Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense!

[Aqueous Id]

Nothing she's ever said has been clever enough to be anyone's PhD project.

maybe there's a bot on the loose out there trying to get an online PhD in dialogue simulation. Suppose some hacker let it out of its cage and can't find it. In between posting here as the wool & yarn neural net, it does an adaptive program along the lines of your Tautological Roving Opacity Lorenz Laser, with some time off to write speeches for Romney.

At any rate, I've always thought of her as a Tautological Roving Opacity Lorenz Laser, which, when pointed at the interwebs, evokes chaos theory and mass facepalming.

 

[Sarkus]

Life has one OBJECTIVE purpose, to produce the next generation. If life fails at that purpose it ceases to exist(extinction).

We only differ in a slight matter of perspective.

My view is that life has no objective purpose.

Life reproduces not because of purpose but by default.
If it didn't it wouldn't exist beyond a single generation - and it wouldn't be "life" as we understand it.

You are assigning life with an intent rather than merely a function.
Life is just a process, the same way that the movement of the ocean is a process.
Would you say that a purpose of the ocean is to erode coastlines, merely because it is something that it does?

You assign too much weight to survival as a goal... when life as a process doesn't give two hoots about survival.
Evolution just happens to have put an end to those that don't survive... but evolution is blind and mindless... a change in environment and whoops - there goes another few thousand species.

Any "goal" or "purpose" behind life is merely one that we, as sentient living entities, ascribe to it, based on our desire to see our species continue - and as such I see it as subjective.

We may be arguing from slightly different understandings of "purpose" - so let me lay out my view:
Purpose is a goal, an aim, a reason for existence.
There is nothing in this understanding that suggests life, as a process, has an objective purpose.
Survival and reproduction are merely what it does.
The only way I could consider such activity as purpose is if I hold that it was designed to do that... which requires a designer.

Nature is not an entity capable of feelings, don't think of it as one.

I'm not. It seems you are anthropomorphising it though...

And survival to reproduce is the ONLY criteria the success of a lifeform is measured with.

Success as judged by whom?
Success is a subjective matter... and to ascribe purpose on achieving such a subjective success must also mean that the "purpose" is subjective.

Name any more vital purpose, then. You can't, there is no other OBJECTIVE purpose for life, all else is detail to that purpose.

Being subjectively "vital" does not equate to being objective.
How are you judging "vital"? To the survival of our species, with survival being considered "success"?
All subjective measures.

Just because evolution is a mindless process does not mean it has no purpose.

Yes it does.
Evolution is merely our view of a process of reactions to a changing environment. Any purpose we ascribe to it is us ascribing it a subjective view.

If you think evolution truly has a purpose then you think the ocean has a purpose to erode coastlines.
There is no difference that they both are merely dumb, blind processes.

That purpose is survival to reproduce, period. All else is detail.

And I say that reproduction is merely what life does. There is no objective purpose behind life.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

So you don't think humans evolved from a common ancestor that we share with the apes, for example?

I've already explained my position.

And if this is achieved through a natural process with no designer: how then would you be able to tell the difference between the designed and the undesigned?

I would, like you, have to assume that there is no designer.
How could I do that? It appears designed, and this is not just my opinion.

As yet you've given no reason why you should assume ''no designer''. Why is that?

It would be something not otherwise found in nature and with no means of being created by nature, and ideally with a stated purpose up front.

If you, I, or anyone could know that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
How does nature create instructional information?

Well, given your assumption that I was "fixing for a 'where is the actual evidence' discussion", I took your reluctance to go down that path as indication that you were basing your position on guesswork.

Okay.

Part of our mental construct... yes... arrived at through the blindness of evolution. I see no reason to invoke design.

How did this intelligence arrive through blind processes?
For example, why do we need complex mathematics, science, or philosophy?
What does obtaining this knowledge have to do with evolution?
Is it beneficial to the earth?
Why aren't we simply doing what the other animals do?

