Evolution and Creationism

[Hume]

Well, particularly as what occurs in those chapters probably did so before the advent of writing.

The important parts (truths) get remembered. The details are flexible.

Stay safe out there!

 

[buffalo]

So, the ID crowd hired a room in the Royal Society. That does not make whatever was said in that room any more convincing than the usual ID refuted arguments. Repeating the same things in a different venue does not make them less untrue than they was before.

Sure it does. Look at the Royal Societies own website. If they simply just rented a room it would not be published under their name. Nice try though.

 

[buffalo]

Well, particularly as what occurs in those chapters probably did so before the advent of writing.

Speculation. ,

 

[Hume]

The further you get in history from The Enlightenment, the more speculation one needs to try and parse the truth.

 

[rossum]

To repeat what I said above:

You have failed to give a reference for your “500 or so common conserved components”. You have failed to indicate whether or not bacteria, sponges or jellyfish have those common components. Failure to answer reasonable question is not going to help you in a scientific argument.

 

[buffalo]

The further you get in history from The Enlightenment, the more speculation one needs to try and parse the truth.

You are still stuck in the failed enlightenment?

 

[Hume]

“Failed”?

Lol. I wasn’t aware there was a specific goal other than incrementally replacing superstition with reason.

But I’ll agree that there are areas where reason still seems to be in woefully short supply

 

[DictatorCzar]

The enlightenment wasn’t all bad. Capitalism as a economic philosophy started up in the Enlightenment. There’s probably more but I can’t think of it. Scientific breakthroughs happened in the enlightenment.

 

[Hume]

The enlightenment wasn’t all bad. Capitalism as a economic philosophy started up in the Enlightenment. There’s probably more but I can’t think of it. Scientific breakthroughs happened in the enlightenment.

Oh, yeah. I thought it was a good thing.

It was buff that apparently thought the Enlightenment was a “failure” somehow…

 

[DictatorCzar]

Well there was some. It caused the God was dead movement and other atheistic movements, but overall, it was pretty beneficial to humanity.

 

[Hume]

Well there was some. It caused the God was dead movement and other atheistic movements, but overall, it was pretty beneficial to humanity.

Sure. It did.

And the supposed death of god lead fairly directly to the troubles of the 20th century where post-enlightenment people tried to figure out what to replace it with.

Even as an atheist, I’ll vehemently argue that if people didn’t need religion, it wouldn’t have evolved literally everywhere on the planet. There are no aboriginal atheists.

It does something very important, even if it isn’t rooted in rational fact.

 

[Freddy]

DictatorCzar:

Well there was some. It caused the God was dead movement and other atheistic movements, but overall, it was pretty beneficial to humanity.

Sure. It did.

And the supposed death of god lead fairly directly to the troubles of the 20th century where post-enlightenment people tried to figure out what to replace it with.

Even as an atheist, I’ll vehemently argue that if people didn’t need religion, it wouldn’t have evolved literally everywhere on the planet. There are no aboriginal atheists.

It does something very important, even if it isn’t rooted in rational fact.

You might only need to replace something that’s been taken away. Or lost.

I enjoyed reading your posts on the…what could it be called…the null hypothesis? In regard to abortion. I think most didn’t understand the concept. That a lack of morality is not the default. There’s nothing missing. It’s just yet to be decided. Like a blank sheet of paper and a pen poised to write.

For some of us who never had religion (even if we went through the motions at a young age) there’s nothing to replace. It’s as if a lot of people are given that piece of paper that’s already had all the rules written upon it. Most accept it as written. And some either toss that aside and start afresh or start with a clean sheet in the first instance. So I never crossed out religion and thought ‘Right, what do I need to replace it with?’.

If you can actually reach a point where you have that blank sheet then you discover that you have options.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

So those huge odds that you quoted are only viable if humans were meant to be the end result and the system was designed to produce that result.

How do you know that humans were not meant to be the end result? How do I know you are even real? How do I know you are not a bot designed to waste’s people’s time?

In the end I don’t see you offering a better explanation for the data.

So you have to assume God’s existence in order to use your proposal to prove God’s existence.

You have it backwards. I assume Theism is true because it is the best explanation for the data. If I look at a building I could see that there most likely was an architect. I wouldn’t assume that it appeared out of thin air or somehow randomly fell into place. No, I would assume that an architect designed it. I assume that God exists in the same way I would assume that a building has an architect.

 

[DictatorCzar]

I wouldn’t know if humans would be the last result. But biblically they were last, and in evolution, they are one of the last branches.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So those huge odds that you quoted are only viable if humans were meant to be the end result and the system was designed to produce that result.

How do you know that humans were not meant to be the end result?

