Philosophy Discussion Forums

Vijaydevani wrote:

Anthony Edgar wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

D.B. Kitts: "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."
Colin Patterson: "I don't think we shall ever have access to any form of a tree (of life) that we can call factual."
Even Charles Darwin himself was disappointed by what the fossil record revealed. Nothing has changed.

Seriously, you need to catch up on scientific study. We do have a few animals with a fairly complete evolutionary record. The horse is an example. So quoting some guy does not make a fact. The fact seems to be that you are so set on ignoring facts you will do anything to disregard it.

Vijaydevani wrote: Order from chaos is not a miracle. It seems like a miracle. Read about this stuff. I promise you, without God, the world is a lot more magical.

. Without God, nothing is possible.

-- Updated October 25th, 2016, 2:18 am to add the following --

Greta wrote: What do you think constitutes evidence of ID?

This question is impossible to answer.

-- Updated October 25th, 2016, 2:35 am to add the following --

Vijaydevani wrote:

Anthony Edgar wrote: D.B. Kitts: "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."
Colin Patterson: "I don't think we shall ever have access to any form of a tree (of life) that we can call factual."
Even Charles Darwin himself was disappointed by what the fossil record revealed. Nothing has changed.

Seriously, you need to catch up on scientific study. We do have a few animals with a fairly complete evolutionary record. The horse is an example. So quoting some guy does not make a fact. The fact seems to be that you are so set on ignoring facts you will do anything to disregard it.

George G. Simpson (who has been called the most influential paleotologist of the twentieth century):  "The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."

Bruce McFadden, FL Museum of Natural History and U. of FL: "... over the years the fossil horses have been cited as prime example of orthogenesis ["straight-line evolution"] ... it can no longer be considered a valid theory ... we find that once a notion becomes part of accepted scientific knowledge, it is very difficult to modify or reject it."

Evidently, not all scientists are as convinced by the fossil record as you seem to be.  If Charles Darwin himself felt that fossils didn't vindicate his theory, how come you do?  And don't you find it curious that the lack of fossil "missing links" compelled Gould and Eldredge to come up "Punctuated Equilibrium"?  Why are there no fossils that show a link between invertebrates and vertebrates?  Is it possible that the fossil record is serious overrated with respect to evolution?  
In my opinion, the fossil record supports creation more than evolution.  

Vijaydevani wrote: Order from chaos is not a miracle. It seems like a miracle. Read about this stuff.
... There was no space time. Whatever there was becomes meaningless without space time for us since we are observers from within space time and cannot "transcend" it. So effectively there was nothing.
... Again. Read a little science.

Once upon a time I was very interested in scientific theories about the origins of the universe - until I realised that it's all so much baloney. Nothing bores me more than scientists blathering on with their useless, irrelevant speculations about what transpired billions of years ago - as if they could possibly ever know.  It's akin to listening to a bunch of three year-olds trying to figure out how the grown-ups built that nuclear reactor.  Forget it.

On the other hand, science that is practically useful will always get my attention; not least because science that has a practical use is science that is demonstrably true.

Greta wrote:What do you think constitutes evidence of ID?

Anthony Edgar wrote:This question is impossible to answer.

This answer would seem to undermine your claim that scientists ignore the "evidence" for ID. Maybe the question is impossible to answer because there is exactly zero evidence for ID.

I did hear of a hypothesis about fractal time, where we in the present are being pulled into an, in a sense, already actualised future. It's only a hypothesis, the point of which is to explore and try to find models that are closer to what is probably an unattainable truth (by virtue of our situation of being inside the universe and unable to see reality from without).

Unlike you, I see interest and fascination with the new speculative models presented by physicists, each idea offering a different possible "twist" to reality. Since I already know that the new models won't be as correct as their possible successors in a thousand years' time, the fact that none of them are true "theories of everything" does not bother me. Since I'm not inclined to believe in Iron Age mythology, I opt for speculation as the "least worst" option.

Greta wrote: I am very complex and I was created by Mum and Dad, neither of whom had the slightest idea about the billions of processes involved in this being they created.

Brilliant example.

