Is evolution hanging on ?

[Ho3n3r]

It does in that he explicitly talks about your post as part of his dialogue with OD. That's why I think you should read it, because I honestly think you misunderstood him.

OK. Will do.

By the way, I didn't say some form of god doesn't exist. I believe anything is possible - I'm open minded like that. But I can't fathom how the only thing proving a god's existence being a book, is enough proof.

What about the other gods? There are many gods people believe in, and they all cannot be the true, main god. This alone tells me that it's fictional. I don't really need to look any further than this.

Then you have evolution, which is found plausible by scientist after scientist. I don't believe everything scientists tell me, but it seems a helluva lot more plausible than having hundreds of gods, and everyone claiming theirs is the real one.

I won't pretend I am a scientist, or have in-depth knowledge, but pure logic is enough for my brain to come to the conclusion that either can be true, but one is infinitely more plausible than the other.

 

[Xarog]

OK. Will do.

By the way, I didn't say some form of god doesn't exist. I believe anything is possible - I'm open minded like that. But I can't fathom how the only thing proving a god's existence being a book, is enough proof.

What about the other gods? There are many gods people believe in, and they all cannot be the true, main god. This alone tells me that it's fictional. I don't really need to look any further than this.

Then you have evolution, which is found plausible by scientist after scientist. I don't believe everything scientists tell me, but it seems a helluva lot more plausible than having hundreds of gods, and everyone claiming theirs is the real one.

I won't pretend I am a scientist, or have in-depth knowledge, but pure logic is enough for my brain to come to the conclusion that either can be true, but one is infinitely more plausible than the other.

Well, ya, I don't think any human being has any knowledge of god. I'm quite agnostic in that regard. It's just I don't think anyone can rule out the possibility that an entity with agency was responsible for initiating the big bang.

But again, I don't think Wayfarer was making references to a god in the way you describe in your post. He did say that it was just as accurate to talk about "mother nature". To me the implication is clear.

 

[falcon786]

:crylaugh: His hogwash based on a fairy tale is a 'solid foundation'? I think you need to go see a doctor.

I need to go see a doctor because you're closed minded.I guess that's a new one for me,you're quick with the personal insults there hey Hoener.
Argue the point not the person or else it just reflects poorly on your IQ levels from a scientific perspective,science is neutral it's not atheist or religious.

Anybody that's interested in science will accept science for what it is instead of insulting people on a scientific topic simply because their philosophical viewpoints differ.

Based on?

You know what, never mind. I just cannot take a viewpoint which has nothing to be based on, except a book, very seriously at all. Might as well believe Harry Potter created it all.

There's nothing academic about it, it's pure lunacy.

And dismissing something unprovable with personal insults is academic?Imagine if we react like that to everybody with a new theory or explanation for how the universe works.It's an idea worth exploring,if it doesn't make sense then so be it but why the personal insults because it doesn't fit in with your world view?

You mean like when you got things horribly wrong in that other thread?

Thanks for proving my point,you just can't stay on topic,always trying to render a thread worthless,I'm going to follow Xarog's lead and not feed you any more.

OK. Will do.

By the way, I didn't say some form of god doesn't exist. I believe anything is possible - I'm open minded like that. But I can't fathom how the only thing proving a god's existence being a book, is enough proof.

What about the other gods? There are many gods people believe in, and they all cannot be the true, main god. This alone tells me that it's fictional. I don't really need to look any further than this.

Then you have evolution, which is found plausible by scientist after scientist. I don't believe everything scientists tell me, but it seems a helluva lot more plausible than having hundreds of gods, and everyone claiming theirs is the real one.

I won't pretend I am a scientist, or have in-depth knowledge, but pure logic is enough for my brain to come to the conclusion that either can be true, but one is infinitely more plausible than the other.

Doesn't even matter in the context of this discussion,that is a topic for another debate,this one is about if there is something guiding evolution.What that thing is we'll get to when we get there.

 

[Oopsie]

I will most likely be laughed at but I don't care.
Scientists refer to God but not in a religious way but a central intelligence that we are all connected to. We live in our own reality that this "God" has given us.

Had there not been an intelligence to receive information of the "big bang" then we would not be here. All there would be is a maze of scrambled waves. Nothing solid as there is no intelligent source to receive this information.

