- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
http://youtube.com/watch?v=25WPs7oJtKo&feature=related
Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss in discussion. Relevant from 2:00min onwards.
Stuart
The powerful illusion of design is his whole point. We see design where there is none. The illusion of design was the only reason to believe in a god for many people, before 1859. Darwin shattered that illusion by explaining how life actually came to be diversified and complex.
Stuart
Hi Colter
Quote The explanation of “how” life actually came to be diversified is still a theory, that is according to the conclusions of the video. Evolution is a “fact”, why and how is a “theory”.
That is right. Natural selection has the distinction of being considered so well supported by evidence that is has the full status of a scientific theory. At least you didn’t say it is ‘only’ a theory. In the real world, theory trumps everything. If it is disproved, the new replacement theory trumps everything. Darwin’s theory has survived the most intense scientific (and theological) scrutiny in all of human history. It is, as you say, still a theory. Actually it’s the only theory and it explains life perfectly.Quote I'm not sure how you can speak with any authority on “why” people believed in God prior to Darwin's discovery.
Obviously the causes of god-belief are a complex combination of psychological factors, so I would not pretend to give a catch-all explanation. I am talking about philosophical types who are able to consider objectively the reasons to believe that there was a god. The argument from design was a trump card very often, because even if you had discounted other events that some could only attribute to the divine (ie: put into a too-hard basket) the fact remained that life shows great complexity and apparent design. Richard Dawkins has most recently pointed this out with his statement that Darwin “made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist”. Most scientists in Europe were biblical creationists before the mid-nineteenth century. Today only 4% of scientists have a literal biblical creation view, and they are religious fundamentalists. There is no question that Darwin removed the last rational objection to atheism.Quote I believe that evolution is, in effect, creation is motion. I think that when the seed of life was planted it contained within it the design and the inherent mechanisms for natural selection combined with the potentials of chance to blossom into the diversified strains of animal. The mind circuits are a different matter as well as the eventuation of the spirit gravity perception of a mind conscious of will.
If that is true, then science has it all wrong. Evolution by natural selection cannot possibly work in the way you describe.Stuart
The talkorigins website has an indexed guide to “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution”:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
This part about retroviruses is intriguing:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses
Stuart
“The platypus shares 82 percent of its genes with the human, mouse, dog, opossum and chicken.”
Hey that means that we are highly evolved Platypuses.
We are also daffodils as we share something like 50% DNA.
You never hear the Evolutionists arguing that we are highly evolved daffodils, do you?
Quote (Stu @ April 19 2008,10:18) The powerful illusion of design is his whole point. We see design where there is none. The illusion of design was the only reason to believe in a god for many people, before 1859. Darwin shattered that illusion by explaining how life actually came to be diversified and complex. Stuart
Ha ha ha there is no design now.Sounds like desperation to me.
There is no design.
There is no spoon either.
Hi t8
Quote “The platypus shares 82 percent of its genes with the human, mouse, dog, opossum and chicken.”
Hey that means that we are highly evolved Platypuses. We are also daffodils as we share something like 50% DNA. You never hear the Evolutionists arguing that we are highly evolved daffodils, do you?
Sure, why not? Well I suppose because daffodils are not in the ancestral line of humans, but what shame would there be if they were?Stu: The powerful illusion of design is his whole point. We see design where there is none. The illusion of design was the only reason to believe in a god for many people, before 1859. Darwin shattered that illusion by explaining how life actually came to be diversified and complex.
Quote Ha ha ha there is no design now. Sounds like desperation to me. There is no design.
Progress! Let’s not go backwards this time t8. Daffodils and humans and platypus are not designed. Watches and cars and 747s and gods are designed, by real, living, breathing (at least at some point) people.Stuart
Ha ha.
The origin of species, written by a super evolved daffodil.
And you talk about blinkers?
It actually isn't hard to see that there is a gene pool (code) and it is compiled in different combinations. That we can see. But the bit about simple DNA becoming more complex without the aid of a programmer or overseer is the imagined part.
It really is a no-brainer that when you see such technology, whether it is virtual, real, or synthetic, there was a great mind behind it.
To acknowledge a mind for virtual and synthetic only is a bit silly. I wonder if you never saw the creators of synthetic or virtual, if you would acknowledge the need for a designer of them. It may be easy for you to say, “of course I would”, but you don't do it for the real/original creation, so I do wonder.
Hi t8
Quote The origin of species, written by a super evolved daffodil. And you talk about blinkers?
Yeah. No, t8 remember we said that daffodils are not in the ancestral line of humans?Quote It actually isn't hard to see that there is a gene pool (code) and it is compiled in different combinations. That we can see. But the bit about simple DNA becoming more complex without the aid of a programmer or overseer is the imagined part.
Actually it is the experimentally established part. While you cannot disprove a meddling ‘creator’, there is no evidence for that fable either, and there is no need for a creator in order to explain the observations made here:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html
Quote It really is a no-brainer that when you see such technology, whether it is virtual, real, or synthetic, there was a great mind behind it.
