[Merged] Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ? - Page 28

Foster Zygote · 17th May 2012, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

today we know Darwin was wrong.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#macroismic

Quote:

Such a point of view is simply untenable, and it denotes a complete misunderstanding of the nature of function. Macroevolution, in all its possible meanings, implies the emergence of new complex functions. A function is not the simplistic sum of a great number of “elementary” sub-functions: sub-functions have to be interfaced and coherently integrated to give a smoothly performing whole. In the same way, macroevolution is not the mere sum of elementary microevolutionary events.

This is nothing more than the debunked 'irreducible complexity' argument.

Quote:

A computer program, for instance, is not the sum of simple instructions. Even if it is composed ultimately of simple instructions, the information-processing capacity of the software depends on the special, complex order of those instructions. You will never obtain a complex computer program by randomly assembling elementary instructions or modules of such instructions.

This shows the authors ignorance of evolutionary biology. Living things are not 'randomly assembled'. The environment selects certain mutations from an array of randomly produced variations.

Quote:

In the same way, macroevolution cannot be a linear, simple or random accumulation of microevolutionary steps.

Yes, it can. The author asserting otherwise does not make it so. Please name one single organ that shows irreducible complexity; that could not have evolved over time through the environmental selection of tiny steps of change in structure.

Quote:

Microevolution, in all its known examples (antibiotic resistance, and similar) is made of simple variations, which are selectable for the immediate advantage connected to them. But a new functional protein cannot be built by simple selectable variations, no more than a poem can be created by random variations of single letters, or a software written by a sequence of elementary (bit-like) random variations, each of them improving the “function” of the software.

Once again the author shows ignorance of biology, simply making assertions that are not backed up with any evidence and drawing specious analogies. We have actually seen the evolution of new enzymes in certain Flavobacterium strains that allow them to digest byproducts of Nylon manufacture. The three enzymes utilized for digesting these man-made chemicals are significantly different from those produced by any other strain of bacteria and are only effective for breaking down man-made chemicals that did not exist prior to the invention of Nylon in 1935. That's a pretty big step right there. How could further mutations that result in an increase in the efficiency of energy extraction from this alternative food source not accumulate over time?

Quote:

Function simply does not work that way. Function derives from higher levels of order and connection, which cannot emerge from a random accumulation of micro-variations. As the complexity (number of bits) of the functional sequence increases, the search space increases exponentially, rapidly denying any chance of random exploration of the space itself.

I suspect that the author is deliberately ignoring the very important element of selection in the evolutionary process. He keeps repeating the word 'random' in order to convince his readers that complex biological structures have to fall together randomly, like the old creationist canard about a tornado randomly assembling a functional 474 from scrap. But in order for this weak argument to work one has to ignore the environmental selection that is the real driving force behind evolution. The author has to dishonestly misrepresent evolutionary biology in order make his arguments appear valid.

The ideas on that website are embarrassingly outdated. At the top of the page they even have an image of a flagellar motor, once championed by creationists as the irreducibly complex proof of deliberate design in biology, but long since shown to have evolved from other, simpler structures with other functions.

Dinwar · 17th May 2012, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

It's my interpretation of Anankē, based on what I have been able to collect on the subject from ancient Greek mythology.

So that's a "No". Got it.

Originally Posted by punshhh

Try the dictionary definition.

Problem is, I know how dictionaries actually work. They don't list The One True Definition (or The True Set of Definitions). Rather, dictionaries attempt to capture the ways in which words are commonly used. They provide the COMMON, not the TECHNICAL, definitions--meaning that using them in a technical discussion makes as much sense as playing chess with a baseball bat. Unless you're dealing with a technical dictionary specifically intended to define the jargon utilized by a specific field, the dictionary definition is worthless.

Here's a way to demonstrate this: look up the word "character" in the dictionary of your choice. Then explain to me what definition makes the sentence "The increaing number of primative characters in certain members of the crown group is indicative of increased generalization in morphology" make any sense whatever.

joobz · 17th May 2012, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Yes, it can. The author asserting otherwise does not make it so. Please name one single organ that shows irreducible complexity; that could not have evolved over time through the environmental selection of tiny steps of change in structure.

Here's a good example of that.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

dlorde · 17th May 2012, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

we know because absolutely nothing is the absence os any thing, and has therefore no potentialities.

Anything that can create a universe must, by definition, have potentialities (the potential to create a universe). No potentialities means no supernatural, no supreme beings or entities - and so, no God... otherwise it's not 'absolutely nothing' with 'no potentialities' is it?

Quote:

Otherwise, we would experience all the time
things poping up from nothing. Our experience shows that is not the case.

Which suggests that the 'nothing' we experience isn't 'absolutely nothing, with no potentialities', because there is plenty of solid experimental evidence of things (in a sense) 'popping up from nothing' all the time. It's a way of looking at the Uncertainty Principle and how it can be interpreted as quantum fluctuations, virtual particles, quantum tunneling, and field interactions - measurable, observable stuff. You could say they're not actually 'real' things, but, like so much else, it's an interpretation of real observations that really works in the real world. Something is doing those things and it behaves like stuff 'popping up from nothing' all the time.

Lowpro · 17th May 2012, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

This shows the authors ignorance of evolutionary biology. Living things are not 'randomly assembled'. The environment selects certain mutations from an array of randomly produced variations.

Look I'll make an effort to nip it in the bud again. Entropy is the reason anything in the universe can "assemble" in the first place. At the most reduced physical observation at least. It's like the Konami Code...

↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A

The Norseman · 17th May 2012, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

I doubt it if there is such a thing as a god. I regard references to god as omnipotent/scient/present in religious doctrine as a means to convey the image of a great power, such as one which could have generated the known universe. I doubt it was meant to refer to some kind of infinite entity.

Believers insisting on an infinite god do not know what they are saying as such a thing is inconceivable to humanity.

What evidence do you have to make this supposition? I thought you knew by now that any god can be, and often is, made into anything the person desires. GIBHOR is not the only one on JREF who makes these sorts of "god is infinite" claims and fervently believes them.

Besides, what if GIBHOR has received his knowledge through revelation? Are you then prepared to say that you are mistaken and humans are, in fact, able to comprehend an infinite god which can be made sense of when that god reveals itself to a human?

Are you ready to state that you have a greater than zero chance of being massively wrong, according to your own statements in other threads?

Lowpro · 17th May 2012, 08:01 AM

After getting permission from the owner of the website http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/index.html I'll post his comments regarding the information (names have been removed/changed as deemed appropriate by me)

Originally Posted by Lowpro correspondence to Mike

Sorry to bother you, but I felt it was worth mentioning real quick a possible inaccuracy regarding your website. I often converse with many people on an online forum and one member used your website in what I consider a "cherry picking" attempt to demonstrate that the curvature of space had been undetermined:

"the value of the density parameter and thus the ultimate fate of the Universe remains one of the major unsolved problems in modern cosmology. " from your website URL http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l.../geometry.html

However since discoveries from the Boomerang project but more importantly NASA's WMAP satellite, the theory of the universe as exhibiting a flat curvature is demonstrably accurate.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...-spectrum.html

Because of the nature of the website's ability to be quote mined by people with less than noble causes I thought it was worthy of bringing to your attention.

Thank you very much!

Originally Posted by Mike's response

Lowpro,

Thanks for the comment. That webpage was written in the mid-1990s, when the statement was true. Now with the results from Type Ia supernova distance measurements and the anisotropies for the cosmic microwave background that have been obtained since then, we do have a pretty good determination of the curvature of the Universe on large scales (and it is essentially flat, to about 1-2% uncertainty in the curvature parameter).

Those webpages were last updated more than a decade ago. I leave them up, unmaintained, because many people apparently use them extensively, even though in some areas like cosmology and details of the solar system (for example, Pluto is no longer a planet) they are partially out of date. If people are using them to support incorrect interpretations of current astronomy, it could be motivation to reconsider taking them down, though for every email that I get pointing out things that are not quite true because of new data I get tens of emails thanking me for the resource.

Mike

joobz · 17th May 2012, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Look I'll make an effort to nip it in the bud again. Entropy is the reason anything in the universe can "assemble" in the first place. At the most reduced physical observation at least. It's like the Konami Code...

↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A

I would argue it is the Gibb's free energy that defines assembly. Whether it is minimized through entropic or enthalpic effects, it is that property that determines what molecular associations are preferred.

Lowpro · 17th May 2012, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

I would argue it is the Gibb's free energy that defines assembly. Whether it is minimized through entropic or enthalpic effects, it is that property that determines what molecular associations are preferred.

Eh I should be more broad and just say the 2nd law of thermodynamics ;p

joobz · 17th May 2012, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

After getting permission from the owner of the website http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/index.html I'll post his comments regarding the information (names have been removed/changed as deemed appropriate by me)

Awesome job!

It is now Up to Gibhor to decide if he will continue to link to the inaccurate information or if he will update his position to reflect the reality of what science currently knows.

Dave Rogers · 17th May 2012, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/...am-lane-craig/

(1) Argument by analogy is never valid.
(2) Objects resembling known artefacts might reasonably be assumed themselves to be artefacts, but living organisms do not in fact resemble known artefacts. Nor does the universe.
(3) As other people have already pointed out, there are numerous examples of naturally occurring objects that appear to be artefacts.
(4) The assumption of a human designer of a possible artefact does not postulate any previously unknown entities, as humans are already known to exist. An intelligent designer capable of creating the universe is not already known to exist, so the god theory simply complicates the question.

Dave

Mashuna · 17th May 2012, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Originally Posted by Stomatopoda

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Try the dictionary definition.

Here's a dictionary definition. You seem to be equivocating between the two; in which manner are you using the word?

1. Impossible to comprehend or grasp fully: inconceivable folly; an inconceivable disaster.
2. So unlikely or surprising as to have been thought impossible; unbelievable: an inconceivable victory against all odds.

Foster Zygote · 17th May 2012, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by Mashuna

So unlikely or surprising as to have been thought impossible.

Pretty much sums up all of the coolest discoveries in science.

I Ratant · 17th May 2012, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by punshhh

Your fooling yourself, or trying to fool me.

Go back to that concept and remind yourself that being endless it is always a lot bigger than you can conceive of and indeed many times larger than that and again ad infinitum. Same with duration.

.
Nope.
It fits inside the headbone.

marplots · 17th May 2012, 09:05 AM

At this point in the thread I thought I'd revisit the OP question: "Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence?"

I've been thinking about it and recalled just why. I had both religious and scientific education at a young age. There was public school and teachers there as well as catechism with the Catholics. So I remember the context for how my beliefs were constructed.

The essential thing comes down to answering questions. When I asked what I thought were relevant questions in a religious context, I found the answers weren't satisfactory. When I did the same in a science context, they actually had answers or, when they didn't, they admitted they didn't know yet and were still exploring the issue.

