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.
I know what you are talking about . . . it is that focus that prevents your seeing the simple reality that a design is a design regardless HOW it became one. The How it became one is the only thing in dispute and no one has the definitive answer. Despite widespread belief to the contrary . . . there are NO "scientific" explanations for"
the existence of Nature, natural and the "laws" of the universe;
the existence of DNA or RNA or any other organic components of life;
the existence of a survival instinct;
the existence of cooperation in SPITE of the existence of a survival instinct;
Yep, and because we don't yet have explanations for everything in the universe, the obvious conclusion is that god did it. Luckily we didn't make that jump in the middle ages when we didn't know that hand washing was a good way to prevent spreading disease. But since we now know everything that can possibly be known, it's time to shut down science and just hand the rest over to some sort of god.
And are you really sure there's no explanations for the last two? For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evo...of_Cooperation lays out some ideas that seem to me to be scientific explanations. You might not like them, but that doesn't make them go away.
Quote:
there is no such thing as "random" mutation . . it is just inexplicable to us so we created cognitive constructs in our artificial mathematics to deal with it;
There is no such thing as probability . . . we created this mathematical concept to model our inability to predict
there is no such thing as the "law of large numbers" . . we created the concept in our mathematics to "explain" things we cannot otherwise explain.
Evidence for these claims? Please prove that all things described as random are actually possible to predict. You can start with radioactive decay and quantum tunneling. There should be a Nobel prize in there for you - should be easy pickings.
By in large, this is not an intelligently designed theory, Evolution, on the other hand does a wonderful job explaining the patterns of life for those smart enough to understand what Darwin had to say.
By in large, this is not an intelligently designed theory, Evolution, on the other hand does a wonderful job explaining the patterns of life for those smart enough to understand what Darwin had to say.
My mother in law got me a second edition leather bound copy (from the late 1800s) of 'On the Origin of Species' for my birthday this year and I almost pee'd my pants.
I can't wait to delve into it but I need to wait for a few other books to come in the mail before I start. I know it's way over my head at this point, but I haven't been this excited to start a research project since college
I've been quietly following this thread until now. While I'm not too sure about some of MysticPhD's conclusions, one area he seems to have hit the nail on the head is how many of you cling to your views as dogmatically as any Creationist does.
Yep, and because we don't yet have explanations for everything in the universe, the obvious conclusion is that god did it. Luckily we didn't make that jump in the middle ages when we didn't know that hand washing was a good way to prevent spreading disease. But since we now know everything that can possibly be known, it's time to shut down science and just hand the rest over to some sort of god.
I fear that the corruption of the ID alternative "source" for the changes attributed to an undefined "Nature" or "natural" in Evolution Theory (Not a replacement of the theory) is too widespread to continue to use the Designer designation. The two versions of Evolution theory are: Guided evolution and Unguided evolution . . . THAT is what I have been discussing . . . NOT the Discovery Institute and the Creationists!
Quote:
And are you really sure there's no explanations for the last two? For example, The Evolution of Cooperation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia lays out some ideas that seem to me to be scientific explanations. You might not like them, but that doesn't make them go away.
What you are trying to call "explanations" are speculations and there are many . . . but nothing "scientifically" corroborated . . . just consistent with findings as are the "guided" speculations. The simple reality is that wherever you can say it is "natural" (whatever) . . . you can insert it is "God's."
Quote:
Evidence for these claims? Please prove that all things described as random are actually possible to predict. You can start with radioactive decay and quantum tunneling. There should be a Nobel prize in there for you - should be easy pickings.
The point is that it IS our IGNORANCE of the complex causal chains that makes it impossible for us to predict and requires the creation of probability distributions. The need to use "measurement" itself negates the quantum options (largely because it is a temporal event and the supposed "objects" of our "measures" are not truly discrete.)
I've been quietly following this thread until now. While I'm not too sure about some of MysticPhD's conclusions, one area he seems to have hit the nail on the head is how many of you cling to your views as dogmatically as any Creationist does.
The thing is some views have evidence to back them up, and some don't....I think I'll stick with the evidence over the god done it thing.
Not if "God's" refers to a conscious god. There's simply no evidence to support that claim.
There is no evidence to support the "nothing did it" claim either . . . and there is no basis for eliminating consciousness . . . especially for conscious beings who are doing the explaining. The existence of consciousness is irrefutable . . so we are NOT talking about an "imaginary" (tooth fairy, pink unicorn, etc.) source.
There is no evidence to support the "nothing did it" claim either . . .
True, but you can't just insert something into the explanation that isn't evident.
Quote:
and there is no basis for eliminating consciousness . . . especially for conscious beings who are doing the explaining. The existence of consciousness is irrefutable . . so we are NOT talking about an "imaginary" (tooth fairy, pink unicorn, etc.) source.
The existence of consciousness in biological beings is irrefutable. But there is no evidence that anything else (rocks, trees, the entire universe, etc.) can be conscious.
True, but you can't just insert something into the explanation that isn't evident.
Then it isn't an explanation and should not be presented as such. NOTHING is not an explanation. It "just is" is not an explanation. We don't know is the appropriate "explanation." Those who prefer "nothing" as the source can choose that . . . those of us who prefer God as the source can choose that. There is no superiority or basis for denigrating or scoffing at one or the other version.
Quote:
The existence of consciousness in biological beings is irrefutable. But there is no evidence that anything else (rocks, trees, the entire universe, etc.) can be conscious.
There is no evidence that there isn't . . . since we cannot "measure" the composite energy form that our conscious "Self" takes . . . it is probably non-baryonic. There is no basis for imputing that "nothingness" can produce the universal field that establishes the parameters of our universe and the "forces" within it. However, consciousness requires the existence of a field to contain the composite "Self"making it a superior candidate to "nothingness" for the universal field.
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.