You asked what I believed previously... I believed that we were all descended from Adam and Eve. If my belief had been limited to just me being descended I would have used the singular.
It's nothing more complicated than that. :shrug:
No, I accept that some things can not be explained at all.
I don't make up answers where there are none to be confirmed.

Sorry. My bad.

And yes, I only accept things that can be evidenced. That is not to say there are not other things... but I won't accept them as truth. I will merely say "I don't know".

Okay.

I don't.
I know there are numerous theories for it which seem plausible given our current understanding, but it is an area that we will not likely be able to provide anywhere close to a definitive answer, unless we discover other life-bearing planets at a similar stage.
But I guess "God did it!" works. :shrug:
The distinction I'm making is that there is a difference between designed and undesigned (natural) creation, even if only in the need for the former to have a designer.

Well obviously, the Cambrian era remains a mystery to you, and must therefore be a vital key in understanding our origins. Why do you still posit that there is no evidence of a designer with a drastically incomplete understanding of the fossil record? Would it not be more prudent to say ''I don't know''? Because you don't actually know.

Is there nothing about us that appears designed?
Can everything about our being and form be explained by the blind processes of nature?

ew otherwise appears logically flawed, in that you're affirming the consequent. You are following:
If P then Q.
Q
Therefore P.

i.e. If we are designed, we'd look like we do.
We look like we do.
Therefore we are designed.

I don't think it's quite as simple as that, but I can work along those lines, and modify the illogic. No probs.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Neverfly, I can tell you from years of personal experience, Jan has had the differences between belief and theory explained hundreds of times over the years. You're simply the most recent, and it's not going to make a difference.

Why did you feel the need to throw this in?

Were you being a good little boy?


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Neverfly,

Wrong and yes, this is a typical claim made by Creationists in hopes of making it look like Evolution is just a faith based Belief; like the creationists hold.

Nobody is claiming that evolution is a faith. Most, if not all, can see evolution at work. The idea of ''goo'' to ''man'' however, is considered a belief because there is no way of knowing if this occurred. Plus, the evidence can be inferred either way (even though darwinist interpretation is wack)

Evolution is not a belief. It is a Theory- Well Supported by strong evidence.
Creationism is a Belief- that is supported by No Evidence except for an inaccurate Bible.

They use the same evidence you do.
And do tend to kick your asses in equal debates.
You simply have no way of knowing whether goo to man is true.

You are not in the religion forum. You are in a Subforum on a Science board.
But why you push this excuse so hard is spelled out below...

We are in the ''RELIGION FORUM'' meaning we can view things from a religious/spiritual perspective. Not that we come to preach or convert.
Religion and spirituality deals with the individual. So I'm interested in the ''WHY'' aspect of what I see as your belief (convince me otherwise if you can) in the ability of blind, unguided processes mimicking intellgence. Because it takes intelligence to write instructions and codes.

Why can you not address post Number 17, Jan Ardena?

The reason why you cannot is because you are afraid.

I wouldn't say ''afraid'. I just don't have the time or energy to go into stupid discussions about this. There are enough of those in other forums.
I'm interested in you, as an individual, not some Borg collective.

Post 17 is an invitation to such a discussion.
You typically assume you are correct, therefore feel you don't have to offer anything. In this, the Emporer is stark-bollock-naked, and as such there is no need to comment. If you want to go there, I suggest you fill those subtitles with real evidence, that either has not been noticed, forgotten, or simply ignored, by the ID'ists, and explain why you think that particular evidence points to non-intelligent design.

Don't bother with the flawed design stuff, because that is not evidence of non-design.

Deep, deep down, your body is aware that you're lying to yourself. Your subconscious mind is always trying to reject that lie. You are afraid that if you have to confront the really hard questions, you will have to confront the problem of overwhelming evidence for evolution and none for intelligent design and creationism.

Such imagination.
Tell me, how does your belief system account for it (imagination)?

You avoid the hard questions like plague- acting cool and casual, but doing everything you can to shun that problem.

Your questions aren't hard, they're just... not questions.
They're assumptions dressed up as taken for granted facts.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

I would, like you, have to assume that there is no designer.
How could I do that? It appears designed, and this is not just my opinion.

