Logic?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,252
:thumbsup:
Yeah sure, let something be a cause, an outcome of a cause and a process, all in one. Brilliant:thumbsup:
:confused: Fair enough...
1) A cause or force (force being a subset of causes).
2) An outcome of causes.
3) A process.

So I'd like this discussion not to get all twisty and turny because it has educated scientists far smarter than I covering it already.
However, to my mind, the Theory of Evolution (passing on genetic traits) is very closely aligned to Natural selection (survival of the fittest) and it's easy to get the two conflated.
The ultimate goal of life is to live, oddly enough the reason and name are aligned. ToE and NS support life.
Because the world & universe is not a static place, life must change with it, or find itself unsuitable for habitation of said world or universe.

Those that are alive are there because of a sequence of causes/consequences and processes of trying to stay alive. Some make it, some don't.

Sorry to conflate cause, outcome and process, but I think an overarching theory about life and how we got here would contain all 3?
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,252
Do not mistake me agreeing with some of your opinions as attempted compliments.
I still regard your opinion that the TOE is a valid scientific theory as being naive.
It's about as much actual/true/real science as the utterances of a Sangoma.
No. The utterances of a Sangoma come from a preconceived notion and moulding with world to fit it.
That is what the Theory of Creation is. It's a bunch of people with enough scientific knowledge to be dangerous but no sited works, creating a Theory that supports their world view.
In short, they have an agenda to push the evidence into the creationist mold.
The simplest way to explain why Creationism is wrong, is because its proponents want it to be the only theory, regardless of any evidence that supports it or not.
Creationism in short, is about making a small set of facts fit a preconceived view, pushing only for a creationist point of view.

The Theory of Evolution, is a self sustaining theory because the evidence supports it naturally. However, contrary to creationism, the theory of evolution will only stand as long as the evidence supports it. Once a better theory comes along because of the available evidence, then the ToE will be replaced and the people who support this theory will be equally adept at moving with the change.

Amusingly and logically, Creationism is doomed to die an evolutionary death, because it simply is unable to adjust to the universe around it because the universe and life are very dynamic and ever changing.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,252
Am I right in thinking that in Aristotelian terms, cause and force point towards a start and subsequently a purpose? But yet coupled with the term 'natural', is it enough that the purpose of natural selection is life and this in itself explains self propagation through cause and force? Or do you suggest this all this ties back in to a creator?
Very well said, what i wanted to say in better words :) ...without the ties back to a creator things... coz it is conceivable should said being be from one or the other dimensions we know exist.

Just the same way we can appear to 2D beings as Gods, 4D and above beings would seems to be as Gods to us. However, it may be little bit more than astute use of technology on a 4th, 5th, 6th etc dimensional level.
As the saying goes, any technology sufficiently advanced would appear as Magic to the uninformed.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
10,710
Natural selection can be at least one of three things.
1) A cause or force (force being a subset of causes).
2) An outcome of causes.
3) A process.

I don't have an answer as to which one is correct. I am leaning towards 2). I understand your position to be 3) so let's analyze that possibility shall we?
Your vote is that Natural Selection is the outcome of "causes"

:thumbsup:
Yeah sure, let something be a cause, an outcome of a cause and a process, all in one. Brilliant:thumbsup:
Here you decry that it is possible that "Natural Selection" could be all three.

A force is a subset of the concept of causes. In the context of this discussion a cause is analogous to an efficient cause in Aristotelian terms. To give a few examples:
1) A force acting on an object can cause it to change its velocity. So the cause (in this case some force) results in some effect (change in velocity).
2) If we can think of natural selection as some force we can state it as follows:
Natural selection is a natural force that results in the propagation of certain alleles and the destruction of others. So natural selection is the cause of the the effect --> the propagation of certain alleles and the destruction of others .
Here you paraphrase the previous definition of "Natural selection" which you table in a previous reply to me, which you took almost word for word out of one of the many references there are available on "Natural Selection".

Those same references you quote define " Natural Selection" as one of the processes that describe the evolutionary process defined within the TOE.

So, in actual fact, depending on what you want to say or describe, all three would apply, provided you read the definition within the context of the specific paragraph or description.