I also find it strange that the word "proof" is thrown around here. Science does not work on proof. That is for mathematics. Science works on models that work for the theory and this will change as new evidence is found.


QM is always perfect as we see what we see. Quantum Biology on the other hand has to evolve and adapt to changes to our world.
If the oxygen depletes, our chests and nostrils will grow larger.

As it is, more and more people are born without wisdom teeth and spleens as they are not needed. We lost our hair due to clothing.
Sparrows and some butterflies in London turned brown to blend in with the buildings.

Perhaps Quantum Entanglement causes finches and fish to instantly change direction at the exact same time as if their brains/minds are all connected. Will we ever know?

 

[Swa]

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?

There is no observations or experiments showing mutation to be random. The claim made in textbooks is not based on science but on a philosophical assumption that has proven incorrect. Funny you still haven't answered me on this. It is Darwinism which itself was started from an atheistic viewpoint. Incredible how it is still trying to cling to life with its supporters in contrast to every observation.

No it doesn't. Elements such as weather conditions, wind, water, and other rocks help shape them.

And those are active processes. But hey, guess you also missed the point like Xarog, who thinks he's somehow painted me into a corner when in fact he still hasn't addressed what I said about his contention.

I think in this case they mean it to be a distinction between evolution (an old earth) and creation (a young earth).

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Hey guys, how do I ignore posts from a particular poster? I won't mention names, but jislaaik, someone has come into this thread and added absolutely no value to the discussion, while bloating the thread with 2+ pages off hot air. I could go read the weak jokes in the You magazine if I felt I had a few minutes of my I life I really didn't want.

Go into User CP at top right of your page; in "my account" on left hand side will have options to maintain ignore list.

The irony here is staggering :crylaugh:

 

[OrbitalDawn]

]OrbitalDawn, my intention is not to labour the point. I merely entered this thread and echoed my awe at the natural world and the awesomeness of evolved creatures. Based on my own worldview, I extended that awe to what I hold to be the Source and Originator thereof, which is natural for a theist to do. That expression, alone, does not make any objectionable statements about the actual science. I did not mean for that very brief mention to become the core topic. It became an issue when someone decided to fixate on that cursory mention, and proceeded to go on a ridiculing tirade based thereon.

Yeah, that's fine. I understand why the religious/philosophical aspect is inescapable for you, based on your religious views. But I'm still wondering whether you apply this view to everything sans deities. You mentioned that because evolution, being so primary in the process of life, it somehow... is just different. I disagree because it seems entirely arbitrary and anthropocentric to me.

Is there a starting point divide for you where everything that we understand about the universe is either god-determined or atheistic? An example, is making coffee without invoking god as the prime mover the 'atheistic' model on making coffee?

 

[Splinter]

Thanks for proving my point,you just can't stay on topic,always trying to render a thread worthless,I'm going to follow Xarog's lead and not feed you any more.

Umm, you drop into the thread mentioning me in other threads...and when I respond about one such thread, you say I am derailing?

Again, Mr. Irony, you seem not to know what you talk about.

 

[Splinter]

The proof is that the absolute truth is absolutely true and thus impossible to doubt. The reality is that everything is open to doubt, and that all truth statements are contingent upon there being no errors among the assumptions needed to be held axiomatically true.

If all judgements are subjective in this sense, then it is simply wrong to speak of an absolute truth, because no such thing could possibly exist.

So what you are saying, is that what you are saying, cannot be held to be true?

 

[Swa]

OK. Will do.

By the way, I didn't say some form of god doesn't exist. I believe anything is possible - I'm open minded like that. But I can't fathom how the only thing proving a god's existence being a book, is enough proof.

What about the other gods? There are many gods people believe in, and they all cannot be the true, main god. This alone tells me that it's fictional. I don't really need to look any further than this.

That is a fallacy. There are a multitude of incorrect answers to what 1+1 is, that doesn't mean there is no correct answer.

Then you have evolution, which is found plausible by scientist after scientist. I don't believe everything scientists tell me, but it seems a helluva lot more plausible than having hundreds of gods, and everyone claiming theirs is the real one.

