Design Through Evolution

[MindOverMatter]

Oh and by the way, based on what you’ve put up here so far I’m in no danger of not being an atheist anymore, in fact what you’ve said so far throughout this thread just reinforces my non-belief.

Stop complaining and explain why i am wrong; if you think your so intelligent.

 

[j1akey]

"MindOverMatter:

Stop complaining and explain why i am wrong; if you think your so intelligent.

Nope, I’m not getting roped in by you. I could point out every piece of literature ever written on why evolution isn’t false but it just wouldn’t matter what I say. You’ve already mad eup your mind.

You’re not willing to have an actual debate or discussion on the subject, you just want to tell us that you’re right and we’re wrong. You’ll just cherry pick what I say and twist and turn things to fit what you want them to say. I’ve gone to this dance before. When you’re willing to have an actual conversation on the subject, let me know.

Also how is pointing out what you’re trying to do here complaining? Am i right? ARE you just trying to do what I previously stated or are you willing to actually see what others have to say rather than just trying to beat them down regardless of what is said?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Nope, I’m not getting roped in by you. I could point out every piece of literature ever written on why evolution isn’t false but it just wouldn’t matter what I say. You’ve already mad eup your mind.

I never said that evolution is false

You’re not willing to have an actual debate or discussion on the subject, you just want to tell us that you’re right and we’re wrong.

This is not true, and the arguments put forward on this thread is evidence of that fact.
The fact is, i am right, and theres nothing you can do about it. This is why your angry. When one loves their atheism its hard to let go.

You’ll just cherry pick what I say and twist and turn things to fit what you want them to say.

It seems to me that either you don’t quite understand what this thread is about, or you don’t understand the theory of evolution, or regrettably you are the one that is twisting and turning things, since i never said that the theory of evolution is false.

I’ve gone to this dance before.

And probably lost, since you don’t seem to be concerned with the facts of this debate.

When you’re willing to have an actual conversation on the subject, let me know.

I’m tired of debating people who make assertion after assertion, making complaints and avoiding the pains of answering simple questions.

Also how is pointing out what you’re trying to do here complaining? Am i right? ARE you just trying to do what I previously stated or are you willing to actually see what others have to say rather than just trying to beat them down regardless of what is said?

It seems to me that you are trying to beat me down with all these assertions.

 

[j1akey]

MindOverMatter:

I never said that evolution is false

Well if that’s the case you sure do rail against it hard enough to at least imply that it is.

This is not true, and the arguments put forward on this thread is evidence of that fact.
The fact is, i am right, and theres nothing you can do about it. This is why your angry. When one loves their atheism its hard to let go.

Wait…you just said that you’re right and I’m wrong and there’s nothing I can do about it yet you sit there and tell me you want to have an actual conversation or debate? About what? How right you are?

And probably lost, since you don’t seem to be concerned with the facts of this debate.

This debate never ends until one person gets sick of talking and the other side declares victory for themselves, that’s the only way it ends.

I’m tired of debating people who make assertion after assertion, making complaints and avoiding the pains of answering simple questions.

And I’m tired of debating people who aren’t here to actually debate anything so I guess we’re both disappointed.

 

[Benadam]

Eh?

I know, sorry about that. I failed to understand the finer point of this discussion. I would appreciate a question answered though. Does the idea that the processes of evolving flesh cause, at least in part, life to transcend whatever state of being it finds it’self experiencing, oppose the ideas that support the average atheist’s view? I should ask with more clarity. Would the idea that life transcends it’self be something most atheists find incongruent with their view of reality? That’s basically the logical conclusion to a sublime permeating force directing the evolutionary process to a particular end.

I’m thinking that the view that the results of evolutionary processes can’t be defined authentically as transcendant, that they are just what they are no more no less and the experience of being that accompanies it is the same, is how most atheists think.

 

[wanstronian]

I have given sufficient logical proof that neither Naturalism or Evolution, in principle, is logically sufficient in explaining the existence of empirical reality or the objective meaning we find in it. In other words your position is irrational.

At this point you can either agree to disagree, or prove me wrong.

Then you misunderstand atheism. Atheism is the denial of God, not a claim that current physics can answer all questions regarding the universe.

So consider yourself proved wrong.

 

[wanstronian]

I’m tired of debating people who make assertion after assertion, making complaints and avoiding the pains of answering simple questions.

You have to be kidding right? Do you not recognise that this is exactly what you’re doing? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. In fact, I’m starting to suspect that this thread is just your little joke.

This is quite simple - you are asserting that God exists, using reasoning that has no evidential basis. Then, when this is pointed out, you resort to claiming that science can’t cope because it only deals with the physical and your ‘evidence’ is metaphyiscal. So why should anybody believe what you say? There… is… no… evidence. And the physical/metaphysical debate is irrelevant because it still provides no evidence.