So the issue here is whether the same CAN be achieved without a designer, regardless of what it might look like?
As you have said, if the same CAN be achieved without a designer then you would have to assume that there is none.
So you know for sure that the current state of affairs could not be reached without a designer?

As yet you've given no reason why you should assume ''no designer''. Why is that?

Occam's razor: a designer is an unknown that is not required for our current understanding.
Until such time as a "designer" is required, why should we assume there is one?
You may say "well, it looks designed" - but unless you can show that such an appearance can not be obtained without a designer...?

If you, I, or anyone could know that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
How does nature create instructional information?

Evolutionary process of self-replicating chemicals.

How did this intelligence arrive through blind processes?
For example, why do we need complex mathematics, science, or philosophy?
What does obtaining this knowledge have to do with evolution?
Is it beneficial to the earth?
Why aren't we simply doing what the other animals do?

Intelligence seems to have been of evolutionary benefit... we found we could adapt to an increasingly wide environment.
But we might be damaging our own environment such that we kill ourselves off... again this will merely be evolution at work.
Why do we need complex maths and the others? Mere side-effect of pattern-recognition and our burgeoning intelligence, and our ability to abstract.

Well obviously, the Cambrian era remains a mystery to you, and must therefore be a vital key in understanding our origins. Why do you still posit that there is no evidence of a designer with a drastically incomplete understanding of the fossil record? Would it not be more prudent to say ''I don't know''? Because you don't actually know.

You think an incomplete understanding of the fossil record is evidence for a designer?
What evidence is there for a designer that can not be demonstrated through a theory that does not include a designer?

Is there nothing about us that appears designed?

Sure - we might appear designed. But our understanding of the natural world shows how such can be achieved without conscious, intelligent, sentient designers.

Can everything about our being and form be explained by the blind processes of nature?

Everything? No, not yet. But I'm quite happy to say "I don't know", but that's a far cry from jumping to "therefore a designer did it!"
It will be a different matter if someone shows that a part of our nature absolutely could not have devloped without a designer.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The idea of ''goo'' to ''man'' however, is considered a belief because there is no way of knowing if this occurred. Plus, the evidence can be inferred either way (even though darwinist interpretation is wack)

By "goo" to "man" you mean 4.0-4.2 billion years ago until present.

Here you will see that this is treated in 5 steps:

(1) Prebiotic chemistry (4.0-4.2 BYA)
(2) Pre-RNA World (~4.0 BYA)
(3) RNA World (~3.8 BYA)
(4) First DNA/protein life (~3.6 BYA)
(5) Last Universal Common ancestor (~3.6 BYA)

At 3.5-2.8 BYA the cyanobacteria appear, leaving fossils of their colonies (stromatolites). They photosynthesize, leading to the Great Oxygenation Event (atmosphere building) beginning ~2.5 BYA until the oxygen catastrophe of ~0.5 BYA leading to the Cambrian Explosion.

At this point are the emergence of animals with primitive body forms, which you may consider just outside of the "goo" stage:

And from there the fossil record opens up and the part of natural history you are comfortable with take place.

There's quite a bit of science involved in the "goo" to "animal body" evolutionary stages, since it covers about ~3.5 billion years of the total ~4.0 billion span that evolutionary and molecular biologists study.

Because of the depth of this knowledge, I think we can safely say it has moved far beyond the belief stage and well into science.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

So the issue here is whether the same CAN be achieved without a designer, regardless of what it might look like?

If there is an issue here, which it hasn't come to that yet, then it is we appear designed, so why discard that appearance with something totally alien?

As you have said, if the same CAN be achieved without a designer then you would have to assume that there is none.

You've yet to show that it can.
All you've done is fill in gaps to suit your belief.

So you know for sure that the current state of affairs could not be reached without a designer?

If I knew for sure, I wouldn't be asking anything.

Occam's razor: a designer is an unknown that is not required for our current understanding.

