to assemble a Lego™ set into a really big creation?
I, on the other hand, see a pretty tame and simultaneously occurring continuum of virtually identical interactions, since the totality of what we can now observe (by actual visible sources or by deduction from shifted light and gravity) supports that. We predict in an hypothesis that an invisible exo-planet must be there if it obeys the very same laws of physics we have right here in our own solar system. So then, quite arrogantly () we then set up an observational experiment and bingo, what do you think we find? Yep. Same-ol, Same-ol! A universe run by established constants.
Which means there's no need for an Omnipotent Controller in Charge, a Holy Energy & Special Effects Administrator to keep things under control, His fingers on each and every otherwise mis-behavin' SAP (sub atomic particle, or smaller...). Thusly, God manages all the Higgs bosons, you think, lest they run amok? How bohhhrrinnngggg! For both God and for us!
The seeming "Awe-Inspiring" vast complexity of our's and even an earthworm's very-much shared DNA sequences (suggesting that we have a very common initial ancestor, btw.. logically I mean...) came about through a very understandable, mathematically & statistically speaking, advancement of chance mutations. Demonstrably. Ditto for the evolution of the universe. We just don't yet have a full understanding of some of the more esoteric and hard-to-observe elements (See: LHC and their recent finds...)
It's been calculated that, given the demonstrable frequencies of unusable, junk or lethal DNA mutations, the results we now see in the form of living, well organized (but nonetheless still evolving...) organisms were quite easily achieved in the 2-4 billion years since life arose on this planet. After all, given exponential growth, Evolutionary Vectoring™ and other established mechanisms, coupled with what one can reasonably expect if a new organism, capable of reproduction, suddenly finds itself in an ecosystem perfect for it's phenotype? Give 'em room, they are going to explode!
Not to mention that evolution does not happen in some stupid serial (one, then another, then the next, and so on...) manner. Nope: it's a contemporaneous event, many different species each exploring alternatives, with little concern about it's ancestors who are off doing their own thing! The stupid line about "If we evolved from apes*, how come there are still apes?" evolves from this seriously intellectually limited commentary.
No good thinking here, now is there? (* PS: of course, we didn't evolve from the apes. They co-evolved alongside us, from a much earlier proto-lemur. We now have the DNA genome lineage maps to prove that, so put down your pitchforks and torches, guys!)
So very well summarized, AREQUIPA. The point oft made by, for example, Mystic, is that the inexplicable is necessarily the default meant-to-remain-that-way explanation, i.e.: that only a God-force entity(Noting that Mystic readily and sensibly agrees there is no white-bearded guy sitting up on a cloud impatiently listening for our every listless and greedy prayer...) could have organized the massively complex universe. Nope. Not necessary. That is unless you need a massive & hyper-logical intellect to assemble a Lego™ set into a really big creation?
Wrong, rifle. The currently KNOWN attributes of our reality establishes the default. The organized and massively complex universe IS God . . . NOT created by or explained by God.
Quote:
I, on the other hand, see a pretty tame and simultaneously occurring continuum of virtually identical interactions, since the totality of what we can now observe (by actual visible sources or by deduction from shifted light and gravity) supports that. We predict in an hypothesis that an invisible exo-planet must be there if it obeys the very same laws of physics we have right here in our own solar system. So then, quite arrogantly () we then set up an observational experiment and bingo, what do you think we find? Yep. Same-ol, Same-ol! A universe run by established constants.
That God is constant IS evidence of God's existence, rifle . . . NOT a reason to question it.
Quote:
Which means there's no need for an Omnipotent Controller in Charge, a Holy Energy & Special Effects Administrator to keep things under control, His fingers on each and every otherwise mis-behavin' SAP (sub atomic particle, or smaller...). Thusly, God manages all the Higgs bosons, you think, lest they run amok? How bohhhrrinnngggg! For both God and for us!
God need not control any such detail any more than you control the details of your physical body and life, rifle.
Quote:
The seeming "Awe-Inspiring" vast complexity of our's and even an earthworm's very-much shared DNA sequences (suggesting that we have a very common initial ancestor, btw.. logically I mean...) came about through a very understandable, mathematically & statistically speaking, advancement of chance mutations. Demonstrably. Ditto for the evolution of the universe. We just don't yet have a full understanding of some of the more esoteric and hard-to-observe elements (See: LHC and their recent finds...)