And then you try and turn it around by challenging atheists to provide evidence that God doesn’t exist. The burden of proof is not upon us, particularly not in this thread which you started, let me remind you, by saying:

I hope you do not love your atheism, because its is my mission to destroy it.

So your stated mission is lost before you start, because there’s no way you can win an argument against rational intelligent people by plain assertion and recourse to metaphysical ‘proofs’ which are actually no such thing.

I don’t know whether God exists, but I do know that there’s no proof for his existence, and don’t see why I should be compelled to believe in something for which not a shred of evidence exists. Even though there are some things that we don’t understand, there’s not reason to postulate God to fill those gaps. Such a postulation is logical and inefficient. That’s my, and I think, most, atheists’ position.

Show us the evidence and we’ll believe. That’s more, I think, than can be said if science were to prove that God didn’t exist. Theists would at that point attempt to debunk the evidence or ‘move’ God outside the realm of the evidence (again).

 

[tonyrey]

That’s more, I think, than can be said if science were to prove that God didn’t exist.

How do you think science could prove that God doesn’t exist?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

All you have to do, if you can be bothered, is go to a good library.

Irreducible complex “information” has been debunked? You don’t even understand what i mean by that, you just assume that I’m talking about Behe’s theory. No. I don’t think that you even bothered to read my posts properly.

You claimed that evolution can explain it. Not me. Of course evolution cannot account for it. You said that evolution can explain why organisms strive to stay alive, but you cannot even begin to answer that question with out taking into account the laws of chemistry. All you have managed to do is make the error of associating the desire for life and the striving of life with an organisms ability to survive within a particular environment, and then claiming that the environment is the cause of why organisms strive for life. Such an error is not made by somebody who knows the theory of evolution.

You don’t know that science has limits?
You have poor conceptual abilities.
I have already explained this, and if you are humble enough to learn, you will find the answer in my previous posts.

Where? Explain yourself.
What does physics have to do with evolution??? Are you serious? Are you saying that physics isn’t involved in biological processes?!!

Are you saying that chemical laws have nothing to do with biological processes?!! This shows how much you know, and how much you are prepared to understand.

I follow logic and evidence. Please show me how the evidence explains and disproves the necessity of my OP.

You are refusing to face the facts. Every post you have made has been an attempt to avoid the questions given; all you have done is make baseless assertions. Thats a shame; its not a sign of somebody who values reason.

Dude you have been going to the wrong libraries. It seems you don’t even have the most basic understanding of what a scientific theory is.

Evolution does not need to, nor try to explain chemical reactions, or physics. This show’s me exactly how uneducated in science you are.

I acutally presumed you were talking about DNA when you refered to Irreducible complex “information”, but lets leave that for now.

What we have here is a classic case of someone trying to talk about advanced science without having even a fundamental grasp of the basics.

So lets start at the beginning, and i will do my best to explain as we go…

Evolution explains the diversity of species. Physics has nothing to do with the theory. While understanding how the chemistry behind the theory works, I.E mutations, crossing over, How DNA replicates during Mitosis and Meiosis etc, it need not explain the origin of these chemicals, or why chemicals react in the manner they do. I.E. why hydrogen and oxygen bond to give H20 instead of HO or H30.

I agree understanding these things gives on a fuller understanding of life, but it is a seperate field, and evolution does not seek to, nor need to explain these things.

Are you with me so far?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I know, sorry about that. I failed to understand the finer point of this discussion. I would appreciate a question answered though. Does the idea that the processes of evolving flesh cause, at least in part, life to transcend whatever state of being it finds it’self experiencing, oppose the ideas that support the average atheist’s view? I should ask with more clarity. Would the idea that life transcends it’self be something most atheists find incongruent with their view of reality? That’s basically the logical conclusion to a sublime permeating force directing the evolutionary process to a particular end.

I’m thinking that the view that the results of evolutionary processes can’t be defined authentically as transcendant, that they are just what they are no more no less and the experience of being that accompanies it is the same, is how most atheists think.

Evolution has completely natural explanations. There is no need to posit an out side force guiding evolution.

 

[wanstronian]

How do you think science could prove that God doesn’t exist?

If you read my post again you’ll realise that’s not the point.

 

[tonyrey]

If you read my post again you’ll realise that’s not the point.

Yet another evasion! Do you or do you not believe science can in principle explain everything? What constitutes evidence for the existence of a person? Can you observe consciousness, free will and responsibility through a microscope?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Yet another evasion! Do you or do you not believe science can in principle explain everything? What constitutes evidence for the existence of a person? Can you observe consciousness, free will and responsibility through a microscope?

What does a microscope have to do with it, again futher proof you have no understanding of science or its method. Can one observe gravity?

 

[Fran65]

Can one observe gravity?

Yes, gravity can be observed. There are three different methods of measurement, although they are not easy.