So, the correct way to Understand "Natural Selection" is to stick to the original definition as defined by Darwin, including the changes made over time as the TOE has been refined, and NOT to try and come up with your own definition. He made a specific point of using the word "natural" to exclude an external force from the definition.
What you might or might not know is that there were other scientists and philosophers before Darwin that had noticed the similarities between animals and attributed it or used their observations to try and show that there must have been an outside agency involved, which then means "selection" is no longer a natural process but a deliberate action or force. Hence why there is this pre-occupation among some to try and say "Natural Selection" is a cause or force. And that is what the modern Creationist (Intelligent design Lobby) has picked up on saying basically, "okay" we will agree there is a selection going on but it is an outside force that is doing it deliberately.

Finally, at the risk of repeating myself and others', Creationism has no scientific substance behind it. It chooses a selective set of "evidence" which none of them has developed, described or quantified themselves to reach a preconceived conclusion, which fits their narrow belief system. Therefore it can never be a Scientific Theory because it has decided beforehand what the outcome is and then scratched around for evidence to justify and prove that outcome.
 
Last edited:

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,953
No. The utterances of a Sangoma come from a preconceived notion and moulding with world to fit it.
That is what the Theory of Creation is. It's a bunch of people with enough scientific knowledge to be dangerous but no sited works, creating a Theory that supports their world view.
In short, they have an agenda to push the evidence into the creationist mold.
The simplest way to explain why Creationism is wrong, is because its proponents want it to be the only theory, regardless of any evidence that supports it or not.
Creationism in short, is about making a small set of facts fit a preconceived view, pushing only for a creationist point of view.

The Theory of Evolution, is a self sustaining theory because the evidence supports it naturally. However, contrary to creationism, the theory of evolution will only stand as long as the evidence supports it. Once a better theory comes along because of the available evidence, then the ToE will be replaced and the people who support this theory will be equally adept at moving with the change.

Amusingly and logically, Creationism is doomed to die an evolutionary death, because it simply is unable to adjust to the universe around it because the universe and life are very dynamic and ever changing.
Your comment that scientists that argue against Evolution are dangerous.
Dangerous to whom and/or what?

As to Creatinism that is doomed to die an evolutionary death.
I contend that it is Evolutionism that is doomed.

Where is the scientific proof for the TOE?
It would seem that you to are unwilling to see it for what it is.
It is not actual/true/real science - it is purely fiction that at it's very best be science fiction.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,252
....."okay" we will agree there is a selection going on but it is an outside force that is doing it deliberately.
So this is where it gets a little fuzzy for me.
What if, there's a being so intelligent, so smart, that all he/she/it had to do was set the equivalent of a multi-dimensional domino table up and simply flick over the first domino, except that these dominoes were designed to eventually bring about free will, where their maker/designer no longer had any say in how they would develop (because that in itself would collapse free will)

This is the primary beef I have with creationists/religious. They cannot conceive of the fact that "God" is a multidimensional being, to whom time means nothing. They constantly anthromorphise God into into a human being, where instead it clearly says in the bible (of various forms) that he/she/it made us in their form.
In the former, where God is human, it severely limits the abilities of God to only be from within this realm, whereas a God that has created us in his image, gives humanity endless and marvelous potential, which is really more in line with what religion tries to teach us.

Now I sound like a religious nut which I am not. i just think that the truth is vastly different from what people are so entrenched to believe.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
10,710
At least you are now becoming consistent in your story. Now, do us a favour, bring some real evidence to substantiate your view that "it is not actual/true/real science - it is purely fiction that at its (sic) very best be science fiction.

Where is your evidence???????????

BTW, one of the reasons it is so difficult for you to find "evidence" is because of the Discovery Institute NOT giving just anyone access to their "stuff". You have to subscribe, and then buy their books before you can read it. Hence, in most cases, all of us only have access to their Bullschit as interpreted by someone else. (Call these "interpreters or prophets" what you will).
 
Last edited:

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,953
So this is where it gets a little fuzzy for me.
What if, there's a being so intelligent, so smart, that all he/she/it had to do was set the equivalent of a multi-dimensional domino table up and simply flick over the first domino, except that these dominoes were designed to eventually bring about free will, where their maker/designer no longer had any say in how they would develop (because that in itself would collapse free will)

This is the primary beef I have with creationists/religious. They cannot conceive of the fact that "God" is a multidimensional being, to whom time means nothing. They constantly anthromorphise God into into a human being, where instead it clearly says in the bible (of various forms) that he/she/it made us in their form.
In the former, where God is human, it severely limits the abilities of God to only be from within this realm, whereas a God that has created us in his image, gives humanity endless and marvelous potential, which is really more in line with what religion tries to teach us.