Greta wrote:We are flying blind because at the scales of the very small and very large there is no reference, no objective standard, no precedents or examples.

Agreed

Greta wrote:We humans are akin to intelligent bacteria in a body, trying to understand their environment. The gut itself would seem like a universe to "intelligent microbes", and there'd be confusion about when major upheavals occurred (eg. eating or emotional upset). Not that I'm suggesting that outside of our universe something large is on its giant periods and scoffing down giant chocolates, but there are probably some very large temporal dynamics that we interpret as permanent features due to the disparity of time scales.

Roflmao this suits all my cynicism and flippancy in one go. Global warming is god's menopausal hot flush, I believe!!!!

-- Updated 25 Oct 2016 19:05 to add the following --

Anthony Edgar wrote:Once upon a time I was very interested in scientific theories about the origins of the universe - until I realised that it's all so much baloney. Nothing bores me more than scientists blathering on with their useless, irrelevant speculations about what transpired billions of years ago - as if they could possibly ever know.  It's akin to listening to a bunch of three year-olds trying to figure out how the grown-ups built that nuclear reactor.  Forget it.

On the other hand, science that is practically useful will always get my attention; not least because science that has a practical use is science that is demonstrably true.

Once upon a time I was very interested in religious theories - until I realised that it's all so much baloney. Nothing bores me more than religious people blathering on with their useless, irrelevant speculations about god - as if they could possibly ever know.  It's akin to listening to a bunch of three year-olds trying to figure out how the grown-ups built that nuclear reactor.  Forget it.

On the other hand, religion that is practically useful will always get my attention; not least because something that has a practical use might actually teach me something.

Anthony Edgar wrote:Once upon a time I was very interested in scientific theories about the origins of the universe - until I realised that it's all so much baloney. Nothing bores me more than scientists blathering on with their useless, irrelevant speculations about what transpired billions of years ago - as if they could possibly ever know.  It's akin to listening to a bunch of three year-olds trying to figure out how the grown-ups built that nuclear reactor.  Forget it.

On the other hand, science that is practically useful will always get my attention; not least because science that has a practical use is science that is demonstrably true.

Mark1955 wrote:Once upon a time I was very interested in religious theories - until I realised that it's all so much baloney. Nothing bores me more than religious people blathering on with their useless, irrelevant speculations about god - as if they could possibly ever know.  It's akin to listening to a bunch of three year-olds trying to figure out how the grown-ups built that nuclear reactor.  Forget it.

On the other hand, religion that is practically useful will always get my attention; not least because something that has a practical use might actually teach me something.

I like this post; it's kinda clever. And it's interesting that you equate science to religion. Atheists tend to do that (unwittingly, of course); science becomes a God-substitute (replete with miracles, such as chaos producing exceedingly complex, self-replicating biological machines). Fascinating.

Anthony Edgar wrote:Atheists tend to do that (unwittingly, of course); science becomes a God-substitute (replete with miracles, such as chaos producing exceedingly complex, self-replicating biological machines). Fascinating.

The usual twist around. Another theist own goal, demonstrating rank scientific naivete.

What do you think that billions of years of constant change could produce? Consider how much change can occur in ten years.

Given that "replicating biological machines" have only been in existence for a relatively short time in the solar system, that would suggest that they came from something simpler, yes? Something less ordered - thus more chaotic. Those forms too must have come from simpler, less ordered forms.

Do you disagree with any of that?

Anthony Edgar wrote: I like this post; it's kinda clever. And it's interesting that you equate science to religion. Atheists tend to do that (unwittingly, of course); science becomes a God-substitute (replete with miracles, such as chaos producing exceedingly complex, self-replicating biological machines). Fascinating.

Actually he didn't. You did. He just kind of turned everything you said on its head. Also if you bothered reading science and trying to understand it, you would see that there are no miracles involved. I know because 20 years ago, I was exactly where you were simply because I could not understand science and so chose to put it down. Then someone I admire told me to go through the trouble of studying scientific matter objectively. So I did. It was a huge deal because I didn't understand most of it. But slowly after reading and re-reading and then reading some more, I finally started understanding some of the stuff. You could try it too. It is hard work but I guarantee the world is far more magical with science and without God.