I’m not denying a natural explanation for evolution - it is a natural process. However, you seem unable to answer the question - which I’ll simplify for you - Why did the proteins combine to form DNA? What was it about those proteins that meant that they related to one another in such a form that they divided and continued to divide? Where does that ‘drive’ to divide come from? (Please don’t say survival ) You can say, because that’s what those proteins do - which is another example of the ‘brute fact’ of physical laws. In other words - we don’t know why.

Wanstronian, thank you for admitting to the brute fact of the universe. That is intellectually honest of you. However, there is also no evidence (or reason!) to suppose that there is no purpose to the universe. Therefore its a matter of personal choice and judgement. You choose to see the universe as a ‘brute fact’, I don’t. That’s not difficult to understand. Could I ask you to stop talking about ‘claptrap’ etc - its insulting and unnecessary. Cheers.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Yes, gravity can be observed. There are three different methods of measurement, although they are not easy.

We dont observe gravity, we observe the effects of gravity.

I’m not denying a natural explanation for evolution - it is a natural process. However, you seem unable to answer the question - which I’ll simplify for you - Why did the proteins combine to form DNA? What was it about those proteins that meant that they related to one another in such a form that they divided and continued to divide? Where does that ‘drive’ to divide come from? (Please don’t say survival ) You can say, because that’s what those proteins do - which is another example of the ‘brute fact’ of physical laws. In other words - we don’t know why.

This has nothing to do with evolution, the above is abiogenesis.

 

[reggieM]

So your answer is that man wants to survive because he wants to survive because that helped the species (man) survive.

I think that explains it quite well. (… and we’re not going to get much more of an answer either).

 

[Benadam]

Evolution has completely natural explanations. There is no need to posit an out side force guiding evolution.

I don’t believe that living matter evolving into increasingly complex forms is necessarily a supernatural or an unnatural phenomenon. I don’t believe attaching the word transcendent to the increased complexity accomplished would require powers outside the natural sphere.
Natural selection favors the individuals within a species that are ‘better’ or ‘more than’.They effectively surpass other individuals within their species. In whatever way, their particular complexity enables them to be better or more efficient.They possess a quality that characterizes them as transcendent.

Now I don’t believe the term violates any fundamental principle that atheists require in order to maintain their construct of reality but I recognize that the word carries with it a stigma of religiosity.
OTOH I don’t believe that the stigma is incorrect nor do I believe it disqualifies the word as a term that precisely defines what the theory of evolution concludes is happening to living matter.
Charles, If you feel this question is leading, your senses don’t betray you. If you don’t mind my intrusion, what sayest thou?

 

[Fran65]

We dont observe gravity, we observe the effects of gravity…

Agreed. In the same way, one could argue that we don’t observe God, we observe the effects of God - evolution

This has nothing to do with evolution, the above is abiogenesis.

So you don’t want to (can’t) explain why abiogenesis occured?

In addition, the replication of DNA *is how *organisms reproduce. It is therefore part of evolution. If DNA does not replicate then the mechanism of natural selection cannot occur. There would be no development of characteristics giving a survival advantage without DNA!

So why does DNA reproduce? You can reread the answer I offered you in my previous post.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

**Agreed. In the same way, one could argue that we don’t observe God, we observe the effects of God - evolution
**

Err no.

**So you don’t want to (can’t) explain why abiogenesis occured?

In addition, the replication of DNA *is how *organisms reproduce. It is therefore part of evolution. If DNA does not replicate then the mechanism of natural selection cannot occur. There would be no development of characteristics giving a survival advantage without DNA!

So why does DNA reproduce? You can reread the answer I offered you in my previous post.**

No i’m pointing out abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with evolution, they are totally sperate theories. Also we know exactly how DNA replicates and is handed down to the next generation. Meiosis and Mitosis.

 

[Fran65]

Charles Darwin;5477248/:

Err no. .

What is your reasoning?
Charles Darwin;5477248/:

No i’m pointing out abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with evolution, they are totally sperate theories. Also we know exactly how DNA replicates and is handed down to the next generation. Meiosis and Mitosis.

Let’s start again. Abiogenesis is a hypothetical theory that living organisms are created from non living matter. The last time I checked, the human body is indeed composed of non organic matter - oxygen,carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorous, potassium, sulphur etc. DNA is composed of protein (nitrogen, carbon, oxygen and hydrogen) strands. This is the basis for evolution - it cannot occur without DNA. What I am asking is why have those non living elements combined to form a living organism?

I do not need (or want!) a description of the physical and chemical processes and/or the technical terms for them. I want you tell me what *you think *the reason is for the forward (in the sense of development) momentum of matter in this case ( the evolution of man).

I know about mitosis and meiosis. They are processes by which cells divide. You have still not told me what it is that leads a cell to divide (whether by mitosis or meiosis). Remember, you are not allowed to say because the DNA replicates and recombines. I am asking - (for the last time!) What is it that leads to the cell division - where does the impulse to reproduce come from?

You can’t say survival instinct either - we’ve been through that one.