I agree, I don’t think you need much of a brain to come to that conclusion. You do need to have some intelligence to appreciate how natural selection brings about evolution, which it has.Quote To acknowledge a mind for virtual and synthetic only is a bit silly. I wonder if you never saw the creators of synthetic or virtual, if you would acknowledge the need for a designer of them. It may be easy for you to say, “of course I would”, but you don't do it for the real/original creation, so I do wonder.
Our proper scientific explanations for the origins of life stand independently of creators. Gods are unnecessary add-ons that make the explanation into a non-explanation. Your argument is the same one you have used over and over, and it is still a non-sequitur. Just because we have designed objects that we know are designed, does not mean that we are the products of design. You make a hypothesis without evidence. A theory based on evidence trumps a hypothesis. Where is the evidence that makes what you write any better than illogical conjecture?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ May 09 2008,23:59) Your argument is the same one you have used over and over,
and you choose to ignore the obvious.If you cannot work that out, then all else is vain Stu.
If you start with a false premise, then no matter how meticulous the work that sits on it, it is vanity because a well built wall on a faulty foundation can still fall when it is stressed.
All I see in your arguments are walls that you claim to be tight, and yet you have left this gaping hole in the foundation. It just cannot be ignored and until you can resolve it, I will leave you there. Sorry but there is no point in me wasting my time.
You cannot see that explosions, laws, and design just do not unravel an almost infinite amount of design, technology, without assistance.
Lets see you create a singularity in cyberspace that can unravel to something as complex and truly amazing as the universe. Of course you can't do it, yet a singularity with no help from intelligence did just that according to you. And even worse is that this singularity didn't even exist in a space with certain logic, it created that too.
Even if you did manage to pull that one off, then you still loose because you are now the singularities creator.
So what are the chances of a singularity doing everything on it's own. 1 to 10? 1 in a 1000.
Give me a number and an estimate of how long that would take for those odds to come up.
Then ask yourself, why are there these odds anyway. Where did the logic come from for odds to exist?
Of course I don't expect a real answer from you and so I will leave you there until you are willing to be real.
Hi t8
Stu: Your argument is the same one you have used over and over,
Quote and you choose to ignore the obvious. If you cannot work that out, then all else is vain Stu. If you start with a false premise, then no matter how meticulous the work that sits on it, it is vanity because a well built wall on a faulty foundation can still fall when it is stressed. All I see in your arguments are walls that you claim to be tight, and yet you have left this gaping hole in the foundation. It just cannot be ignored and until you can resolve it, I will leave you there. Sorry but there is no point in me wasting my time. You cannot see that explosions, laws, and design just do not unravel an almost infinite amount of design, technology, without assistance. Lets see you create a singularity in cyberspace that can unravel to something as complex and truly amazing as the universe. Of course you can't do it, yet a singularity with no help from intelligence did just that according to you. And even worse is that this singularity didn't even exist in a space with certain logic, it created that too. Even if you did manage to pull that one off, then you still loose because you are now the singularities creator. So what are the chances of a singularity doing everything on it's own. 1 to 10? 1 in a 1000. Give me a number and an estimate of how long that would take for those odds to come up.Then ask yourself, why are there these odds anyway. Where did the logic come from for odds to exist? Of course I don't expect a real answer from you and so I will leave you there until you are willing to be real. Didn’t see any ‘gaping holes’ there. Would you care to tell me what evidence disproves what I have said anywhere?
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ June 07 2008,22:24) How do you explain colour to a blind man?
How do you explain a colourful psychadelic experience to a man who has never taken LSD?Stuart
I would try by saying something like a transcendent dream, the type you only remember temporarily because you were abruptly awoken whilst in a deep sleep, but when you fully awake you cannot remember it because there are no words to describe it.
OK, I have never taken LSD, so I am guessing, but it is probably just different wave lengths of thought, like dreams.
OK, now try and explain color to someone who has never seen.
Actually a friend of mine once said that you say to the blind person “what can you see”, if they say darkness, you say that is black.
Quote (t8 @ June 07 2008,22:24) How do you explain colour to a blind man?
Spit in the mud and put it on his eyes!and he if dosent reply “Yuk” thats gross! then hes still blinD.
Scanning the responses to this post I see there is some confusion regarding evolution. More specifically, there appears to be confusion regarding what it actually is that people do or don't believe. There is absolutely no issue regarding the absolute factual nature of the process of evolution (genetic change through mutation and natural selection). It has been proven repeatedly. There is also no issue regarding the process of natural selection. Originally observed in animal husbandry, selection, including speciation has been observe countless times. You don't get to “believe” or not “believe” in these things. Here are the issues: Did man evolve from lower animals? That's what you get to believe or disbelieve. Is the earth 10,00 years old? again you may make this an article of faith. I suggest people male an effort to speak accurately.
From another thread:
Quote Quote (WhatIsTrue @ July 04 2008,09:40) Stu, To make my point, I'll take your last post and rephrase it slightly.
We have eyes on the front of the head because God knew that stereo vision would give us an enormous advantage. Consider the awesome design of bottom-dwelling fish that start their development with one eye on each side in the usual fish way, then undergo an extraordinary developmental migration of one eye round to be on the same side as the other so the fish can gain its advantage from lying on the bottom of the sea and still be able to use both eyes. This is real concrete evidence that “adaptation” is designed into God's creatures as needed and is not some random occurence over thousands of years.
