Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Earth was apparently a water world 3-4 billion years ago, but that is not something the ancients would have known.

Also, the fact that water collects in basins is plain old gravity, and hardly an achievement.

[Charlemagne]

Here are more indications by really notable scientific minds, as opposed to the amateurs, that evolution needs intelligent design behind it.

George Wald, Nobel Prize Medicine and Physiology

“It has occurred to me lately – I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities … that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality – that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize Physics.

“The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”

Sir John Eccles, Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology:

“There is a Divine Providence over and above the materialistic happenings of biological evolution.”

Fred Hoyle, British astrophysicist

“A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Paul Davies, British astrophysicist

“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all….It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe….The impression of design is overwhelming”.

[Sy Borg]

Why would you care what scientists say? Wouldn't they be the very last people that a theist would listen to? After all, about 97% of scientists believe the theory of evolution to be true.

Yes, a small percentage of scientists are either theists or agnostics (like Davies) so naturally you would latch onto their statements. However, to paint this as the standard scientific view, as if evolution was unscientific, would be misleading. Also note that some forms of creationism include evolution as the tool with which their deity shapes life forms.

[Belindi]

The following link shows how powerful Darwin's theory is. It could only work by the power of a programmed supercomputer.

Darwin's theory of evolution has been proved to be correct hundreds of times, despite a constant attempt to debunk it.

You have no leg to stand on. I am mystified as to why you would risk destroying your faith by tainting it with ridiculous pseudoscience claims. Just accept that your deity is subjective and appreciate the incredible efforts your fellow humans have made in increasing our understanding of biological evolution.

Do you want to end up like Meta, freely misrepresenting and patronising others to give the (false) impression of winning?

Again, please do not spread misinformation. Darwin only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures, not the first one ex nihilo. Has nothing to do with winning, just facts. You know, non-emotional kinds of thingies!

If it makes you feel better, that quote infers that...

To my favorite metaphysician.

The first living creature did not evolve. There was nothing alive to evolve from. Darwin's theory fails there.

Did DNA evolve from RNA?

[Belindi]

Strange that ancient Scripture should so often be proof of events conjured by God to prepare the way for human life.
Without water, and plenty of it, there would be no human life anywhere.

Niels Bohr, Physicist Nobel Prize, said:

“Scripture and Nature agree in this, that all things were covered with water; how and when this aspect began, and how long it lasted, Nature says not, Scripture relates. That there was a watery fluid, however, at a time when animals and plants were not yet to be found, and that the fluid covered all things, is proved by the strata of the higher mountains, free from all heterogeneous material. And the form of these strata bears witness to the presence of a fluid, while the substance bears witness to the absence of heterogeneous bodies. But the similarity of matter and form in the strata of mountains which are different and distant from each other, proves that the fluid was universal.”

Genesis 1: 9: “Then God said: Let the water under the sky be gathered into a single basin, so that the dry land may appear. And so it happened: the water under the sky was gathered into its basin, and the dry land appeared.”

It's not strange that water be an important consideration. Since time immemorial men have sought water sources for drinking and waterways for transport.

[Belindi]

You say "agreed". But you continue with opinions I disagree with, so you don't agree after all.

Some of your discussion begins to make sense and soon becomes less than explicit. You need to write in a more disciplined style if you want to be taken seriously.

Perhaps you're thinking that one must agree with everything another say's? Or is it permissible to only partially agree or otherwise only agree with some things people say. Which parts do you agree and disagree with? Please share your thoughts!

Instead of writing "Agreed" it would have been better to explain exactly what you agree with. Then you could go on to say why you disagree, or what more you would add.

I won't comment on your opinion until and unless I understand what you mean.

Okay sure. I agree with part of what you said, which was germane to my point about one's Will having causal powers in human behavioral systems (cognitive science, metaphysics/philosophy, etc.). You know, unlike pure animal instinct, the features of the Will include volitional existence and self-awareness, among other qualitative properties of existing things. You know, we're talking quality of life stuff. Things that typically transcend the exclusivity of material entities, properties or quantities of things. And perhaps contextually, the recent discussions about Agency, information and instruction that all relate to self-organization and emergence.