Modeling anything mathematically does not in any way imply that our reality actually operates according to our artificial mathematical rules.
Quote:
It's been calculated that, given the demonstrable frequencies of unusable, junk or lethal DNA mutations, the results we now see in the form of living, well organized (but nonetheless still evolving...) organisms were quite easily achieved in the 2-4 billion years since life arose on this planet. After all, given exponential growth, Evolutionary Vectoring™ and other established mechanisms, coupled with what one can reasonably expect if a new organism, capable of reproduction, suddenly finds itself in an ecosystem perfect for it's phenotype? Give 'em room, they are going to explode!
Not to mention that evolution does not happen in some stupid serial (one, then another, then the next, and so on...) manner. Nope: it's a contemporaneous event, many different species each exploring alternatives, with little concern about it's ancestors who are off doing their own thing! The stupid line about "If we evolved from apes*, how come there are still apes?" evolves from this seriously intellectually limited commentary.
No good thinking here, now is there? (* PS: of course, we didn't evolve from the apes. They co-evolved alongside us, from a much earlier proto-lemur. We now have the DNA genome lineage maps to prove that, so put down your pitchforks and torches, guys!)
Obviously you are still arguing with the fundies and anti-evolutionists . . . not me . . . since you did not address any of my post to you, rifle. I understand your reluctance. It is so much easier to refute the nonsense of the fundies and anti-evolutionists.
This thread is about evolution and there is no scientific basis whatsoever for asserting that mathematical randomness is the REAL driver of mutations. This not just laughably simple . . . it is laughable, period. This ignores its KNOWN attributes as if they don't enter into understanding WHAT it IS relative to us. This ploy is deliberate and designed to pretend there is therefore no basis for God as the default enabling the unjustified and tenacious demand for "proof" of a God over and above what we already KNOW about Nature. This is prompted by disdain for the ADDED attributes of religions and has no bearing on the already KNOWN attributes from science.
SOME of the ways. Pretending that our ignorance is nothing more than "Gaps for God" is disingenuous because it is the KNOWN attributes that establish there IS a God relative to us. The gaps are just gaps and undermine ANY silly claims of "No God."
This is the problem with pretending to define Nature by ignoring its KNOWN attributes and then asserting their non-existence as the basis for your "No God" default. Repeatedly invoking the "supernatural" BS because religions BELIEVE in such a rdiciulous concept is more of your association with negative or fraudulent or discredited nonsense to try to obfuscate and obscure the real issues involved, Arequipa. These "tricks" of yours are probably the reason you keep trying to find "tricks" in my views. It is called projection.
Again with the misuse of "logical" . . . you really need to take a course in logic. Logic has zero to do with the basis of premises because they are taken as givens. The KNOWN attributes are scientific evidence for the existence of a God relative to us and cannot be ignored despite your concerns about any ADDED attributes in religions or whatever. This must be more projection, especially your obsession with bamboozlement. God's existence is premised on the KNOWN attributes established by science . . . NOT the unexplaineds despite your constant mantra of "Gaps for God." My hypotheses that seem to trouble you so ARE based on sound science . . . they are just
NOT verified experimentally yet given our technological limitations. My beliefs about God will probably never be verified . . . but they are sufficiently convincing to ME based on my personal experiences. Try to keep those THREE components of my views separate. It will make the discussion clearer for lurkers.
I'd say that these points have already been covered in my previous post. We are yet again at an impasse. That is where we always end up.
I was partially addressing your post, Mystic old pal. But... FYI, as regards all future posts o'mine, anything about Evolution and the origins of our cousin animalia and even, [i]heck, the plants; that stuff is ALL aimed at the scientifically illiterate moron-set out there, not you.
Now, where, IMESHO, ("ever so humble"....) you do need some tutelage, old pal, is in realizing that our relatively recent logical observations & conclusions regarding "reality" are exactly that: we did not create reality by observing and discussing it.
Rather, it was of course there all along ( by some mysterious process), and through the ongoing and ever-more advanced processes of observation, speculation, hypothesis, logical investigation and reality tests, we've been more than able to simply confirm all that. And we ain't even got started yet, as you well understand, M!
I simply wonder why we'd have to have some super-intelligent all-capable entity-force if it's all so (relatively) simple? It begs my usual question, Wh.... well , you know that one.
It'd sort of be like having the entire Apple Mac engineering & design team getting together for an intensive 30-day 10 hour per day, 7 days a week conference on how to move the headphone jack to the side of the iPad. Not necessary.