-- Updated October 27th, 2016, 5:48 am to add the following --

I also have another question for you if you are willing to consider it. If an intelligence designed life, why did it take so long to evolve from single cell organisms to the complexity of today. You have to agree that designing life itself is far tougher than modifying it. If there was an intelligent designer who designed life, once having successfully designed life, modifying it would have been a piece of cake, wouldn't it? So evolution should have been a lightening fast process. So why did it take so long?

Anthony Edgar wrote:

Anthony Edgar wrote:Once upon a time I was very interested in scientific theories about the origins of the universe - until I realised that it's all so much baloney. Nothing bores me more than scientists blathering on with their useless, irrelevant speculations about what transpired billions of years ago - as if they could possibly ever know.  It's akin to listening to a bunch of three year-olds trying to figure out how the grown-ups built that nuclear reactor.  Forget it.

On the other hand, science that is practically useful will always get my attention; not least because science that has a practical use is science that is demonstrably true.

Mark1955 wrote:Once upon a time I was very interested in religious theories - until I realised that it's all so much baloney. Nothing bores me more than religious people blathering on with their useless, irrelevant speculations about god - as if they could possibly ever know.  It's akin to listening to a bunch of three year-olds trying to figure out how the grown-ups built that nuclear reactor.  Forget it.

On the other hand, religion that is practically useful will always get my attention; not least because something that has a practical use might actually teach me something.

I like this post; it's kinda clever. And it's interesting that you equate science to religion. Atheists tend to do that (unwittingly, of course); science becomes a God-substitute (replete with miracles, such as chaos producing exceedingly complex, self-replicating biological machines). Fascinating.

Except that I'm not an atheist.

Vijaydevani (to Anthony Edgar):

I also have another question for you if you are willing to consider it. If an intelligence designed life, why did it take so long to evolve from single cell organisms to the complexity of today. You have to agree that designing life itself is far tougher than modifying it. If there was an intelligent designer who designed life, once having successfully designed life, modifying it would have been a piece of cake, wouldn't it? So evolution should have been a lightening fast process. So why did it take so long?

I presume that the way in which evolution works, including the many millions of years it has so far taken to play out, all ultimately stems from the laws of physics and chemistry. Given those laws, it couldn't play out any other way. For a theist who agrees with the evidence for the theory of evolution but believes that a creator made the laws of nature, perhaps the argument might be that the creator had wider reasons for designing those laws as He/She did. And since the creator is (I'm told) widely believed to be incapable of doing things that are logically inconsistent, once the laws of nature have been decided on, the 500 million years from the Cambrian explosion to us are a logically inevitable consequence. The creator's hands are tied on that one.

On the other hand, for people of a theistic disposition who don't accept the theory of evolution, the issue you mention doesn't arise.

Dolphin42 wrote:Vijaydevani (to Anthony Edgar):

I also have another question for you if you are willing to consider it. If an intelligence designed life, why did it take so long to evolve from single cell organisms to the complexity of today. You have to agree that designing life itself is far tougher than modifying it. If there was an intelligent designer who designed life, once having successfully designed life, modifying it would have been a piece of cake, wouldn't it? So evolution should have been a lightening fast process. So why did it take so long?

I presume that the way in which evolution works, including the many millions of years it has so far taken to play out, all ultimately stems from the laws of physics and chemistry. Given those laws, it couldn't play out any other way. For a theist who agrees with the evidence for the theory of evolution but believes that a creator made the laws of nature, perhaps the argument might be that the creator had wider reasons for designing those laws as He/She did. And since the creator is (I'm told) widely believed to be incapable of doing things that are logically inconsistent, once the laws of nature have been decided on, the 500 million years from the Cambrian explosion to us are a logically inevitable consequence. The creator's hands are tied on that one.

On the other hand, for people of a theistic disposition who don't accept the theory of evolution, the issue you mention doesn't arise.

Well, if life itself is something that is not possible naturally, God did intervene and do something logically inconsistent, didn't he? So why not with evolution too?

Greta wrote:

Greta wrote:What do you think constitutes evidence of ID?

Anthony Edgar wrote:This question is impossible to answer.