I won't pretend I am a scientist, or have in-depth knowledge, but pure logic is enough for my brain to come to the conclusion that either can be true, but one is infinitely more plausible than the other.

Which evolution? If you're referring to universal common descent there's no scientist making a scientific argument for that. Dawkins' arguments are philosophical assumptions with as much religious twaddle as a Jehovah's witness.

Evolution and creation aren't mutually exclusive. Evolution is change. There's no reason that something shouldn't change and a smart creator will build change into species to adapt to a changing environment.

 

[Xarog]

Yeah, that's fine. I understand why the religious/philosophical aspect is inescapable for you, based on your religious views. But I'm still wondering whether you apply this view to everything sans deities. You mentioned that because evolution, being so primary in the process of life, it somehow... is just different. I disagree because it seems entirely arbitrary and anthropocentric to me.

What can you say about consciousness that is not inherently derived from an arbitrarily anthropocentric view? You don't disagree that it's real, right?

 

[Xarog]

I will most likely be laughed at but I don't care.
Scientists refer to God but not in a religious way but a central intelligence that we are all connected to. We live in our own reality that this "God" has given us.

Had there not been an intelligence to receive information of the "big bang" then we would not be here. All there would be is a maze of scrambled waves. Nothing solid as there is no intelligent source to receive this information.

I also find it strange that the word "proof" is thrown around here. Science does not work on proof. That is for mathematics. Science works on models that work for the theory and this will change as new evidence is found.


QM is always perfect as we see what we see. Quantum Biology on the other hand has to evolve and adapt to changes to our world.
If the oxygen depletes, our chests and nostrils will grow larger.

As it is, more and more people are born without wisdom teeth and spleens as they are not needed. We lost our hair due to clothing.
Sparrows and some butterflies in London turned brown to blend in with the buildings.

Perhaps Quantum Entanglement causes finches and fish to instantly change direction at the exact same time as if their brains/minds are all connected. Will we ever know?

Einstein was rather famous for saying "God does not play dice". His conception of God in that instance had a particular meaning, much like the one I take you to mean, Oopsie.

Which is to say, when you really think about it, the Universe itself is an expression of intelligence. That makes me hesitant to declare it doesn't also have some kind of consciousness.

 

[Spizz]

Yeah, that's fine. I understand why the religious/philosophical aspect is inescapable for you, based on your religious views.

/snip

I don't know why that would be fine. A fact is a fact regardless of what starting point you have and what you believe something to be.

This thread is ridiculous. Just the usual people squeezing square pegs into round holes to fit their preconceptions.

 

[Xarog]

I don't know why that would be fine. A fact is a fact regardless of what starting point you have and what you believe something to be.

This thread is ridiculous. Just the usual people squeezing square pegs into round holes to fit their preconceptions.

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070416/full/news070416-9.html

There's only one way to describe the experiment performed by physicist Anton Zeilinger and his colleagues: it's unreal, dude.

Measuring the quantum properties of pairs of light particles (photons) pumped out by a laser has convinced Zeilinger that "we have to give up the idea of realism to a far greater extent than most physicists believe today."

By realism, he means the idea that objects have specific features and properties —that a ball is red, that a book contains the works of Shakespeare, or that an electron has a particular spin.

O Great Spizz, please tell us what we may know to be factually true such that we can know what reality is. For if we cannot know what reality is, how can we say with any certainty what the facts even are?

So us mere mortals would dearly like to be bestowed with your wisdom.

 

[Spizz]

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070416/full/news070416-9.html


O Great Spizz, please tell us what we may know to be factually true such that we can know what reality is. For if we cannot know what reality is, how can we say with any certainty what the facts even are?

So us mere mortals would dearly like to be bestowed with your wisdom.

Sure thing bud. Because I have all of the answers to your word soup huh? Lol. The same old roundabout with the same old faces and the same old conclusions that always seem to fit in with the religious views you had hammered into you when you were a kid. How fortunate you were all indoctrinated with the one true religion huh?

God is indeed great.

 

[Xarog]

Sure thing bud. Because I have all of the answers to your word soup huh? Lol. The same old roundabout with the same old faces and the same old conclusions that always seem to fit in with the religious views you had hammered into you when you were a kid. How fortunate you were all indoctrinated with the one true religion huh?