And I do not agree that the "turtles all the way down!" (phunny, btw...) argument is immaterial & specious! If we have to have a Creator General, because you make your point that the utterly awesome and hugely complex (upon which I disagree, but that's another thread...) Universe can't possibly have gotten here without such an entity, why then does the need for His/Her/It's formative years or Genesis fall entirely by the wayside? Because you can't possibly begin to explain it? Or because that alone renders the Awesome Universe requirements pointless and illogical on their face?
I'd say so. You simply have to fess up, Mystic, that neither you nor I have the slightest idea how the universe got here. My only point is that I'm betting it's spectacularly consistent when a good cross-section of all of it's physicality is examined.
As in: lots of very similar, very consistent (both physically and behaviorally, all orbiting around and ramming into each other an'stuff!), and similarly constructed planets, moons, suns, et al out there, simply responding to Element A interacting, via gravity, etc. with Element B, C, D and so on. In highly predictable ways that absolutely do not require Creatorial Intervention.
Well, I'm exhausted! Have a good one, folks! I'm going to dream about random number series. Wanna join me?
So very well summarized, AREQUIPA. The point oft made by, for example, Mystic, is that the inexplicable is necessarily the default meant-to-remain-that-way explanation, i.e.: that only a God-force entity (Noting that Mystic readily and sensibly agrees there is no white-bearded guy sitting up on a cloud impatiently listening for our every listless and greedy prayer...) could have organized the massively complex universe. Nope. Not necessary. That is unless you need a massive & hyper-logical intellect to assemble a Lego™ set into a really big creation?
I, on the other hand, see a pretty tame and simultaneously occurring continuum of virtually identical interactions, since the totality of what we can now observe (by actual visible sources or by deduction from shifted light and gravity) supports that. We predict in an hypothesis that an invisible exo-planet must be there if it obeys the very same laws of physics we have right here in our own solar system. So then, quite arrogantly () we then set up an observational experiment and bingo, what do you think we find? Yep. Same-ol, Same-ol! A universe run by established constants.
Which means there's no need for an Omnipotent Controller in Charge, a Holy Energy & Special Effects Administrator to keep things under control, His fingers on each and every otherwise mis-behavin' SAP (sub atomic particle, or smaller...). Thusly, God manages all the Higgs bosons, you think, lest they run amok? How bohhhrrinnngggg! For both God and for us!
The seeming "Awe-Inspiring" vast complexity of our's and even an earthworm's very-much shared DNA sequences (suggesting that we have a very common initial ancestor, btw.. logically I mean...) came about through a very understandable, mathematically & statistically speaking, advancement of chance mutations. Demonstrably. Ditto for the evolution of the universe. We just don't yet have a full understanding of some of the more esoteric and hard-to-observe elements (See: LHC and their recent finds...)
It's been calculated that, given the demonstrable frequencies of unusable, junk or lethal DNA mutations, the results we now see in the form of living, well organized (but nonetheless still evolving...) organisms were quite easily achieved in the 2-4 billion years since life arose on this planet. After all, given exponential growth, Evolutionary Vectoring™ and other established mechanisms, coupled with what one can reasonably expect if a new organism, capable of reproduction, suddenly finds itself in an ecosystem perfect for it's phenotype? Give 'em room, they are going to explode!
Not to mention that evolution does not happen in some stupid serial (one, then another, then the next, and so on...) manner. Nope: it's a contemporaneous event, many different species each exploring alternatives, with little concern about it's ancestors who are off doing their own thing! The stupid line about "If we evolved from apes*, how come there are still apes?" evolves from this seriously intellectually limited commentary.
No good thinking here, now is there? (* PS: of course, we didn't evolve from the apes. They co-evolved alongside us, from a much earlier proto-lemur. We now have the DNA genome lineage maps to prove that, so put down your pitchforks and torches, guys!)
...hahahahahahaha!!! "Exploring alternatives?" So you're saying Peanut Butter ventured out on their own to explore the possibility of cross-breeding with chocolate? "Co-evolved?" So also said another "man" with a rifle strapped to his back, a bifurcated tail and a torch up his arse as he suggested the idea of a genome lineage map. Get a grip dude...it is not likely that a group of poo flinging apes are on the verge of exploring other alternatives to their caged predicament.