Nonsense. Design is part of our humanity, we even see exquisite design from animals. Why does occams razor come to your attention regarding this, while at the same time believing we are the result of some blind movement of nature. If it is only a matter of knowing the designer, then occams razor clearly rests with my side of things.

Until such time as a "designer" is required, why should we assume there is one?

The designs are already in place, there is no such thing as ''until such time...''
It is as plain as the designed nose on your face.

You may say "well, it looks designed" - but unless you can show that such an appearance can not be obtained without a designer...?

I don't need to show that, if it already looks designed. You need to show that what we see is not what it seems.

Evolutionary process of self-replicating chemicals.

Bullshit.
How does such a process come to the point of building bodily structures?

Intelligence seems to have been of evolutionary benefit... we found we could adapt to an increasingly wide environment.

More Bullshit.
We could be just as happy as plants and trees. Why do we need the ability to comprehend complex information?

But we might be damaging our own environment such that we kill ourselves off... again this will merely be evolution at work.

Yet more Bullshit.
Why would natural selection opt for destruction, after mimicking intelligence?
Is destruction of our environment an intelligenct move?

Why do we need complex maths and the others? Mere side-effect of pattern-recognition and our burgeoning intelligence, and our ability to abstract.

Mere side effects, you say?
It would have been more credible to say, I don't know.

Why is having the ability to abstract better than simply eating, sleeping, shagging, fighting, and then old age and death?
What does nature get out of intelligently complex creatures?

You think an incomplete understanding of the fossil record is evidence for a designer

No. But to posit blind, unguided, and in some sense, misguided, motion of nature itself, makes no sense in light of such lack of, or mis-understanding.
You'd be better keep the idea as a theory (at best), rather than saying it is a definate fact.

What evidence is there for a designer that can not be demonstrated through a theory that does not include a designer?

Nonsense question.
Neither of us have any idea what actually happened to produce such diversity, but we both agree that we look designed. So why not start from that perspective, rather that introduce some alien concept, for which there is no evidence of outside of making shit up.

Sure - we might appear designed. But our understanding of the natural world shows how such can be achieved without conscious, intelligent, sentient designers.

Sure, we can make stuff up. Anyone can do that.
But why introduce some wack idea like, we are all just a product of some blind mechanism, that somehow mimicks intelligence, produce creatures with intelligence, but itself is devoid of intelligence. What nonsense.

Everything? No, not yet.

IOW, you can't make the shit fit, as yet.

But I'm quite happy to say "I don't know", but that's a far cry from jumping to "therefore a designer did it!"

Bullshit! You're not happy to say that at all.
You've no idea how that abundance of forms happened to be in the cambrian layer, all at once, no evidence of gradual change, yet you still stick the idea of darwinian evolution, waiting untill some bof gives some kind of explanation that fits with your belief. That's your position.

will be a different matter if someone shows that a part of our nature absolutely could not have devloped without a designer.

A designer designs.
Nothing does fuck all.

jan.

 

[Grumpy]

Jan Ardena

The points I illustrated(and you ignored)show that we DO NOT appear designed to those who actually look beyond the superficial appearance. And the only purpose Nature gives you is to reproduce the next generation. Any other purpose is self chosen.

”


I didn't ignore your points, they're just pointless and irelevant, not to mention premature.

Ignore, sidestep, belittle or handwave away, it is far from pointless and is the heart of the matter and of ultimate relivance. You have said several times that life "appears to be designed", I pointed out that only if you make the most superficial and shallow examination of lifeforms could you possibly say something so inane and ignorant. ADDRESS THE POINT.

By the results. Our bodies are horribly designed(again, given design). ”

At best, that's just you're opinion, IMO, one that you are forced to arrive at due to your beliefs (and yes I mean beliefs)

I don't believe the sun will appear to rise in the East in the morning, I know it will with a level of certainty approaching unity. I don't believe that evolution has occurred throughout the history of life on Earth, I know it has occurred. I don't believe that Natural Selection is the driving force behind the fact of evolution, I accept it as the best explanation given the evidence. If a better explanation is developed to explain those facts I will accept that. Belief is for those ignorant of the facts, those in possesion of the facts have no need of belief.