Let’s say I don’t know. But that is what you are trying to prove to me. That God has arranged things so that we are the intended result. But your argument must assume that in the first place for your figures to have any meaning.

If we are the result of happenstance then the odds of us appearing are 1. The same as any other result (like a random deal of the deck). But if we are the intended result (all suits in order for example) then the odds are indeed amazing. Then you’d be right in saying ‘hang on - someone’s rigged the deck!’

 

[o_mlly]

Evolution of species one from another is a fact. We know that because all living things share genetic material. Genetic material is passed on by descent. Therefore all living things are related one to another by descent. Therefore all have evolved from earlier forms of life.

Arguing that evolution is not a fact is like arguing that light, or gravity, or mass are not facts.

First, substitute carbon molecules for genetic material and apply the same logic as above.

If all living things and some non-living things contain carbon molecules then may we conclude that some non-living and living things are related?

A property – DNA or carbon molecule – that is common to different beings does not imply a common ancestor for those beings, e.g., the gasoline in my lawn mower and I do not have a common ancestor.

In order to propose that such a relationship exists, it seems to me, would require identifying the origination of DNA or the carbon molecule and demonstrating necessary descendancy of all beings that possess a common property.

Second, the facts of light, mass and gravity are perceptible immediately by one’s senses, i.e., all three can be observed. The senses can directly observe the shape, size and motion of beings without special instruments and special training. Unlike light, mass and gravity, speciation has not been observed and, therefore, is categorically a different phenomena than light, mass and gravity. Speciation may be inferred but never observed. As such, the reality of speciation (macro evolution) is arguable.

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

If we are the result of happenstance then the odds of us appearing are 1. The same as any other result (like a random deal of the deck). But if we are the intended result (all suits in order for example) then the odds are indeed amazing. Then you’d be right in saying ‘hang on - someone’s rigged the deck!’

You are assuming that human beings are the result of happenstance and not the intended result. Your whole argument rests on that assumption. I find it impossible to believe that you would believe it if i told you a deck had been randomly shuffled and that somehow it ended up in perfect order by suit and number and believe that. Would you think to yourself. Hmmm… That wasn’t the intended result so the odds of that happening is only 1 and no one rigged the deck. You are left with two assumptions either it was random happenstance and the result wasn’t intentional or that it wasn’t random and that it was indeed intentionally rigged. It would be utterly absurd to think that anyone would even think that such an outcome could be ever be unintentional happenstance. The BEST assumption is that the deck had been rigged. You do realize that the universe coming into existence from nothing and life arising out of lifeless materials is far greater than a deck of cards. The best assumption is that it had been the will of an Omnipotent being. If you wouldn’t believe that a deck of cards randomly fell into perfect order why would you assume that a finely tuned universe that can sustain life wasn’t intentional?

 

[o_mlly]

The universe does not run on random chance. It is not random chance that there is a lot more H2O in the universe than HO2. Evolution overall is not a random process because natural selection is not random. …

There’s hope! If it’s not random then it is designed.

Loading…

www.merriam-webster.com

random, haphazard, casual mean determined by accident rather than design.

 

[rossum]

Second, the facts of light, mass and gravity are perceptible immediately by one’s senses, i.e., all three can be observed.

Some facts can be observed directly, but not all of them. We cannot observe the great majority of light frequencies, yet they exist. We cannot observe geodesics in space-time, yet they are the paths a body follows under gravity.

We can observe part of evolution; a child is not identical to its parents. That is observable variation in the population and so part of evolution. We can observe mutation, such as Apo AI Milano. We can observe natural selection.

The senses can directly observe the shape, size and motion of beings without special instruments and special training.

So, radio waves do not exist? Do angels carry the signal to your aerial? After all, we cannot see radio waves so they cannot exist. Is that really what you want us to think? You are in effect saying that science cannot work beyond the narrow limits of unassisted human senses.

Unlike light, mass and gravity, speciation has not been observed and, therefore, is categorically a different phenomena than light, mass and gravity. Speciation may be inferred but never observed. As such, the reality of speciation (macro evolution) is arguable.

You are rejecting the bulk of science here. Radioactive decay has never been directly observed. Is radioactivity false? Neptune has never been observed without a telescope. Are we to doubt the existence of the planet Neptune?

Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. Much of science relies on indirect observation. Have you ever seen an electron? Are you denying electricity because the unassisted human eye cannot see individual electrons?

You need a better argument here.

 

[rossum]

There’s hope! If it’s not random then it is designed.

False dichotomy. Have you never read Monod “Chance and Necessity”? Dr. Dembski recognises three options in his Explanatory Filter: Law, Chance, Design.

Evolution is a mixture of chance: random mutations, founder effect and neutral drift, with law/necessity: natural selection. It may include design, as with artificial selection.