That was the critical difference. The one enterprise (science) seemed like an honest exploration of possibilities. The other, religion, seemed like an exercise in dodging questions or giving non-answers. Science was something you could do to find things out. Religion was marketing and was done to you.

So, that's my answer to the OP. How it happened to me.

Ethnikos · 17th May 2012, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

That has nothing to do with the speculative notions of expanding space time foam in recursive inflationary scenarios or colliding branes.
It seems you just have a preference for one spiritual story.
You also make a mistake in calling something 'fully actualized individuals', do you mean bacteria or ants?

Yes, among other things.
My main thing is an aversion I have developed to saying things like, "the creator", as if there is some person around expecting to be recognized and worshiped, or whatever.
I don't think there was a person, and whatever was there is not one individual. I think all living beings came from it and are its current representative.

Ethnikos · 17th May 2012, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

That too is just guessing, the answer is "We don't know".

I'm not being dogmatic about any of this but is a personal preference. We don't know but it is natural to wonder about what everything is. It seems to me that the universe acts like and looks like a single organism, but it is not something that fits into a classification, being unique by definition.

Ethnikos · 17th May 2012, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

What is "it"? The universe? The universe is alive?

Let's say for example you had a computer and provided it with a constant power source, then gave it a task to do with would never reach a conclusion, then just left it to work on its own for so many years, would you think of it as being alive?

Dinwar · 17th May 2012, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

I don't think there was a person, and whatever was there is not one individual. I think all living beings came from it and are its current representative.

Why?

And if your answer is "personal preference", why should I care what your personal preferences are?

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

Let's say for example you had a computer and provided it with a constant power source, then gave it a task to do with would never reach a conclusion, then just left it to work on its own for so many years, would you think of it as being alive?

Not at all. It lacks the more significant criteria for living things: growth, reproduction, metabolism, etc.

Ethnikos · 17th May 2012, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by dlorde

Gosh, so many questions spring to mind... I'll assume this is not simply an argument from incredulity or ignorance, and you have good reasons for saying this.
What are the behaviours or properties or actions of the universe that seem to you to be those of a large and complex organism?
What, precisely, do you mean by 'happening by accident'?

I'm thinking of it on a super-macro level of just what it looks like, which would be something self organizing, which to me makes it look "alive".
Something analogous to a "someone" wanted a universe and one came about basically as desired. This is based on mythology more than science. I see science as a better way of understanding the mythology.

Dancing David · 17th May 2012, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by catsmate1

Wiki references a Nature article (Tryon, Edward P. "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation," in Nature, 246(1973), pp. 396–397) as the source of the quote.

Which wiki, I haven't found it yet.

Ethnikos · 17th May 2012, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

And if your answer is "personal preference", why should I care what your personal preferences are?

If you are already an atheist then it has no value for you. My theory is a project that intends to come up with an alternative (for people who find personal, anecdotal evidence for some sort of god) to a "creator" demanding to be worshiped.

Quote:

Not at all. It lacks the more significant criteria for living things: growth, reproduction, metabolism, etc.

Well, then by that definition, no.
It just has some attributes that are shared in common with living things, but isn't really.

Dinwar · 17th May 2012, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

I'm thinking of it on a super-macro level of just what it looks like, which would be something self organizing, which to me makes it look "alive".

Chaos theory and minerology both demonstrate that systems can be self-organizing without being, in any way shape or form, alive. Thus, unless you're willing to argue that labrodorite is alive, your argument fails.

Dancing David · 17th May 2012, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by catsmate1

Wiki references a Nature article (Tryon, Edward P. "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation," in Nature, 246(1973), pp. 396–397) as the source of the quote.

I am trying to find the source of the thing about the fine tuning, Tryon made the suggestion about quantum fluctuation, I am looking for the fine tuning quote. Which wiki are you looking at?

zooterkin · 17th May 2012, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

Let's say for example you had a computer and provided it with a constant power source, then gave it a task to do with would never reach a conclusion, then just left it to work on its own for so many years, would you think of it as being alive?

Irrelevant.

Do you believe the universe is a living organism?

Dancing David · 17th May 2012, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

Yes, among other things.
My main thing is an aversion I have developed to saying things like, "the creator", as if there is some person around expecting to be recognized and worshiped, or whatever.
I don't think there was a person, and whatever was there is not one individual. I think all living beings came from it and are its current representative.

That is still anthropomorphism. It could be acausal and accidental.

Dancing David · 17th May 2012, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

After getting permission from the owner of the website http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/index.html I'll post his comments regarding the information (names have been removed/changed as deemed appropriate by me)

Originally Posted by Lowpro correspondence to Mike

Sorry to bother you, but I felt it was worth mentioning real quick a possible inaccuracy regarding your website. I often converse with many people on an online forum and one member used your website in what I consider a "cherry picking" attempt to demonstrate that the curvature of space had been undetermined:

"the value of the density parameter and thus the ultimate fate of the Universe remains one of the major unsolved problems in modern cosmology. " from your website URL http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l.../geometry.html

However since discoveries from the Boomerang project but more importantly NASA's WMAP satellite, the theory of the universe as exhibiting a flat curvature is demonstrably accurate.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...-spectrum.html

Because of the nature of the website's ability to be quote mined by people with less than noble causes I thought it was worthy of bringing to your attention.

Thank you very much!

Originally Posted by Mike's response

Lowpro,

Thanks for the comment. That webpage was written in the mid-1990s, when the statement was true. Now with the results from Type Ia supernova distance measurements and the anisotropies for the cosmic microwave background that have been obtained since then, we do have a pretty good determination of the curvature of the Universe on large scales (and it is essentially flat, to about 1-2% uncertainty in the curvature parameter).