I had no religious views hammered into me as a child. I merely wanted to point out the delicious irony embedded in your post. You presume to know what the square holes and circle pegs look like, but you can't actually tell anyone what they look like, and you heap scorn on the people who actually take the time to examine the question. What this means is that you celebrate your own ignorance as wisdom. And I have to say it really warms the dark places of my heart to see you make such a fool of yourself.

God is indeed great.

Is he? I wouldn't know.

 

[Spizz]

I had no religious views hammered into me as a child. I merely wanted to point out the delicious irony embedded in your post. You presume to know what the square holes and circle pegs look like, but you can't actually tell anyone what they look like, and you heap scorn on the people who actually take the time to examine the question. What this means is that you celebrate your own ignorance as wisdom. And I have to say it really warms the dark places of my heart to see you make such a fool of yourself.

Defensive much? You are assuming far too much Xarog, as usual. My initial post was quite specific in its aim and the point was perfectly clear. It wasn't aimed at you but of course you being the centre of all discussions would think it was.

So yeah, read my post. I presume nothing. I am merely surprised that OD would accept religious views as a prerequisite as what can be deemed factual or not.

Facts are specific and don't change because you believe in something that can't be overridden. Not so?

But as you were. I've no interest in being sucked into your egocentric chest beating.

 

[Xarog]

Defensive much? You are assuming far too much Xarog, as usual. My initial post was quite specific in its aim and the point was perfectly clear. It wasn't aimed at you but of course you being the centre of all discussions would think it was.

It was critical of Wayfarer's position, and I do take exception.

So yeah, read my post. I presume nothing. I am merely surprised that OD would accept religious views as a prerequisite as what can be deemed factual or not.

How did we get here, Spizz? Did we come from nothingness? Is not knowing how we got here reason enough to conclude that it didn't happen because we have no facts to work with?

In other words, what can be said about the environment we find ourselves in? That is the context within which every fact is based.

Facts are specific and don't change because you believe in something that can't be overridden. Not so?

Facts are a matter of perspective. If your perspective is wrong, your claims as to what is a fact will be wrong too. You have no guarantee besides vigilance and hope that you will not commit a systemic error in your analysis of the facts. Yet you would claim that this problem is so trivial as to be obvious.

But as you were. I've no interest in being sucked into your egocentric chest beating.

Then you should not make assertions that cannot be rationally justified.

 

[wayfarer]

...Why do you think, whether right or wrong, ol' Neil deGrasse is trying to tell us why the Muslim civilization has lost their intellectual standing in recent history - a civilization that was supposedly once a leader in terms of scientific achievement...

I wouldn't expect that a scientist necessarily be clued up in areas of socio-political history of the Muslim world, and ol' Neil should probably stick to his forte, which is not even philosophy, but science.

The main classical Muslim philosopher that Tyson criticised and "blamed", Ghazali, was a great gift to the world, and a preserver of Greek philosophy. Two of Ghazali's written works became seminal in the West - the first being an exhaustive treatise on the philosophy of the day, and the second being his own deconstruction and critique of that philosophy. Ghazali was wholly misunderstood by Tyson, who took Ghazali's deconstruction as being anti-thinking. The fact is that the Muslim world produced significantly more scientific discoveries and inventions in the period following Ghazali than the period preceding him.

Tyson also blames the Muslim Mongols for stifling and ending the pursuit of knowledge in the Muslim world, but conveniently forgets that the Mongols were followed by the magnificent Ottoman Empire, a bastion of science and technology.

Islam does not just permit critical thinking, it prescribes it. Consider these among several Quran verses on the topic:

"Do they not think deeply about themselves (self aware)..." (Quran 30:8)
"... so that their hearts may use reason..." (Quran 22:46)
"... So relate the histories, perhaps they may reflect." (Quran 7:176)
"Do they not reflect..." (Quran 7:184)

Let me try keep it straight-forward... If a creator guides evolution then why should we bother trying to discover mechanisms that are no longer guided by physical processes? Capisce? Hell let's take it to the extreme. If evolution doesn't occur AT ALL then why bother studying it AT ALL.