Hi again littlewits. Nice of you to present a post that did more to show how much better rational reasoning is than creationist unreasoning that all the other posts on the thread.
Since you mention Peanut Butter...
Peanut butter argument
"...the claim opens with, and relies on, the complete misrepresentation that evolution just says that "matter + energy = life". ...t. Therefore, according to this oversimplified view, a jar of peanut butter (or any foodstuff, or perhaps any stuff), which is subjected to light through the glass jar or through heating, should spontaneously generate life. To get around any statistical problems (we can already conclude that abiogenesis will probably be rare), proponents of the argument will cite that "millions of Americans will open a jar every day, performing the experiment millions of times" each with the same result; no life is formed. The idea thus concludes that evolution must be incorrect and that their worldview is correct....
Critics of the argument have pointed out that sealed jars of peanut butter are not, generally speaking, multimillion-year-old volcanic environments rich in ammonia and methane, being bombarded by high energy cosmic rays."
And..while we're about it, let's celebrate that iconic Epic Fail, the Atheists' nitemare.. (from the site of my old AN mate 'Iron Chariot').
The case from Ray Comfort who, despite this utter debacle still presents himself as some sort of Authority, let alone daring to show his face in public.
"Behold, the atheists' nightmare. Now if you study a well-made banana, you'll find, on the far side, there are 3 ridges. On the close side, two ridges. If you get your hand ready to grip a banana, you'll find on the far side there are three grooves, on the close side, two grooves. The banana and the hand are perfectly made, one for the other. You'll find the maker of the banana, Almighty God, has made it with a non-slip surface. It has outward indicators of inward contents - green, too early - yellow, just right - black, too late. Now if you go to the top of the banana, you'll find, as with the soda can makers have placed a tab at the top, so God has placed a tab at the top. When you pull the tab, the contents don't squirt in your face. You'll find a wrapper which is biodegradable, has perforations. Notice how gracefully it sits over the human hand. Notice it has a point at the top for ease of entry. It's just the right shape for the human mouth. It's chewy, easy to digest and its even curved toward the face to make the whole process so much easier..."
The short answer is that
"Bananas, along with most foods people eat, have been domesticated and bred to have the features we like. We only keep and reproduce banana trees which grow bananas exactly the size and shape that we want, and destroy the rest.... Natural bananas are much smaller and are full of cherry-pit sized seeds."
Thanks again Littlewits. for giving an excuse to post a couple of pictures of Creationist Airlines wrecks where they found they hadn't undercarriage and landed on their goolies.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-27-2012 at 03:43 AM..
...hahahahahahaha!!! "Exploring alternatives?" So you're saying Peanut Butter ventured out on their own to explore the possibility of cross-breeding with chocolate? "Co-evolved?" So also said another "man" with a rifle strapped to his back, a bifurcated tail and a torch up his arse as he suggested the idea of a genome lineage map. Get a grip dude...it is not likely that a group of poo flinging apes are on the verge of exploring other alternatives to their caged predicament.
Wow! You don't yet comprehend metaphorical humor, do you, little one?
NO, organism do not purposefully set out to "explore alternatives" But it happens in the bio-Logical way that chance mutated DNA inadvertently offers up options to then be tested by exposure to the real world.
We know, via inescapable DNA lineage mapping, that we did indeed progress from a common proto-ancestor, a lemur by all accounts based on it's DNA.
Say, I also seem to recall asking you in the past exactly what level of biology education you achieved, even if it was only by watching Mr, ScienceMan on Sesame Street. But, from your insightful answers, it's pretty obvious that you probably turned away when they talked about "science" didn't you?
C'mon now: admit it! Be honest!
Tell you what, lw: I'll re-post the same questions I asked you months ago (you didn't answer then either. But maybe you've matured?).
You go ahead and tell the nice folks here that...
1) DNA mutation does not ever happen,
2) it does not present alternative genome sets to be trial & error tested,
3) it NEVER generates positive mutational changes, and...
4) organisms with a common ancestor don't ever branch out and co-evolve in entirely different directions? "There's absolutely NO evidence!"(blah blah blah blah...)
5) that you're obviously intensely jealous of anyone with a rifle!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) we then set up an observational experiment and bingo, what do you think we find? Yep. Same-ol, Same-ol! A universe run by established constants. 
Just look up: It's all the same!
Nice of you to present a post that did more to show how much better rational reasoning is than creationist unreasoning that all the other posts on the thread. 