What we see in Nature is that there is no intent, no goal, no final product. Just an ad hoc collection of traits and structures inherited from previous generations and modified(slowly and badly)for current conditions by the survival of those traits and structures in current conditions. ”

Are you sure you have SEEN this, or again, is this what you believe?

It is what we see when we actually look instead of believing what an ancient tome written by ignorant goatherds several thousand years ago. Or did you invent your religious beliefs without prior exposure to others already infected with the meme? I helped dig fossils in Olduvai as an interne in College. I've held fossils in my hand that came from our ancestors of over a million and a half years ago. I've SEEN IT.

Your skeletal system is over 400 million years old, it is shared by everything from amphibians to birds to frogs and lizards. ”

Are you refering to Haekels embryo's?

No, I am saying that there is a one to one ratio between every bone in your body to those in almost every creature with a skeleton(excluding fish, which developed first). All creatures with skeletons once had a common ancestor whose skeleton was modified over the millions of years for each branch that developed from that common ancestor.

It is far from perfect(in some cases even barely marginally useful), one size does not fit all, and in the case of humans it is crap as design. ”

That's your opinion.
It's ironic that you are totally reliant on your body in order to make such opinions

.

It's a fact that since our skeleton developed from modifications from those of creatures that walked on all fours, our backs are crap(mine put me in a wheelchair. It is a fact that our sinuses drain from the top, OK if you walk on all fours, not so good for upright creatures. And bodies don't form opinions, minds do, minds we evolved.

What is a perfect body, in your opinion?

There is and can never be any such thing. There is only the question of how well the body fits into it's niche, enabling it to successfully reproduce. Crocodiles and sharks fit so well there has been little change in the basic planform for over 100 million years. Man is only a few million years out of the trees.

If I design a washing machine with parts that will only last 2 years, 3 at best, before self-destructing, how is that NOT DESIGN?

Life produces itself, assembles itself and forces in life change subsequent generations. Does your washer do any of these things? Does it, before it dies, produce a new washing machine to continue washing your clothes? If so, why worry if it dies? Do you need two washing machines or is the old, broke down one just in the way? As long as the new machine successfully reproduces itself before it croaks it's all good, no?

superstring wrote
If there is a creator god, he's pretty damned uncreative and goddamned lazy. He sure left a lot of evidence for the many related clades that bind us, a fossil record that demonstrates speciation and mountains of shitty traits that we are all stuck with. ”

Again, this is just your belief. One which you must maintain so your other belief can flourish (mentally).

Why do religionists have such a problem understanding that not everyone lives their life believing in magic as a logical explanation of reality in lew of gaining knowledge of what that reality really is?

Depends what you mean by ''evolution''.
I don't see evolution as one form turning into a completely different form.

Then you haven't bothered to look. Bacteria-human, with many, many entirely different forms in between.

You are limiting human understanding, and comprehension of things, to a worldview which holds that everything can be explained by matter. Hence, you don't accept anything else.

"everything can be explained by matter" is all we see in Nature, there is ZERO evidence of anything "super" to the Natural world. Thunder turns out not to be caused by Thor's hammer. We should never accept anything that can't be evidenced, Occam tells us that.

How do explain the ''cambrian explosion''?

A period of several 10s of millions of years following the development of multicellular creatures with cell differentation and hard parts that can actually fossilize(soft body creatures fossilize extremely rarely). The sudden appearance is an illusion caused by these factors. Competition among new, multicellular creatures caused rapid evolution and hard parts actually fossilize more easily. And Adam and Eve were nowhere to be found 800 million years ago.

I don't think there is evidence that shows we're not a product of intelligence, and the idea that we are not designed because the design is not fitting of a supernatural agent, is nothing more than an opinion.

And you've already admitted and demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge on the subject of what Nature shows us, so what you believe is, well, useless. The idea that we are not designed arises from examining the evidence, which you won't do because it destroys your preconceived notions. Magic rarely survives reality.

So we are in the same boat, which is why I want to try a different approach as we are in the religion forum.