Those webpages were last updated more than a decade ago. I leave them up, unmaintained, because many people apparently use them extensively, even though in some areas like cosmology and details of the solar system (for example, Pluto is no longer a planet) they are partially out of date. If people are using them to support incorrect interpretations of current astronomy, it could be motivation to reconsider taking them down, though for every email that I get pointing out things that are not quite true because of new data I get tens of emails thanking me for the resource.

Mike

Super!

Dancing David · 17th May 2012, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

I'm not being dogmatic about any of this but is a personal preference. We don't know but it is natural to wonder about what everything is. It seems to me that the universe acts like and looks like a single organism, but it is not something that fits into a classification, being unique by definition.

No the universe does not act like an organism, what definition are you using?

Dancing David · 17th May 2012, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

Let's say for example you had a computer and provided it with a constant power source, then gave it a task to do with would never reach a conclusion, then just left it to work on its own for so many years, would you think of it as being alive?

No

Dinwar · 17th May 2012, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

My theory is a project that intends to come up with an alternative (for people who find personal, anecdotal evidence for some sort of god) to a "creator" demanding to be worshiped.

So...you admit that their evidence is of the lowest quality, and are trying to merely find a less flagrantly fallacious bedtime story for them? Seems a bit odd, not to mention condiscending.

Quote:

Well, then by that definition, no.
It just has some attributes that are shared in common with living things, but isn't really.

What definition would you preferr?
And sharing attributes with living things is irrelevant. Many minerals share attributes with living things, such as being made with the same elements. Fire oxidizes material and creates energy, just like arobic organisms. Cars even take in material, burn it to convert it into energy, and use that energy for motion--just like living things! Yet none of those are alive.

Sharks and humans both have heads, teeth, and cartalege, but no one would say they're the same thing.

TjW · 17th May 2012, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

Let's say for example you had a computer and provided it with a constant power source, then gave it a task to do with would never reach a conclusion, then just left it to work on its own for so many years, would you think of it as being alive?

Let's say you asked a straightforward question of some particular entity, and they answered with a non-sequitur. Would you think they were honest in their discourse?

MarkCorrigan · 17th May 2012, 01:37 PM

GIBHOR is linking to UncommonlyDense?

Really? Those morons?

Lowpro · 17th May 2012, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

GIBHOR is linking to UncommonlyDense?

Really? Those morons?

Gibhor lives on a diet of constant:

pakeha · 17th May 2012, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

...Something analogous to a "someone" wanted a universe and one came about basically as desired. This is based on mythology more than science. I see science as a better way of understanding the mythology.

I still don't understand why you suppose there a creator of the universe.

Ethnikos · 17th May 2012, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

So...you admit that their evidence is of the lowest quality, and are trying to merely find a less flagrantly fallacious bedtime story for them? Seems a bit odd, not to mention condiscending.

I'm talking about myself and imagining there being someone else who may find it helpful if I was able to explain it in an acceptable sort of way.

MarkCorrigan · 17th May 2012, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Gibhor lives on a diet of constant:

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/o...kimble/379.jpg

Yeah but...UncommonlyDense? Really?

It's like linking to whale.to or timecube or something.

dlorde · 17th May 2012, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

At this point in the thread I thought I'd revisit the OP question: "Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence?"

I've been thinking about it and recalled just why. I had both religious and scientific education at a young age. There was public school and teachers there as well as catechism with the Catholics. So I remember the context for how my beliefs were constructed.

The essential thing comes down to answering questions. When I asked what I thought were relevant questions in a religious context, I found the answers weren't satisfactory. When I did the same in a science context, they actually had answers or, when they didn't, they admitted they didn't know yet and were still exploring the issue.

That was the critical difference. The one enterprise (science) seemed like an honest exploration of possibilities. The other, religion, seemed like an exercise in dodging questions or giving non-answers. Science was something you could do to find things out. Religion was marketing and was done to you.

So, that's my answer to the OP. How it happened to me.

.
Me too

dlorde · 17th May 2012, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

I'm thinking of it on a super-macro level of just what it looks like, which would be something self organizing, which to me makes it look "alive".

That's not really an explanation. What does the universe look like to you? What make you feel it looks 'alive'?

To me, the universe looks like an almost unimaginably vast space, dotted with tiny dust-like clusters of galaxies, in which the galaxies are themselves like dust motes separated by vast distances. Within each galaxy are around two hundred billion stars like dust motes also separated by vast distances.

I can grasp how it comes to be this way through self-organizing accretion according to physical laws, but I just can't visualise how it 'seems alive'.

catsmate1 · 17th May 2012, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I am trying to find the source of the thing about the fine tuning, Tryon made the suggestion about quantum fluctuation, I am looking for the fine tuning quote. Which wiki are you looking at?

OK now I'm confused. Which fine tuning quote? From Tryon? Or Swinburne?

The wiki page for Tryon lists his article in Nature. It was (apparently) reprinted in Leslie's Physical Cosmology and Philosophy.

Stomatopoda · 17th May 2012, 05:54 PM

Even calling natural processes "accidental" is anthropomorphizing, as it requires nature to have intent.

