Is evolution hanging on ?

[Swa]

So just as valid as giant space unicorn farts driving evolution then in your view?

wat.jpg

The randomness (or not, as the case may be) of mutations are based on direct observations and experiments. What exactly is god-driven mutations based on?



No, it isn't, and no it doesn't. It doesn't imply anything of the sort. Again, not without anything and everything sans deities being defined as atheistic 'religion'. So is this the view you hold?

What about the physics that enable life on earth in the first place - like the geomagnetic field? Also an 'atheistic religious view' to you?

This is a really silly line of thinking, that anything that is silent on gods inherently implies there aren't deities.

Lost cause detected...

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Quoted for OD's benefit.

I know that. Nothing I've said contradicts that. wayfarer is claiming god-directed mutation has as much scientific (not philosophical) credibility as random (or non-random) mutation. I dispute that.

 

[Xarog]

I know that. Nothing I've said contradicts that. wayfarer is claiming god-directed mutation has as much scientific (not philosophical) credibility as random (or non-random) mutation. I dispute that.

The scientific framework is contingent upon a philosophical framework which by necessity assumes certain things to be true which cannot be proven true (at least at this point in time).

Science does not say anything with respect to what the origin of apparent randomness is. It is entirely possible that there is some force with intentionality/agency affecting the outcome.

Which is to say that it is only reasonable to assume absence of evidence after one has reasonably satisfied oneself that one has had a proper look in the first place, and science has not done this as yet.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

The scientific framework is contingent upon a philosophical framework which by necessity assumes certain things to be true which cannot be proven true (at least at this point in time).

Science does not say anything with respect to what the origin of apparent randomness is. It is entirely possible that there is some force with intentionality/agency affecting the outcome.

Which is to say that it is only reasonable to assume absence of evidence after one has reasonably satisfied oneself that one has had a proper look in the first place, and this science has not as yet done.

Then he mustn't claim it's a scientifically credible idea, because it isn't. Again, the model as we have it now is based on decades of observations and experiments. What is god-based mutation based on, scientifically speaking?

 

[Xarog]

Then he mustn't claim it's a scientifically credible idea, because it isn't.

I just explained why it was; science cannot declare the idea incredible, as it has no reasonable basis to do so.

Again, the model as we have it now is based on decades of observations and experiments. What is god-based mutation based on, scientifically speaking?

Perhaps you'd care to point out to me where in the science manual it says that QM is governed by true randomness as opposed to a potential agency.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I just explained why it was; science cannot declare the idea incredible, as it has no reasonable basis to do so.

Good thing it doesn't then. It's silent on it, as has already been agreed upon. Still not the same thing as claiming it's a scientifically credible idea, though. Science not declaring it incredible doesn't make it credible. Explain to me why god-determined mutation is scientifically credible, on its own merit.

Perhaps you'd care to point out to me where in the science manual it says that QM is governed by true randomness as opposed to a potential agency.

Relevance? Are you saying our understanding of randomness (or non-randomness) in mutation is not based on observations and experiments?

 

[Xarog]

Good thing it doesn't then. It's silent on it, as has already been agreed upon. Still not the same thing as claiming it's a scientifically credible idea, though. Science not declaring it incredible doesn't make it credible. Explain to me why god-determined mutation is scientifically credible, on its own merit.

Because you don't know enough about how the Universe was created to rule out the idea that it was created by a creator. Because that possibility is in play, it is reasonable to try to explain the Universe's existence in terms of that possibility.

Anything else is an argument from ignorance.

Relevance? Are you saying our understanding of randomness (or non-randomness) in mutation is not based on observations and experiments?

You think QM doesn't affect whether those mutations are truly random or not?

Note that I am arguing merely to the reasonableness of Wayfarer's position. I do not actually agree with it and I have provided evidence to support why.

 

[wayfarer]

...
What about the physics that enable life on earth in the first place - like the geomagnetic field? Also an 'atheistic religious view' to you?

This is a really silly line of thinking, that anything that is silent on gods inherently implies there aren't deities.

The typical theistic world view may very well agree with the language usage of "non-random" to describe any natural process. Random implies that it is not specifically ordered, which would be contrary to the theistic world view. From a theistic perspective, that type of language would probably be OK in everyday language, if one understands it as "seemingly random", but nevertheless determined deliberately by God. In reality then, nothing is ultimately random.