Now, I am not saying that the above invalidates evolution. I am just saying that the “invisibible hand” can be attributed to whatever you have faith in. For athiests, it's natural selection. For creationists, it's God. In either case, the details have nothing to do with the underlying cause. And for most people, the beauty is in the details, not in proving the root cause.
In other words, the intricacies of the universe lead a creationist to proclaim, “God is great!”, but the same intricacies lead an athiest to say, “Natural selection is amazing!” Both have a default answer for root cause, and neither of them invalidates the beauty of the details.
You have outlined a philosophy which was disproven by Darwin and many others 150 years ago. The argument from design is only believed by those who fundamentally have no idea what the evidence says, and I would add are blinded by what they are told from a pulpit or ancient text. It is not true that evolution by natural selection and creationist descriptions are equivalent alternatives that can be chosen at whim.There is a long discussion of this topic in the appropriate thread, and I would encourage you to read it and consider the cases presented there (and elsewhere). If you can disprove the theory of evolution by putting up a falsifiable, predictive alternative theory of special creation that is a better explanation of the evidence then I am sure we would all be keen to read it. Don't let 150 years of abject failure on the part of creationists put you off!
Stuart
You miss my point. (Perhaps I am not making it very well.) I am not attempting to disprove evolution, nor am I trying to say that “natural selection” and “intelligent design” provide equally valid answers all the time. What I am saying is this:
If you start with the premise that there is no God, then you will look at the same evidence as someone who starts with the premise that there is a God and come up with different conclusions. There is no single piece of evidence, (as far as I am aware), that proves that intelligent design is impossible. There is also no single piece of evidence that invalidates natural selection. There are difficult cases for both, but no “knock-out” blows.
Ultimately, for most people who study science, the beauty is in the details of how things work – not in building an argument for the Darwin vs God debate.
Hi WhatIsTrue
Quote You miss my point. (Perhaps I am not making it very well.) I am not attempting to disprove evolution, nor am I trying to say that “natural selection” and “intelligent design” provide equally valid answers all the time. What I am saying is this:
If you start with the premise that there is no God, then you will look at the same evidence as someone who starts with the premise that there is a God and come up with different conclusions. There is no single piece of evidence, (as far as I am aware), that proves that intelligent design is impossible. There is also no single piece of evidence that invalidates natural selection. There are difficult cases for both, but no “knock-out” blows.
Ultimately, for most people who study science, the beauty is in the details of how things work – not in building an argument for the Darwin vs God debate.
It still remains for you to articulate your views in a theory that is more robust than Darwin’s. That is because Darwin explains complexity and ID claims it does not. Intelligent Design is religiously-inspired ignorance-worship. Darwin started with no religious premise at all. Show me where any of his writing says ‘based on the assumption that there are no supernatural beings…’. It is you postulating the god thing yet you provide no evidence for it. You are right that as yet no one has falsified evolution by natural selection but we are not operating in the world of ‘proof’ here, only disproof. As ID can never become a falsifiable (or predictive) theory, there is no point in discussing it in a scientific context, except to demonstrate that it is not science. ID introduces greater, unknowable complexity in order to ‘explain’ complexity. It is a trivial concept for the dishonest, in my not-so-humble opinion!I could not agree more with your bolded statement. I would add that on discovering that there really was a creating supernatural being , most of that beauty would disappear. Unless you have the guts to ask the question what created the creator?
Stuart
i don't mean to be a nit picker Stuart, but again-let's be precise here. Natural Selection is not a theory. It is a proven fact and I know you have no truck with proven fact. The evolution of any specific incredible natural phenotype by mutation and natural selection may not have been proven- and may not even be possible. Natural selection has been proven – over and over again. So if you say what it is you believe-and don't believe; and say it precisely- then people won't misunderstand you.
Quote (Enochs author @ July 08 2008,11:49) i don't mean to be a nit picker Stuart, but again-let's be precise here. Natural Selection is not a theory. It is a proven fact and I know you have no truck with proven fact. The evolution of any specific incredible natural phenotype by mutation and natural selection may not have been proven- and may not even be possible. Natural selection has been proven – over and over again. So if you say what it is you believe-and don't believe; and say it precisely- then people won't misunderstand you.
To pick at those already picked nits, it is not true that 'natural selection has been proven', as proof is not a component of any science. You can only disprove. Evolution is a fact because the evidence for it is there for anyone to see and it would be perverse to deny it as an historical fact. Natural selection is the theory proposed to explain the fact of evolution. It is a falsifiable theory and it makes predictions. It can be disproved but cannot be proved. It HAS not been disproved either!I am not sure where you think I have not been precise, and would be grateful if you would tell me. If people want to understand then they need to make an effort. Not many here are interested in understanding reality. They will ignore facts like evolution and return to the comfort of their fantasy world propped up by creationists and other charlatans willing to lie for god. The cognitive dissonance must ring in their ears!
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