One does not study the natural world because there is or is not a creator. There are myriad of profound, sensible reasons to study the sciences. For the Muslim, there is the following exhortations from God (also among several):

"Oh Mankind! if you are in doubt concerning the resurrection, remember We created you from dust, then from a drop, then from a blood clot..." (Quran 22:5)

"Read! in the name of your Lord Who created, He created man from a blood clot. Read, for your Lord is Most Noble, Who taught to write with the pen, taught man which he knew not." (Quran 96:1-5)

"Those who remember God standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and think deeply about the creation of the heavens and the earth..." (Quran 3:191)

Furthermore, it has been narrated by Anas bin Malik, the companion of Prophet Muhammad, that:
The Prophet of God instructed, "Seeking knowledge is a duty upon every Muslim." (ibn Majah)

 

[Sodan]

I'm quite comfortable in there being an absolute truth out there. But I also believe it would be impossible to prove. So we can never be certain, and honest, of the "truths" we impose. It gives a very open minded spin on things.

But again I say to others not to try find the truth. Just try to align with what proves useful (Which I'm happy to discuss and try to define).

Observation, verification and consistency are still some of the basic tenets of faith in my book as these are useful attributes I depend on to stay alive and advance. Without these I would simply fail to live - so why should these standards drop when my needs are at a higher level? I really don't care if there is a creator behind all of it unless that fact somehow proves useful or relevant to me - which to date hasn't really done anything except complicate life.

This now seems to be in line with what I said.
If I understand you correctly, you are asserting that it may be possible to achieve absolute truth (provided, of course, absolute truth does in fact exist), but not possible to prove that absolute truth has been achieved. Is that right?
If so, then this is contrary to your first post, in which you stated that it has been proven to you that it is impossible to achieve absolute truth.

Or am I missing/misunderstanding something?

 

[Bobbin]

Which evolution? If you're referring to universal common descent there's no scientist making a scientific argument for that. Dawkins' arguments are philosophical assumptions with as much religious twaddle as a Jehovah's witness.

Evolution and creation aren't mutually exclusive. Evolution is change. There's no reason that something shouldn't change and a smart creator will build change into species to adapt to a changing environment.

I don't find anything particularly wrong with what you say here. However I haven't found any convincing reason/s as to why change cannot occur without a creator either. There appears to be a sort of bias inherent in all of us and that is to assume what we are is perfect and what we are in is systematic. I think this bias stems from being the subject of the matter trying to be objective from within the system we are trying to assess - if that makes sense?

In other words if the universe looked any different and abided by different laws - and we were living balls of intelligent evolving goo cruising at light speed under 10000 degrees Celsius in a different form of time - we may still think the same about ourselves and the universe and its "perfection". And thus we may still see patterns and think there is a creator behind all of it.

Simply by existing you cannot escape this bias because anything that could exist could explain itself as the result of a creator or intelligent design. Where processes guided by natural laws (Not created) are perhaps equally as capable of the same result given that those laws - that permit whatever form of existence that follows - are already there prior to life and irrespective of a creator in the first place.

This is one reason why I am often unconvinced by arguments for a creator as it could be an easy trap to fall into - again not saying it is impossible Often we say evolution is completely random (And thus we cannot expect it to get as far as it has by randomness alone) - but this is not entirely true. Even without a creator it still has to follow natural laws and would inevitably find the most intricate solutions within the bounds of possibility under those laws - because that's what change in my mind ultimately leads to. And in a universe that simply "moves", change will/should occur. "Life" and evolution actually seems inevitable - not magical.

I'm reminded of the statement - The universe's constants are all so perfectly/intricately/finely tuned or balanced to allow life and the universe itself to exist "as we know it". The last part, "As we know it", is key I feel. It is obvious to me that something supported in one system (Universe) would be totally incompatible in another universe following very different laws. But there may be a vice versa hidden in there Unfortunately I'm no physicist to try and confirm this. It does help though that I find little distinction between life and non-life and thus have no special separation of these concepts to abide by in assessing possibilities/outcomes.

A natural law in any form or flavor, irrespective of intelligent design, may result in an outcome that might appear systematic because the outcome is simply and logically bound to the underlying law that causes it. That's pretty much the gist of what I'm trying to get at. And because of the systematic appearance that follows by being bound to the underlying laws we may automatically, and perhaps unjustifiably, jump to the conclusion of design.