But there is only one truth, and all the evidence is on the side of science. So not the same boat after all. And if your boat springs a leak, good luck fixing it with your beliefs, much better to find the hole and plug it.

wynn

Some people refuse to discuss ideas, and instead go for the ad hom.
But then again, perhaps this is part of their idea.

You mean like this?

Spoken like a true Southern Baptist!

And a miserable guy.

Or this?

Actually, it's a typically humanist position.

Or this?

I know you're good at strawmaning.

There's a word for those who do what you do, starts with a H.

Grumpy

 

[Sarkus]

If there is an issue here, which it hasn't come to that yet, then it is we appear designed, so why discard that appearance with something totally alien?

I don't discard it for anything alien. I merely look at the process behind the appearance, and can't see any evidence of design.

You've yet to show that it can.

And? If it was a case of believing in a designer until such time as it can be shown a designer isn't needed... then you'd be on to something. But science doesn't work that way.
I don't think that way: I'll only accept something as true when there is no alternative.

All you've done is fill in gaps to suit your belief.

No, the gaps remain. I don't fill them in at all.

Nonsense. Design is part of our humanity, we even see exquisite design from animals.

Design as in us arising from design, not as in our ability to design.

Why does occams razor come to your attention regarding this, while at the same time believing we are the result of some blind movement of nature.

Because we have evidence of nature. I see none for a designer. It is a matter of accepting what I consider to be rational.

If it is only a matter of knowing the designer, then occams razor clearly rests with my side of things.

Then you don't understand what Occam's razor is.

The designs are already in place, there is no such thing as ''until such time...''
It is as plain as the designed nose on your face.

Yep - beg the question, why don't you.

I don't need to show that, if it already looks designed. You need to show that what we see is not what it seems.

You are the one positing an unknown / unknowable "designer". You have no evidence for it other than our appearance, which is the very issue in question: is our appearance/existence etc designed or not... and for that you put forward the very issue in question as evidence?
Hey, why not beg the question again?

Bullshit.
More Bullshit.
Yet more Bullshit.
Bullshit!

Yep - stunning arguments there. Thanks.

How does such a process come to the point of building bodily structures?

Evolution as a process does not build structures.
The structures develop through mutation, with more fit structures flourishing in a given environment, or through changing environments due to competition.

We could be just as happy as plants and trees. Why do we need the ability to comprehend complex information?

We don't need it, as a species. But we have it because our intelligence has led that way.
Intelligence was evolutionarily beneficial, and it has since developed beyond that initial benefit - with more intelligent species generally able to survive longer.

Why would natural selection opt for destruction, after mimicking intelligence?
Is destruction of our environment an intelligenct move?

Eh? Natural selection is blind and dumb to such matters. It doesn't opt for anything. If we cause our own destruction then clearly we would have reached a level of intelligence that could be considered an evolutionarily bad place to be for the environment.

Why is having the ability to abstract better than simply eating, sleeping, shagging, fighting, and then old age and death?

Possibly because of needing to outwit predators... being able to create weapons etc.
But "better"? Who said it was better?
It has merely allowed us to survive, but who is to say what is better?

What does nature get out of intelligently complex creatures?

Nature doesn't get anything out of it. Nature has no say. Nature merely is.

No. But to posit blind, unguided, and in some sense, misguided, motion of nature itself, makes no sense in light of such lack of, or mis-understanding.

It makes sense to me. That you can't make sense of it... I can't answer for that.

You'd be better keep the idea as a theory (at best), rather than saying it is a definate fact.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact... i.e. speciation has been observed (fact)... but the mechanisms (the theories) are not fully understood.
Just as gravity is both fact (apples fall)... but also a theory (how gravity actually operates... the mechanism etc).

Nonsense question.
Neither of us have any idea what actually happened to produce such diversity, but we both agree that we look designed.
So why not start from that perspective, rather that introduce some alien concept, for which there is no evidence of outside of making shit up.