I still find your lexicon hard to understand. For instance "one's Will having causal powers in human behavioral systems" I'd express as "A human psyche is oriented towards its future behaviour." You may find my lexicon strange. If I say I am influenced by Satre's existentialism that may make my expression a little clearer.

(Talk of Will especially if capitalised makes me suspect you believe in Free Will).

[3017Metaphysician]

The following link shows how powerful Darwin's theory is. It could only work by the power of a programmed supercomputer.

Darwin's theory of evolution has been proved to be correct hundreds of times, despite a constant attempt to debunk it.

You have no leg to stand on. I am mystified as to why you would risk destroying your faith by tainting it with ridiculous pseudoscience claims. Just accept that your deity is subjective and appreciate the incredible efforts your fellow humans have made in increasing our understanding of biological evolution.

Do you want to end up like Meta, freely misrepresenting and patronising others to give the (false) impression of winning?

Again, please do not spread misinformation. Darwin only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures, not the first one ex nihilo. Has nothing to do with winning, just facts. You know, non-emotional kinds of thingies!

If it makes you feel better, that quote infers that...

To my favorite metaphysician.

The first living creature did not evolve. There was nothing alive to evolve from. Darwin's theory fails there.

Indeed! I Always go back to causation. Darwin obviously wondered what caused something to exist ex nihilo. That quote you posted confirms the fact that had there not been something--an already existing ensemble of creatures--he would have no-thing to hypothesize!!!

And so, I think we're back to how the information narrative emerges from the matter narrative. Or, relative to the OP 'design', how the matter narrative emerges from the information narrative!!!

Remember, Gammy bakes a cake using already existing 'stuff', along with her mind that follows the appropriate instruction and information! Isn't information processing a miracle!!!!?

[3017Metaphysician]

Perhaps you're thinking that one must agree with everything another say's? Or is it permissible to only partially agree or otherwise only agree with some things people say. Which parts do you agree and disagree with? Please share your thoughts!

Instead of writing "Agreed" it would have been better to explain exactly what you agree with. Then you could go on to say why you disagree, or what more you would add.

I won't comment on your opinion until and unless I understand what you mean.

Okay sure. I agree with part of what you said, which was germane to my point about one's Will having causal powers in human behavioral systems (cognitive science, metaphysics/philosophy, etc.). You know, unlike pure animal instinct, the features of the Will include volitional existence and self-awareness, among other qualitative properties of existing things. You know, we're talking quality of life stuff. Things that typically transcend the exclusivity of material entities, properties or quantities of things. And perhaps contextually, the recent discussions about Agency, information and instruction that all relate to self-organization and emergence.

I still find your lexicon hard to understand. For instance "one's Will having causal powers in human behavioral systems" I'd express as "A human psyche is oriented towards its future behaviour." You may find my lexicon strange. If I say I am influenced by Satre's existentialism that may make my expression a little clearer.

(Talk of Will especially if capitalised makes me suspect you believe in Free Will).

There's a difference between the Existentialism of Ecclesiastes, Kierkegaard and even Maslow (yes, believe it or not, some consider him a cognitive Existentialist), v. Satre. Your lexicon is too vague. Try to focus more on the concepts of cause and effect. It will take you places you've never dreamed of... !! In other words, your derivation excludes all entities with causational properties and powers

[3017Metaphysician]

Perhaps you're thinking that one must agree with everything another say's? Or is it permissible to only partially agree or otherwise only agree with some things people say. Which parts do you agree and disagree with? Please share your thoughts!

Instead of writing "Agreed" it would have been better to explain exactly what you agree with. Then you could go on to say why you disagree, or what more you would add.

I won't comment on your opinion until and unless I understand what you mean.

Okay sure. I agree with part of what you said, which was germane to my point about one's Will having causal powers in human behavioral systems (cognitive science, metaphysics/philosophy, etc.). You know, unlike pure animal instinct, the features of the Will include volitional existence and self-awareness, among other qualitative properties of existing things. You know, we're talking quality of life stuff. Things that typically transcend the exclusivity of material entities, properties or quantities of things. And perhaps contextually, the recent discussions about Agency, information and instruction that all relate to self-organization and emergence.