17th May 2012, 07:14 AM	#1081
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,407	Originally Posted by GIBHOR today we know Darwin was wrong. http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#macroismic Quote: Such a point of view is simply untenable, and it denotes a complete misunderstanding of the nature of function. Macroevolution, in all its possible meanings, implies the emergence of new complex functions. A function is not the simplistic sum of a great number of “elementary” sub-functions: sub-functions have to be interfaced and coherently integrated to give a smoothly performing whole. In the same way, macroevolution is not the mere sum of elementary microevolutionary events. This is nothing more than the debunked 'irreducible complexity' argument. Quote: A computer program, for instance, is not the sum of simple instructions. Even if it is composed ultimately of simple instructions, the information-processing capacity of the software depends on the special, complex order of those instructions. You will never obtain a complex computer program by randomly assembling elementary instructions or modules of such instructions. This shows the authors ignorance of evolutionary biology. Living things are not 'randomly assembled'. The environment selects certain mutations from an array of randomly produced variations. Quote: In the same way, macroevolution cannot be a linear, simple or random accumulation of microevolutionary steps. Yes, it can. The author asserting otherwise does not make it so. Please name one single organ that shows irreducible complexity; that could not have evolved over time through the environmental selection of tiny steps of change in structure. Quote: Microevolution, in all its known examples (antibiotic resistance, and similar) is made of simple variations, which are selectable for the immediate advantage connected to them. But a new functional protein cannot be built by simple selectable variations, no more than a poem can be created by random variations of single letters, or a software written by a sequence of elementary (bit-like) random variations, each of them improving the “function” of the software. Once again the author shows ignorance of biology, simply making assertions that are not backed up with any evidence and drawing specious analogies. We have actually seen the evolution of new enzymes in certain Flavobacterium strains that allow them to digest byproducts of Nylon manufacture. The three enzymes utilized for digesting these man-made chemicals are significantly different from those produced by any other strain of bacteria and are only effective for breaking down man-made chemicals that did not exist prior to the invention of Nylon in 1935. That's a pretty big step right there. How could further mutations that result in an increase in the efficiency of energy extraction from this alternative food source not accumulate over time? Quote: Function simply does not work that way. Function derives from higher levels of order and connection, which cannot emerge from a random accumulation of micro-variations. As the complexity (number of bits) of the functional sequence increases, the search space increases exponentially, rapidly denying any chance of random exploration of the space itself. I suspect that the author is deliberately ignoring the very important element of selection in the evolutionary process. He keeps repeating the word 'random' in order to convince his readers that complex biological structures have to fall together randomly, like the old creationist canard about a tornado randomly assembling a functional 474 from scrap. But in order for this weak argument to work one has to ignore the environmental selection that is the real driving force behind evolution. The author has to dishonestly misrepresent evolutionary biology in order make his arguments appear valid. The ideas on that website are embarrassingly outdated. At the top of the page they even have an image of a flagellar motor, once championed by creationists as the irreducibly complex proof of deliberate design in biology, but long since shown to have evolved from other, simpler structures with other functions.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it. Last edited by Foster Zygote; 17th May 2012 at 08:48 AM.

17th May 2012, 07:23 AM	#1082
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,967	Originally Posted by Ethnikos It's my interpretation of Anankē, based on what I have been able to collect on the subject from ancient Greek mythology. So that's a "No". Got it. Originally Posted by punshhh Try the dictionary definition. Problem is, I know how dictionaries actually work. They don't list The One True Definition (or The True Set of Definitions). Rather, dictionaries attempt to capture the ways in which words are commonly used. They provide the COMMON, not the TECHNICAL, definitions--meaning that using them in a technical discussion makes as much sense as playing chess with a baseball bat. Unless you're dealing with a technical dictionary specifically intended to define the jargon utilized by a specific field, the dictionary definition is worthless. Here's a way to demonstrate this: look up the word "character" in the dictionary of your choice. Then explain to me what definition makes the sentence "The increaing number of primative characters in certain members of the crown group is indicative of increased generalization in morphology" make any sense whatever.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,967	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

17th May 2012, 07:33 AM	#1084
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,647	Originally Posted by GIBHOR we know because absolutely nothing is the absence os any thing, and has therefore no potentialities. Anything that can create a universe must, by definition, have potentialities (the potential to create a universe). No potentialities means no supernatural, no supreme beings or entities - and so, no God... otherwise it's not 'absolutely nothing' with 'no potentialities' is it? Quote: Otherwise, we would experience all the time things poping up from nothing. Our experience shows that is not the case. Which suggests that the 'nothing' we experience isn't 'absolutely nothing, with no potentialities', because there is plenty of solid experimental evidence of things (in a sense) 'popping up from nothing' all the time. It's a way of looking at the Uncertainty Principle and how it can be interpreted as quantum fluctuations, virtual particles, quantum tunneling, and field interactions - measurable, observable stuff. You could say they're not actually 'real' things, but, like so much else, it's an interpretation of real observations that really works in the real world. Something is doing those things and it behaves like stuff 'popping up from nothing' all the time.
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,647	__________________ Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...

17th May 2012, 07:35 AM	#1085
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,533	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote This shows the authors ignorance of evolutionary biology. Living things are not 'randomly assembled'. The environment selects certain mutations from an array of randomly produced variations. Look I'll make an effort to nip it in the bud again. Entropy is the reason anything in the universe can "assemble" in the first place. At the most reduced physical observation at least. It's like the Konami Code... ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers Last edited by Lowpro; 17th May 2012 at 07:50 AM.