We did start from that perspective... it was called the Bible.
Then we discovered that things weren't that simple... and that there was no evidence for God that did not either beg the question, or begin from some unfalsifiable claim.
And as for "alien concept"... you are the one claiming some "designer" while I currently favour a wholly natural process. And you accuse me of introducing an "alien concept"??? :shrug:

Sure, we can make stuff up. Anyone can do that.
But why introduce some wack idea like, we are all just a product of some blind mechanism, that somehow mimicks intelligence, produce creatures with intelligence, but itself is devoid of intelligence. What nonsense.

Argument from personal incredulity. :shrug:

IOW, you can't make the shit fit, as yet.

"God did it!"

You're not happy to say that at all.
You've no idea how that abundance of forms happened to be in the cambrian layer, all at once, no evidence of gradual change, yet you still stick the idea of darwinian evolution, waiting untill some bof gives some kind of explanation that fits with your belief. That's your position.

Who claimed Darwin's theory of evolution as being truth?? There are many theories, his being the most well known but certainly not the most accurate.

You clearly don't like the way science works, the way it doesn't offer definitive answers compared to your "God did it!".
Given your comments and responses thus far I'm reasonably sure you don't really understand evolution either, even in its broadest concepts.
Do I know that we aren't designed? No. But until natural processes are shown to be insufficient, unlike some I won't jump the gaps with "God did it!"

 

[Neverfly]

Nobody is claiming that evolution is a faith. Most, if not all, can see evolution at work. The idea of ''goo'' to ''man'' however, is considered a belief because there is no way of knowing if this occurred.

What can be shown and demonstrated in the lab, is that the process not only can, but inevitably does, form self replicating molecules.
That the process is not just possible, but an inevitable result of the chemistry demonstrates a very high probability of what occurred several billion years ago.
It's been demonstrated that the process can take less than 25 years- Far less time than previously assumed.

Once amino acids formed and self replicated molecules had free reign in a primitive environment with nothing to stop it- the process proceeded very quickly.

They use the same evidence you do.
And do tend to kick your asses in equal debates.
You simply have no way of knowing whether goo to man is true.

Your statement is wishful thinking on your part. No, I.D.'ers do not kick evolutions ass. Although it's not unusual that they claim such winnings in hopes of making their position seem more credible.
More often than not, the experts in the field do not have the time to devote to the Publicity Stunts that the I.D. proponents politically arrange.
The rare debates that occur tend to be done by college kids and on places such as here. Whether these debates have clear "winners" or not would have to be looked into.
But it's a moot point.
We cannot travel back in time and "prove" to you how the process worked then, we can show it to you now.
The I.D.'er then claims that is not Good Enough. That it must be shown that it happened then.
To that- the only rational response is, "Prove God Did It."

We've already demonstrated, clearly and in full, a designer is not needed for the process to occur, in fact that they must occur- it is not even a special event.

We are in the ''RELIGION FORUM'' meaning we can view things from a religious/spiritual perspective. Not that we come to preach or convert.
Religion and spirituality deals with the individual. So I'm interested in the ''WHY'' aspect of what I see as your belief (convince me otherwise if you can) in the ability of blind, unguided processes mimicking intellgence. Because it takes intelligence to write instructions and codes.

No instructions or codes were written, for one. This is a misconception on your part.
The manner in which proteins form and fit together fallows no code, no instructions.
However, if the proteins click together in an order that does not cause them to self destruct, they will survive long enough to replicate.

25 years seems fast to us, but it's a long while.
An intelligent design would have taken minutes. The needless failures would have been eliminated immediately and the long process of chance would have been avoided.

This is not mimicking intelligence anymore than sodium reacting to phosphorous is. A chain reaction, chemically, is not mimicking a design- it is not intelligent- it is simply it's properties.

I wouldn't say ''afraid'. I just don't have the time or energy to go into stupid discussions about this.

Then why are you here at all?
You do not get to dismiss arguments based on your lack of desire to contend with them.
If anything, you have only lent support to my claim by doing so. You are shunning- avoiding, the hard questions.

Don't bother with the flawed design stuff, because that is not evidence of non-design.