Now I sound like a religious nut which I am not. i just think that the truth is vastly different from what people are so entrenched to believe.
Mmmm - the Bible said that humans were made in His image.
It's not the same as in His form.
I however agree that the majority of humans wrongly perceive Him as being humanoid.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,953
Reply, At least you are now becoming consistent in your story. Now, do us a favour, bring some real evidence to substantiate your view that "it is not actual/true/real science - it is purely fiction that at its (sic) very best be science fiction.

Where is your evidence???????????
Evidence for what?
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,252
Your comment that scientists that argue against Evolution are dangerous.
Dangerous to whom and/or what?

As to Creatinism that is doomed to die an evolutionary death.
I contend that it is Evolutionism that is doomed.

Where is the scientific proof for the TOE?
It would seem that you to are unwilling to see it for what it is.
It is not actual/true/real science - it is purely fiction that at it's very best be science fiction.
Wow, way to take things out of context.
The whole concept and understanding of the Dunning Kruger effect, is that those who are least able estimate themselves to be more able than those who are.
Those who are capable, by far underestimate how much they know.

That is why people with a little bit of scientific knowledge going up against people with in depth scientific knowledge is so dangerous. That's what makes creationists so dangerous.
Creationism is unwilling to adapt the Theory to the evidence, they adapt the evidence to the theory, discarding any contradictory evidence as heresy.
It's the most primitive and unevolved form of "us vs them". It is indicative of primary use of the first though function, rather than the second.
Doing this contracts understanding instead of expands understanding. This is why, eventually time will prove creationism wrong, simply because they cannot adapt to what the evidence shows to be true.
The inability to adapt and to go extinct from it, is why creationism is doomed to die an evolutionary death.
Creationism, in short, is unwilling to be wrong... at all... ever.

Evolutionary theorists are willing to adapt to where the evidence shows them it is going. Even rewriting the entire bloody theory, to ft what evidence shows.
That is the strength of the ToE and it's proponents. They don't try to make up stuff, they put forth a argument the supports the evidence as a Theory and then it is vigorously tested.
Evolution however, takes a LOT of time.

In short, Evolution Theory is willing to be replaced by anything that is more true to the evidence at hand.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
10,710
Now I sound like a religious nut which I am not. I just think that the truth is vastly different from what people are so entrenched to believe.
Absolutely correct. And what is worse is to believe that because anyone accepts the TOE, they must then be Aetheists, and that being an Atheist is bad, as if all these false prophets running around are therefore "good".
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
10,710
Mods now is the time to close this thread.

Three or more loops and the topic is now stone dead.

Or confine it to a special sub-forum along with the flat earthers, where you have to apply to be able to access the threads. The qualification is permanent residence to the nearest home for the disillusioned.
 

Ponderer

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,953
Wow, way to take things out of context.
The whole concept and understanding of the Dunning Kruger effect, is that those who are least able estimate themselves to be more able than those who are.
Those who are capable, by far underestimate how much they know.

That is why people with a little bit of scientific knowledge going up against people with in depth scientific knowledge is so dangerous. That's what makes creationists so dangerous.
Creationism is unwilling to adapt the Theory to the evidence, they adapt the evidence to the theory, discarding any contradictory evidence as heresy.
It's the most primitive and unevolved form of "us vs them". It is indicative of primary use of the first though function, rather than the second.
Doing this contracts understanding instead of expands understanding. This is why, eventually time will prove creationism wrong, simply because they cannot adapt to what the evidence shows to be true.
The inability to adapt and to go extinct from it, is why creationism is doomed to die an evolutionary death.
Creationism, in short, is unwilling to be wrong... at all... ever.

Evolutionary theorists are willing to adapt to where the evidence shows them it is going. Even rewriting the entire bloody theory, to ft what evidence shows.
That is the strength of the ToE and it's proponents. They don't try to make up stuff, they put forth a argument the supports the evidence as a Theory and then it is vigorously tested.
Evolution however, takes a LOT of time.

In short, Evolution Theory is willing to be replaced by anything that is more true to the evidence at hand.
What on earth makes you think that creationists are less intelligent than evolutionists, huh?
The fact that you think so smacks of Dunning Kruger.
The reason why I consider the TOE as fiction is because I see it for what it is.
It is not because I am unwilling to forgo any preconceptions and/or because of religious belief/s.
I am in fact arguing that it be atheists that suffer from this phenomena.

You consider me to be stupid/ignorent/uneducated/naive.
I am not disputing that.
I am however more "clever" than those that think they are more clever/intelligent than others, because I know full well that I am not more clever/intelligent than others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top