(Talk of Will especially if capitalised makes me suspect you believe in Free Will).

I would be considered a Compatibilist. Remember, always try to integrate opposites where possible (Maslow teaches us that). It's paradoxical yet makes sense of reality. You know, kind of like your own consciousness that operates from 'logical impossibility'.

[Charlemagne]

Why would you care what scientists say? Wouldn't they be the very last people that a theist would listen to? After all, about 97% of scientists believe the theory of evolution to be true.

Yes, a small percentage of scientists are either theists or agnostics (like Davies) so naturally you would latch onto their statements. However, to paint this as the standard scientific view, as if evolution was unscientific, would be misleading. Also note that some forms of creationism include evolution as the tool with which their deity shapes life forms.

I inadvertently read this post of yours. But I'll make a special effort not to read any more.

Why wouldn't you care what scientists say? I have a whole article on what scientists say. From that article I've posted here several quotes that do not dispute evolution, but assert an intelligence behind evolution and the universe itself, which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

Here is the article: https://catholicinsight.com/science-and ... s-forever/

But I'm quite sure you won't bother to read what so many of the great scientists through history have thought about God.

[EricPH]

Darwin's theory of evolution has been proved to be correct hundreds of times, despite a constant attempt to debunk it.

God created everything according to its kind, and they have been left to evolve. I see no problem with this understanding of evolution.

You have no leg to stand on. I am mystified as to why you would risk destroying your faith by tainting it with ridiculous pseudoscience claims. Just accept that your deity is subjective and appreciate the incredible efforts your fellow humans have made in increasing our understanding of biological evolution.

You cannot trace a clear path with real evidence from the life we see today, back to single cell life, using only unguided evolution as the complete answer. Evolutionary evidence is littered with phrases like, could have, possibly, likely to have, believed to be, etc. It seems scientists have a low level of confidence for evolutionary evidence. When scientist use more convincing language, I will take more notice.

The following link shows how Darwin's theory can create new designs, but only when guided by a programmed supercomputer.

Among the new technologies to be tested aboard the ST5 spacecraft is an antenna that was designed by a computer running a simulation of Darwinian evolution. This evolved antenna was discovered by an evolutionary algorithm running for days on a supercomputer.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/nmp/st5/TECHNO ... tenna.html

[/quote]

[3017Metaphysician]

Darwin's theory of evolution has been proved to be correct hundreds of times, despite a constant attempt to debunk it.

God created everything according to its kind, and they have been left to evolve. I see no problem with this understanding of evolution.

You have no leg to stand on. I am mystified as to why you would risk destroying your faith by tainting it with ridiculous pseudoscience claims. Just accept that your deity is subjective and appreciate the incredible efforts your fellow humans have made in increasing our understanding of biological evolution.

You cannot trace a clear path with real evidence from the life we see today, back to single cell life, using only unguided evolution as the complete answer. Evolutionary evidence is littered with phrases like, could have, possibly, likely to have, believed to be, etc. It seems scientists have a low level of confidence for evolutionary evidence. When scientist use more convincing language, I will take more notice.

The following link shows how Darwin's theory can create new designs, but only when guided by a programmed supercomputer.

Among the new technologies to be tested aboard the ST5 spacecraft is an antenna that was designed by a computer running a simulation of Darwinian evolution. This evolved antenna was discovered by an evolutionary algorithm running for days on a supercomputer.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/nmp/st5/TECHNO ... tenna.html

[/quote]

To your first point, sure. It is logically possible God causes 'determinate outcomes' or has causal powers while still providing for indeterminate one's. A notion of a binary or dipolar force or energy in nature that corresponds to both Being and becoming. Process theology/philosophy speaks to that... . Remember, for those Structuralists out there:

The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.

[Belindi]

Instead of writing "Agreed" it would have been better to explain exactly what you agree with. Then you could go on to say why you disagree, or what more you would add.

I won't comment on your opinion until and unless I understand what you mean.