17th May 2012, 07:51 AM	#1086
The Norseman I Void Warranties Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: The Treasure Valley Posts: 3,240	Originally Posted by punshhh I doubt it if there is such a thing as a god. I regard references to god as omnipotent/scient/present in religious doctrine as a means to convey the image of a great power, such as one which could have generated the known universe. I doubt it was meant to refer to some kind of infinite entity. Believers insisting on an infinite god do not know what they are saying as such a thing is inconceivable to humanity. What evidence do you have to make this supposition? I thought you knew by now that any god can be, and often is, made into anything the person desires. GIBHOR is not the only one on JREF who makes these sorts of "god is infinite" claims and fervently believes them. Besides, what if GIBHOR has received his knowledge through revelation? Are you then prepared to say that you are mistaken and humans are, in fact, able to comprehend an infinite god which can be made sense of when that god reveals itself to a human? Are you ready to state that you have a greater than zero chance of being massively wrong, according to your own statements in other threads?
	__________________ "I have always thought that a wild animal never looks so well as when some obstacle of pronounced durability is between us." "Sticking the flounce is the hardest move in forum gymnastics." -tsig

17th May 2012, 08:01 AM	#1087
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,533	After getting permission from the owner of the website http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/index.html I'll post his comments regarding the information (names have been removed/changed as deemed appropriate by me) Originally Posted by Lowpro correspondence to Mike Sorry to bother you, but I felt it was worth mentioning real quick a possible inaccuracy regarding your website. I often converse with many people on an online forum and one member used your website in what I consider a "cherry picking" attempt to demonstrate that the curvature of space had been undetermined: "the value of the density parameter and thus the ultimate fate of the Universe remains one of the major unsolved problems in modern cosmology. " from your website URL http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l.../geometry.html However since discoveries from the Boomerang project but more importantly NASA's WMAP satellite, the theory of the universe as exhibiting a flat curvature is demonstrably accurate. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...-spectrum.html Because of the nature of the website's ability to be quote mined by people with less than noble causes I thought it was worthy of bringing to your attention. Thank you very much! Originally Posted by Mike's response Lowpro, Thanks for the comment. That webpage was written in the mid-1990s, when the statement was true. Now with the results from Type Ia supernova distance measurements and the anisotropies for the cosmic microwave background that have been obtained since then, we do have a pretty good determination of the curvature of the Universe on large scales (and it is essentially flat, to about 1-2% uncertainty in the curvature parameter). Those webpages were last updated more than a decade ago. I leave them up, unmaintained, because many people apparently use them extensively, even though in some areas like cosmology and details of the solar system (for example, Pluto is no longer a planet) they are partially out of date. If people are using them to support incorrect interpretations of current astronomy, it could be motivation to reconsider taking them down, though for every email that I get pointing out things that are not quite true because of new data I get tens of emails thanking me for the resource. Mike
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers Last edited by Lowpro; 17th May 2012 at 08:04 AM.

17th May 2012, 08:14 AM	#1088
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,503	Originally Posted by Lowpro Look I'll make an effort to nip it in the bud again. Entropy is the reason anything in the universe can "assemble" in the first place. At the most reduced physical observation at least. It's like the Konami Code... ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A I would argue it is the Gibb's free energy that defines assembly. Whether it is minimized through entropic or enthalpic effects, it is that property that determines what molecular associations are preferred.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

17th May 2012, 08:16 AM	#1089
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,533	Originally Posted by joobz I would argue it is the Gibb's free energy that defines assembly. Whether it is minimized through entropic or enthalpic effects, it is that property that determines what molecular associations are preferred. Eh I should be more broad and just say the 2nd law of thermodynamics ;p
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

17th May 2012, 08:18 AM	#1090
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,503	Originally Posted by Lowpro After getting permission from the owner of the website http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/index.html I'll post his comments regarding the information (names have been removed/changed as deemed appropriate by me) Awesome job! It is now Up to Gibhor to decide if he will continue to link to the inaccurate information or if he will update his position to reflect the reality of what science currently knows.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

17th May 2012, 08:27 AM	#1091
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by GIBHOR http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/...am-lane-craig/ (1) Argument by analogy is never valid. (2) Objects resembling known artefacts might reasonably be assumed themselves to be artefacts, but living organisms do not in fact resemble known artefacts. Nor does the universe. (3) As other people have already pointed out, there are numerous examples of naturally occurring objects that appear to be artefacts. (4) The assumption of a human designer of a possible artefact does not postulate any previously unknown entities, as humans are already known to exist. An intelligent designer capable of creating the universe is not already known to exist, so the god theory simply complicates the question. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

17th May 2012, 08:29 AM	#1092
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Welsh Wales Posts: 6,581	Originally Posted by punshhh Originally Posted by Stomatopoda You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Try the dictionary definition. Here's a dictionary definition. You seem to be equivocating between the two; in which manner are you using the word? 1. Impossible to comprehend or grasp fully: inconceivable folly; an inconceivable disaster. 2. So unlikely or surprising as to have been thought impossible; unbelievable: an inconceivable victory against all odds.

17th May 2012, 08:48 AM	#1093
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,407	Originally Posted by Mashuna So unlikely or surprising as to have been thought impossible. Pretty much sums up all of the coolest discoveries in science.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

17th May 2012, 09:03 AM	#1094
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by punshhh Your fooling yourself, or trying to fool me. Go back to that concept and remind yourself that being endless it is always a lot bigger than you can conceive of and indeed many times larger than that and again ad infinitum. Same with duration. . Nope. It fits inside the headbone.