In topics that refer to actual life production (and not merely the physical environment circumstances "facilitating" it), such as the ToE, concepts and constructs are significantly more loaded with meanings and ontological biases. However, I also generally prefer to use the term "God" when referencing the source of the life-giving and nurturing forces within nature, whereas atheists may commonly invoke the goddess "mother nature".

I just explained why it was; science cannot declare the idea incredible, as it has no reasonable basis to do so.

Exactly this.

 

[Xarog]

However, I also generally prefer to use the term "God" when referencing the source of the life-giving and nurturing forces within nature, whereas atheists may commonly invoke the goddess "mother nature".

Hmm. I think I may have been premature in declaring that we do not agree. To use your terminology, I believe I am asserting that mother nature is self-aware.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Because you don't know enough about how the Universe was created to rule out the idea that it was created by a creator. Because that possibility is in play, it is reasonable to try to explain the Universe's existence in terms of that possibility.

Anything else is an argument from ignorance.


You think QM doesn't affect whether those mutations are truly random or not?

Note that I am arguing merely to the reasonableness of Wayfarer's position. I do not actually agree with it and I have provided evidence to support why.

Have fun arguing with straw.

The typical theistic world view may very well agree with the language usage of "non-random" to describe any natural process. Random implies that it is not specifically ordered, which would be contrary to the theistic world view. From a theistic perspective, that type of language would probably be OK in everyday language, if one understands it as "seemingly random", but nevertheless determined deliberately by God. In reality then, nothing is ultimately random.

In topics that refer to actual life production (and not merely the physical environment circumstances "facilitating" it), such as the ToE, concepts and constructs are significantly more loaded with meanings and ontological biases. However, I also generally prefer to use the term "God" when referencing the source of the life-giving and nurturing forces within nature, whereas atheists may commonly invoke the goddess "mother nature".

You didn't actually answer the question.

Hmm. I think I may have been premature in declaring that we do not agree. To use your terminology, I believe I am asserting that mother nature is self-aware.

Pantheism?

 

[Xarog]

Have fun arguing with straw.

There is no straw.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, OD, no matter how much you may try to claim that using science allows you to imply as much.

You didn't actually answer the question.

lol.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

There is no straw.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, OD, no matter how much you may try to claim that using science allows you to imply as much.


lol.

Heaping more straw on won't make it less of a strawman.

 

[wayfarer]

Because you don't know enough about how the Universe was created to rule out the idea that it was created by a creator. Because that possibility is in play, it is reasonable to try to explain the Universe's existence in terms of that possibility.

Anything else is an argument from ignorance.

Thank you. Your statement above is what I understand to be entirely consistent with the atheistic position, but in practice it is rejected by so many who claim that title.

 

[Xarog]

Pantheism?

Not at all.

I have the distinct impression you did not investigate the links I provided.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Thank you. The your statement above is what I understand to be entirely consistent with the atheistic position, but in practice it is rejected by so many who claim that title.

Since you're also choosing to indulge in strawmen rather than answer the questions I ask, I'll exit the thread.

 

[Xarog]

Heaping more straw on won't make it less of a strawman.

And you can claim it's a straw man all day long. But the key to demonstrating it is a straw man is to explain how I did not represent your position fairly.

And as they say, the proof is in the pudding.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

And you can claim it's a straw man all day long. But the key to demonstrating it is a straw man is to explain how I did not represent your position fairly.

And as they say, the proof is in the pudding.

Show me where I argued the position you're intent on ascribing to me, please.

 

[Xarog]

Show me where I argued the position you're intent on ascribing to me, please.

You said science not saying anything can be used to reject the notion that it can function credibly alongside the idea of a deity. Not so?

 

[wayfarer]

You didn't actually answer the question.

I am saying that the word "random" in that context does not merely amount to the omission of mentioning God's involvement. It carries the meaning that there is not a deliberate, ordered, intelligent, design by a Creator.

 

[wayfarer]

Since you're also choosing to indulge in strawmen rather than answer the questions I ask, I'll exit the thread.

I wasn't refering specifically to you, my dear friend!