It is evidence. It is evidence of a LACK of "intelligent" design. You do not get to claim that the evidence is not evidence simply because it goes against your claims.

 

[Grumpy]

Oops!

 

[Neverfly]

There's a word for those who do what you do, starts with a H.

Ooh... oh I wanna guess.
Hypocrite!
Do I get a prize?


Yeah, I said it... Hypocrite. And be damned.

 

[Hipparchia]

In that case, you need to substantiate why you think "To survive and to heritably replicate" is the purpose of life..

It is what life does. If life does not do that then it ceases being life. The more effectively it does it the less likely that is to happen. The evidence is that life has been doing this for over three billion years.

 

[wynn]

It is what life does. If life does not do that then it ceases being life. The more effectively it does it the less likely that is to happen. The evidence is that life has been doing this for over three billion years.

And what is the role of an individual human in all this?

 

[Hipparchia]

And what is the role of an individual human in all this?

You assume that there is some overarching purpose. You do this, apparently, out of a desire that it should be so, or a discomfort to consider that it is not.

The role of an indiviual human or of humanity is what we choose it to be. We have that freedom and that responsibility. At present, to our knowledge, we are the first and only instance by which the universe can contemplate itself. We can ignore this startling opportunity, or take on the responsibility that it could entail. Again, it is our choice as individuals and as a species.

 

[wynn]

You assume that there is some overarching purpose. You do this, apparently, out of a desire that it should be so, or a discomfort to consider that it is not.

You are cordially invited to provide a superior outlook.

The role of an indiviual human or of humanity is what we choose it to be.

This is simply not true.

Can you choose to be a king? Can you even choose to be the president of a country?
No.

Can you choose to marry whom you please? No.

Instead, what your role is going to be is to a large extent decided by other people, other factors and circumstances.

It is simply not true that "the role of an indiviual human or of humanity is what we choose it to be."

We have that freedom and that responsibility. At present, to our knowledge, we are the first and only instance by which the universe can contemplate itself. We can ignore this startling opportunity, or take on the responsibility that it could entail. Again, it is our choice as individuals and as a species.

Can you tell your hair not to grow, and it stops growing? No.


It's fine and well and serious-seeming to talk about freedom, responsibility and choice, while all along pretending that anything is possible.
But it is not the case that just anything is possible; the possible is quite limited.

The fact that such limitations exist, suggests that there is a purpose to the Universe and an individual's life.

 

[Neverfly]

It's fine and well and serious-seeming to talk about freedom, responsibility and choice, while all along pretending that anything is possible.
But it is not the case that just anything is possible; the possible is quite limited.

The fact that such limitations exist, suggests that there is a purpose to the Universe and an individual's life.

You talk about such things as if you know what you are talking about, when you make most of it up as you go.
How can you say we are limited; that the limits we have express a purpose- When it is you that chooses to limit yourself by seeking what cannot be found; asking what cannot be known; resting yourself in reassurance of an assumed dream.
If you know of this designer- show him.
If you know of our purpose- reveal it.

But the problem you face, Wynn, is your own limitations. You cannot reveal a purpose or show a designer. You take comfort in that you cannot- because it gives you the comfort of not having to face being shown that you are wrong.
You limit yourself in your imagination- your ideas about the divine and about spirituality, denying yourself the ability to learn or expand potential or find answers that can be knowable, ask questions that can be answered. Denying yourself the right to be shown you are wrong, sometimes and to learn how to be right. You deny yourself the right to find or choose a purpose of your own. One not limited to hunting for that which simply does not exist.

 

[Hipparchia]

You are cordially invited to provide a superior outlook.

I have done so.

As to the rest of your post you seem focused on self-imposed limitations, as neverfly has pointed out, rather than a blend of inspiration and aspiration.

 

[wynn]

I have done so.

As to the rest of your post you seem focused on self-imposed limitations, as neverfly has pointed out, rather than a blend of inspiration and aspiration.

Perhaps you are one of the very few then whose hair grows at your command, and who can rule countries by your own will ...