Greta wrote: This answer would seem to undermine your claim that scientists ignore the "evidence" for ID. Maybe the question is impossible to answer because there is exactly zero evidence for ID.

Sorry to disappoint you, Greta, but I found your question impossible to answer because I thought you wanted me to define the boundary between evidence for ID and not-ID - which I would find impossible, since "grey areas" tend not to lend themselves to definition.

But it seems I was barking up the wrong tree.  I'm still not sure what your question means.  Are you simply asking me to provide an example of Intelligent Design?   If so ... where can I start?  I see ID everywhere! 

What about the human brain as an example of ID?  It contains literally trillions of connections and has been described as a super-computer that is much more impressive than anything humans can come up with.  

Consider the computer in front of you, which is much simpler that the human brain and probably contains only a paltry few thousand connections, not trillions. Would you say it's the product of a mindless evolutionary process that started with one component and over billions of years gathered other components to itself to finally end up as a computer? No - unless you were insane. You would of course say that your computer is a result of ID.   Yet you would contend that your brain is not a product of ID, but a product of a mindless evolutionary process.   Why should you believe the computer on your desk is a product of ID, but the amazing computer in your head is not a product of ID?  

The late Spanish painter, Salvador Dali, had a very keen interest in science.  In his spare time he would travel the world attending various scientific conferences and he would often invite famous scientists to sojourn at his villa in order that he might "pick their brains".  Dali was an atheist and said this:  "I know from my study of science that there is a God ... but I don't believe it."

Greta wrote: Unlike you, I see interest and fascination with the new speculative models presented by physicists, each idea offering a different possible "twist" to reality.

If Space Cadet theories about abstract science interests you, then fine; go for your life.   We all have our little hobbies; they don't all have to be constructive.  I play golf - how useless and irrelevant is that?

Anthony Edgar wrote:
But it seems I was barking up the wrong tree.  I'm still not sure what your question means.  Are you simply asking me to provide an example of Intelligent Design?   If so ... where can I start?  I see ID everywhere! 

What about the human brain as an example of ID?  It contains literally trillions of connections and has been described as a super-computer that is much more impressive than anything humans can come up with.  

Consider the computer in front of you, which is much simpler that the human brain and probably contains only a paltry few thousand connections, not trillions. Would you say it's the product of a mindless evolutionary process that started with one component and over billions of years gathered other components to itself to finally end up as a computer? No - unless you were insane. You would of course say that your computer is a result of ID.   Yet you would contend that your brain is not a product of ID, but a product of a mindless evolutionary process.   Why should you believe the computer on your desk is a product of ID, but the amazing computer in your head is not a product of ID?  

The late Spanish painter, Salvador Dali, had a very keen interest in science.  In his spare time he would travel the world attending various scientific conferences and he would often invite famous scientists to sojourn at his villa in order that he might "pick their brains".  Dali was an atheist and said this:  "I know from my study of science that there is a God ... but I don't believe it."

Greta wrote: Unlike you, I see interest and fascination with the new speculative models presented by physicists, each idea offering a different possible "twist" to reality.

If Space Cadet theories about abstract science interests you, then fine; go for your life.   We all have our little hobbies; they don't all have to be constructive.  I play golf - how useless and irrelevant is that?[/quote]
You ignored my previous post so again, I was exactly where you are about ten years ago. It just didn't make sense that such complicated and complex designs could be unconscious. But like I said before, you just need to read more about evolution. The concept of time is something which plays a very important role here. Read "The selfish Gene". Although the guy is a rabid atheist which has taken away a lot of his credibility, the book itself is amazing and very good for lay people to understand how evolution really works. I know for a certainty that your conclusions are a result of ignorance of science because I have been through exactly what you are going through right now. Read "Genome" by Matt Ridley too. Also look at how brutal and violent all animal life in nature is. Some of the brutality is so severe it can take your breath away. If an intelligent designer did this, then you can be sure that it has a very sadistic streak.

Mark1955 wrote: Except that I'm not an atheist.

Sorry. My bad.

Anthony Edgar wrote:Are you simply asking me to provide an example of Intelligent Design?   If so ... where can I start?  I see ID everywhere! 