17th May 2012, 09:05 AM	#1095
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,416	At this point in the thread I thought I'd revisit the OP question: "Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence?" I've been thinking about it and recalled just why. I had both religious and scientific education at a young age. There was public school and teachers there as well as catechism with the Catholics. So I remember the context for how my beliefs were constructed. The essential thing comes down to answering questions. When I asked what I thought were relevant questions in a religious context, I found the answers weren't satisfactory. When I did the same in a science context, they actually had answers or, when they didn't, they admitted they didn't know yet and were still exploring the issue. That was the critical difference. The one enterprise (science) seemed like an honest exploration of possibilities. The other, religion, seemed like an exercise in dodging questions or giving non-answers. Science was something you could do to find things out. Religion was marketing and was done to you. So, that's my answer to the OP. How it happened to me.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,416

17th May 2012, 09:09 AM	#1096
Ethnikos Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 2,455	Originally Posted by Dancing David That has nothing to do with the speculative notions of expanding space time foam in recursive inflationary scenarios or colliding branes. It seems you just have a preference for one spiritual story. You also make a mistake in calling something 'fully actualized individuals', do you mean bacteria or ants? Yes, among other things. My main thing is an aversion I have developed to saying things like, "the creator", as if there is some person around expecting to be recognized and worshiped, or whatever. I don't think there was a person, and whatever was there is not one individual. I think all living beings came from it and are its current representative.
	__________________ Matthew 18:7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! It is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to the person through whom they come.

17th May 2012, 09:13 AM	#1097
Ethnikos Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 2,455	Originally Posted by Dancing David That too is just guessing, the answer is "We don't know". I'm not being dogmatic about any of this but is a personal preference. We don't know but it is natural to wonder about what everything is. It seems to me that the universe acts like and looks like a single organism, but it is not something that fits into a classification, being unique by definition.
	__________________ Matthew 18:7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! It is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to the person through whom they come.

17th May 2012, 09:16 AM	#1098
Ethnikos Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 2,455	Originally Posted by zooterkin What is "it"? The universe? The universe is alive? Let's say for example you had a computer and provided it with a constant power source, then gave it a task to do with would never reach a conclusion, then just left it to work on its own for so many years, would you think of it as being alive?
	__________________ Matthew 18:7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! It is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to the person through whom they come.

17th May 2012, 09:22 AM	#1099
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,967	Originally Posted by Ethnikos I don't think there was a person, and whatever was there is not one individual. I think all living beings came from it and are its current representative. Why? And if your answer is "personal preference", why should I care what your personal preferences are? Originally Posted by Ethnikos Let's say for example you had a computer and provided it with a constant power source, then gave it a task to do with would never reach a conclusion, then just left it to work on its own for so many years, would you think of it as being alive? Not at all. It lacks the more significant criteria for living things: growth, reproduction, metabolism, etc.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,967	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

17th May 2012, 09:23 AM	#1100
Ethnikos Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 2,455	Originally Posted by dlorde Gosh, so many questions spring to mind... I'll assume this is not simply an argument from incredulity or ignorance, and you have good reasons for saying this. What are the behaviours or properties or actions of the universe that seem to you to be those of a large and complex organism? What, precisely, do you mean by 'happening by accident'? I'm thinking of it on a super-macro level of just what it looks like, which would be something self organizing, which to me makes it look "alive". Something analogous to a "someone" wanted a universe and one came about basically as desired. This is based on mythology more than science. I see science as a better way of understanding the mythology.
	__________________ Matthew 18:7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! It is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to the person through whom they come.

17th May 2012, 09:28 AM	#1101
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,729	Originally Posted by catsmate1 Wiki references a Nature article (Tryon, Edward P. "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation," in Nature, 246(1973), pp. 396–397) as the source of the quote. Which wiki, I haven't found it yet.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

17th May 2012, 09:29 AM	#1102
Ethnikos Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 2,455	Originally Posted by Dinwar And if your answer is "personal preference", why should I care what your personal preferences are? If you are already an atheist then it has no value for you. My theory is a project that intends to come up with an alternative (for people who find personal, anecdotal evidence for some sort of god) to a "creator" demanding to be worshiped. Quote: Not at all. It lacks the more significant criteria for living things: growth, reproduction, metabolism, etc. Well, then by that definition, no. It just has some attributes that are shared in common with living things, but isn't really.
	__________________ Matthew 18:7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! It is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to the person through whom they come.

17th May 2012, 09:29 AM	#1103
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,967	Originally Posted by Ethnikos I'm thinking of it on a super-macro level of just what it looks like, which would be something self organizing, which to me makes it look "alive". Chaos theory and minerology both demonstrate that systems can be self-organizing without being, in any way shape or form, alive. Thus, unless you're willing to argue that labrodorite is alive, your argument fails.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,967	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

17th May 2012, 09:32 AM	#1104
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,729	Originally Posted by catsmate1 Wiki references a Nature article (Tryon, Edward P. "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation," in Nature, 246(1973), pp. 396–397) as the source of the quote. I am trying to find the source of the thing about the fine tuning, Tryon made the suggestion about quantum fluctuation, I am looking for the fine tuning quote. Which wiki are you looking at?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

17th May 2012, 09:33 AM	#1105
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 24,600	Originally Posted by Ethnikos Let's say for example you had a computer and provided it with a constant power source, then gave it a task to do with would never reach a conclusion, then just left it to work on its own for so many years, would you think of it as being alive? Irrelevant. Do you believe the universe is a living organism?
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

17th May 2012, 09:35 AM	#1106
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,729	Originally Posted by Ethnikos Yes, among other things. My main thing is an aversion I have developed to saying things like, "the creator", as if there is some person around expecting to be recognized and worshiped, or whatever. I don't think there was a person, and whatever was there is not one individual. I think all living beings came from it and are its current representative. That is still anthropomorphism. It could be acausal and accidental.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