Okay sure. I agree with part of what you said, which was germane to my point about one's Will having causal powers in human behavioral systems (cognitive science, metaphysics/philosophy, etc.). You know, unlike pure animal instinct, the features of the Will include volitional existence and self-awareness, among other qualitative properties of existing things. You know, we're talking quality of life stuff. Things that typically transcend the exclusivity of material entities, properties or quantities of things. And perhaps contextually, the recent discussions about Agency, information and instruction that all relate to self-organization and emergence.

I still find your lexicon hard to understand. For instance "one's Will having causal powers in human behavioral systems" I'd express as "A human psyche is oriented towards its future behaviour." You may find my lexicon strange. If I say I am influenced by Satre's existentialism that may make my expression a little clearer.

(Talk of Will especially if capitalised makes me suspect you believe in Free Will).

There's a difference between the Existentialism of Ecclesiastes, Kierkegaard and even Maslow (yes, believe it or not, some consider him a cognitive Existentialist), v. Satre. Your lexicon is too vague. Try to focus more on the concepts of cause and effect. It will take you places you've never dreamed of... !! In other words, your derivation excludes all entities with causational properties and powers

Causal determinism is indeed interesting.
BTW what do you mean by "your derivation"? What has my derivation to do with any philosophical conversation?

[3017Metaphysician]

Okay sure. I agree with part of what you said, which was germane to my point about one's Will having causal powers in human behavioral systems (cognitive science, metaphysics/philosophy, etc.). You know, unlike pure animal instinct, the features of the Will include volitional existence and self-awareness, among other qualitative properties of existing things. You know, we're talking quality of life stuff. Things that typically transcend the exclusivity of material entities, properties or quantities of things. And perhaps contextually, the recent discussions about Agency, information and instruction that all relate to self-organization and emergence.

I still find your lexicon hard to understand. For instance "one's Will having causal powers in human behavioral systems" I'd express as "A human psyche is oriented towards its future behaviour." You may find my lexicon strange. If I say I am influenced by Satre's existentialism that may make my expression a little clearer.

(Talk of Will especially if capitalised makes me suspect you believe in Free Will).

There's a difference between the Existentialism of Ecclesiastes, Kierkegaard and even Maslow (yes, believe it or not, some consider him a cognitive Existentialist), v. Satre. Your lexicon is too vague. Try to focus more on the concepts of cause and effect. It will take you places you've never dreamed of... !! In other words, your derivation excludes all entities with causational properties and powers

Causal determinism is indeed interesting.
BTW what do you mean by "your derivation"? What has my derivation to do with any philosophical conversation?

Because you were hung-up on delivery and not substance?

[Sy Borg]

Darwin's theory of evolution has been proved to be correct hundreds of times, despite a constant attempt to debunk it.

God created everything according to its kind, and they have been left to evolve. I see no problem with this understanding of evolution.

You have no leg to stand on. I am mystified as to why you would risk destroying your faith by tainting it with ridiculous pseudoscience claims. Just accept that your deity is subjective and appreciate the incredible efforts your fellow humans have made in increasing our understanding of biological evolution.

You cannot trace a clear path with real evidence from the life we see today, back to single cell life, using only unguided evolution as the complete answer. Evolutionary evidence is littered with phrases like, could have, possibly, likely to have, believed to be, etc. It seems scientists have a low level of confidence for evolutionary evidence. When scientist use more convincing language, I will take more notice.

The following link shows how Darwin's theory can create new designs, but only when guided by a programmed supercomputer.

Among the new technologies to be tested aboard the ST5 spacecraft is an antenna that was designed by a computer running a simulation of Darwinian evolution. This evolved antenna was discovered by an evolutionary algorithm running for days on a supercomputer.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/nmp/st5/TECHNO ... tenna.html

Yesterday I was reading up on the evolution of life. Then I thought of the dumb, regressive debates about evolution on the forum, and I felt embarrassed to be associated with it. I look at your post now and see those same tired, recycled arguments - resolved a long time ago - but theism is entirely based on the capacity to ignore inconvenient information.

It's amazes me how you and others truly believe that you can achieve more in seconds than geniuses can achieve in a lifetime of dedication. It's shameless Dunning Kruger effect. I am done with such foolishness. Go ahead with your creationist nonsense, but I will not waste more time on it.