What about the human brain as an example of ID?  It contains literally trillions of connections and has been described as a super-computer that is much more impressive than anything humans can come up with.  

Consider the computer in front of you, which is much simpler that the human brain and probably contains only a paltry few thousand connections, not trillions. Would you say it's the product of a mindless evolutionary process that started with one component and over billions of years gathered other components to itself to finally end up as a computer? No - unless you were insane. You would of course say that your computer is a result of ID.   Yet you would contend that your brain is not a product of ID, but a product of a mindless evolutionary process.   Why should you believe the computer on your desk is a product of ID, but the amazing computer in your head is not a product of ID?

I think you toss off the term "billions of years" as though the countless events of a billion years is something too trivial to produce complex brains.

Consider how much the world changes in ten years. Consider the the changes in the last century. So much can happen over "billions of years". Do you really think that things would even stay remotely the same over "billions of years"? In just one billion years the surface of the Earth will be dry, the oceans boiled away. If humans evolve for another billion years, the result would be as different from humans as humans are from bacteria (Martin Reeve, cosmologist).

I think humility is in order for tiny creatures that live only for decades when looking at the results of evolution over vast tracts of time. Note that it only took half a century to refine computers from rudimentary machines dwarfed in capacity by the average current mobile phone to supercomputers that can crunch a brainlike 90,000 trillion calculations per second. Given the above rapid development by humans, it's fair to say that humans are far more powerful and effective than the God of Abrahamic primitives of the Iron Age, who took 13.8 billion years to achieve comparable concentrations of processing power. (I am assuming/hoping that you are not a young Earth creationist, abiding by Bishop James Ussher's confused calculations).

Anthony Edgar wrote:

Greta wrote:Unlike you, I see interest and fascination with the new speculative models presented by physicists, each idea offering a different possible "twist" to reality.

If Space Cadet theories about abstract science interests you, then fine; go for your life.   We all have our little hobbies; they don't all have to be constructive.  I play golf - how useless and irrelevant is that?

Fair call. Why bother with "nonsense" like the multiverse and quantum loop gravity when the universe was obviously created by a giant magic spirit man in the sky who is entirely focused on us Earthlings?

You know this "fact" because ancient people who believed that bacteria were evil spirits told said so. It's hard to fault the logic because the logic is actually not discernible.

Vijaydevani wrote: Also if you bothered reading science and trying to understand it, you would see that there are no miracles involved. I know because 20 years ago, I was exactly where you were simply because I could not understand science and so chose to put it down.

Your approach to science seems to be much different to mine.  I only accept scientific theories that can be verified by observation or experimentation.  I'm not missing out on anything by using these criteria, as they serve to filter out the theories that have no practical use.  
Theories such an empty universe exploding, lifeless mud turning into living organisms and apes turning into humans don't meet my criteria, so I consign them to the rubbish bin marked, "Useless Talk".
 So a lot of what of what you regard as science, I regard as little more than science-fiction.  

Vijaydevani wrote: I also have another question for you if you are willing to consider it. If an intelligence designed life, why did it take so long to evolve from single cell organisms to the complexity of today. You have to agree that designing life itself is far tougher than modifying it. If there was an intelligent designer who designed life, once having successfully designed life, modifying it would have been a piece of cake, wouldn't it? So evolution should have been a lightening fast process. So why did it take so long?

Designing life is tougher than modifying life?  Well, possibly; but I wouldn't know because I've never designed and modified any life.

I don't believe life started as a single-cell organism and evolved into more complex organisms.  I believe that all creation took place in six days, as per the book of Genesis. There was nothing, then a cow appeared, as so on ...
--------------------------------------------
Just out of curiosity, Vijay, would you mind telling me which form of theism you once practised?

Anthony Edgar wrote:
I don't believe life started as a single-cell organism and evolved into more complex organisms.  I believe that all creation took place in six days, as per the book of Genesis. There was nothing, then a cow appeared, as so on ...
--------------------------------------------
Just out of curiosity, Vijay, would you mind telling me which form of theism you once practised?

Well, after that answer of yours, there is no point to this, is there?