17th May 2012, 09:36 AM	#1107
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,729	Originally Posted by Lowpro After getting permission from the owner of the website http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/index.html I'll post his comments regarding the information (names have been removed/changed as deemed appropriate by me) Originally Posted by Lowpro correspondence to Mike Sorry to bother you, but I felt it was worth mentioning real quick a possible inaccuracy regarding your website. I often converse with many people on an online forum and one member used your website in what I consider a "cherry picking" attempt to demonstrate that the curvature of space had been undetermined: "the value of the density parameter and thus the ultimate fate of the Universe remains one of the major unsolved problems in modern cosmology. " from your website URL http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l.../geometry.html However since discoveries from the Boomerang project but more importantly NASA's WMAP satellite, the theory of the universe as exhibiting a flat curvature is demonstrably accurate. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...-spectrum.html Because of the nature of the website's ability to be quote mined by people with less than noble causes I thought it was worthy of bringing to your attention. Thank you very much! Originally Posted by Mike's response Lowpro, Thanks for the comment. That webpage was written in the mid-1990s, when the statement was true. Now with the results from Type Ia supernova distance measurements and the anisotropies for the cosmic microwave background that have been obtained since then, we do have a pretty good determination of the curvature of the Universe on large scales (and it is essentially flat, to about 1-2% uncertainty in the curvature parameter). Those webpages were last updated more than a decade ago. I leave them up, unmaintained, because many people apparently use them extensively, even though in some areas like cosmology and details of the solar system (for example, Pluto is no longer a planet) they are partially out of date. If people are using them to support incorrect interpretations of current astronomy, it could be motivation to reconsider taking them down, though for every email that I get pointing out things that are not quite true because of new data I get tens of emails thanking me for the resource. Mike Super!
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

17th May 2012, 09:37 AM	#1108
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,729	Originally Posted by Ethnikos I'm not being dogmatic about any of this but is a personal preference. We don't know but it is natural to wonder about what everything is. It seems to me that the universe acts like and looks like a single organism, but it is not something that fits into a classification, being unique by definition. No the universe does not act like an organism, what definition are you using?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

17th May 2012, 09:39 AM	#1109
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,729	Originally Posted by Ethnikos Let's say for example you had a computer and provided it with a constant power source, then gave it a task to do with would never reach a conclusion, then just left it to work on its own for so many years, would you think of it as being alive? No
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

17th May 2012, 09:52 AM	#1110
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,967	Originally Posted by Ethnikos My theory is a project that intends to come up with an alternative (for people who find personal, anecdotal evidence for some sort of god) to a "creator" demanding to be worshiped. So...you admit that their evidence is of the lowest quality, and are trying to merely find a less flagrantly fallacious bedtime story for them? Seems a bit odd, not to mention condiscending. Quote: Well, then by that definition, no. It just has some attributes that are shared in common with living things, but isn't really. What definition would you preferr? And sharing attributes with living things is irrelevant. Many minerals share attributes with living things, such as being made with the same elements. Fire oxidizes material and creates energy, just like arobic organisms. Cars even take in material, burn it to convert it into energy, and use that energy for motion--just like living things! Yet none of those are alive. Sharks and humans both have heads, teeth, and cartalege, but no one would say they're the same thing.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,967	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

17th May 2012, 12:56 PM	#1111
TjW Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: up in the air Posts: 10,000	Originally Posted by Ethnikos Let's say for example you had a computer and provided it with a constant power source, then gave it a task to do with would never reach a conclusion, then just left it to work on its own for so many years, would you think of it as being alive? Let's say you asked a straightforward question of some particular entity, and they answered with a non-sequitur. Would you think they were honest in their discourse?
	__________________ TjW People like TjW -- Kelly

17th May 2012, 01:37 PM	#1112
MarkCorrigan Winter is Coming Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Middle of nowhere, UK. Posts: 7,120	GIBHOR is linking to UncommonlyDense? Really? Those morons?
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet. If I should die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.

17th May 2012, 01:50 PM	#1113
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,533	Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan GIBHOR is linking to UncommonlyDense? Really? Those morons? Gibhor lives on a diet of constant:
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

17th May 2012, 03:14 PM	#1114
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 8,008	Originally Posted by Ethnikos ...Something analogous to a "someone" wanted a universe and one came about basically as desired. This is based on mythology more than science. I see science as a better way of understanding the mythology. I still don't understand why you suppose there a creator of the universe.
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 8,008	__________________ To a conspiracy theorist, having double standards just means that they have twice as many standards. carlitos

17th May 2012, 03:15 PM	#1115
Ethnikos Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 2,455	Originally Posted by Dinwar So...you admit that their evidence is of the lowest quality, and are trying to merely find a less flagrantly fallacious bedtime story for them? Seems a bit odd, not to mention condiscending. I'm talking about myself and imagining there being someone else who may find it helpful if I was able to explain it in an acceptable sort of way.
	__________________ Matthew 18:7 Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! It is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to the person through whom they come.

17th May 2012, 04:01 PM	#1116
MarkCorrigan Winter is Coming Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Middle of nowhere, UK. Posts: 7,120	Originally Posted by Lowpro Gibhor lives on a diet of constant: http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/o...kimble/379.jpg Yeah but...UncommonlyDense? Really? It's like linking to whale.to or timecube or something.
	__________________ Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data. It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet. If I should die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.