RE: Define God

RE: Define God (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 6:31:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I recommend that you read my first sentence in my post 42. [For others. For the one experiencing it, it is sufficient evidence. [I assume that you are talking about the incarnate god of the Jews? He wanted people to worship not him, but the Divine. (Incarnate gods identify with the Divine.) I recall suckling at my mother's teats and I recall that I had memories then that went back perhaps up to my birth. (I suspect that I slept during birth.) Who made you an authority on my memories? Where did I ever speak about an out of body experience or about hallucinations? You presume where you have no reason to presume. Who made you an authority on my "death"? I did read it and have re-read it and I still dismiss it as a joke, and one that is inconsistent with the rest of your posts. I have already said that is sufficient for you, but it does not constitute objective evidence, for yourself or anyone else. I have not been posting in reference to any particular denomination's view of god, they are sufficiently similar with regard to omnipotence, omniscience and a "lust to be obeyed" that it really doesnt matter. I am not an authority on YOUR memories, but I have read extensively on human memory in general, mostly through pursuing my interest in the nature of consciousness. If YOUR memory functions different than other human beings, then you have a valid point. Otherwise your memory is fragile and subject to misrecollection and invention. That doesnt mean ALL of your memories are necessarily incorrect, but memories of events occurring during times of stress and trauma are the most unreliable of all memories. Perhaps yours is a binary computer, and remembers everything precisely. But then of course they arent your memories, they are the memories implanted by its programmer. My citation of OOB experiences and other NDEs was not intended to have anything to do with your particular flavor. If you have shared it then I missed it (and point me to it), and if you haven't shared it then you should expect commentary on the most well known, studied and commonly reported flavors. Considering that your last two sentences are based on a false premise, I wont respond to them.

tazzygirl -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 6:45:17 PM)
willbe, nothing about anyone's opinion is a joke. and you wonder why you arent taken seriously.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 7:50:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl willbe, nothing about anyone's opinion is a joke. and you wonder why you arent taken seriously. Im not taken seriously by those who have a vested interest in not opening their eyes. Yes, some peoples opinions can be jokes, in fact they abound on this board. I notice that you havent come back with a single credible rebuttal to anything I have posted in direct contradiction to the horseshit you are spewing on everyting from health care to science. Given your personality, there is no question you would if you could. So, as I said elsewhere, bring it on if you can.

sweetsub1957 -> RE: Define God (8/4/2009 10:34:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl LOL... you really thought you knew me, huh! i saw a whole bunch of men with a massive ego need to be "right" so i decided to spend some time messing with your heads. as i have said before, i do not believe in formal religion, nor in what most consider the concept of god. arrogance just happens to get under my nails, so to speak. and then i gotta scratch. You went right where I thought you were going with this. [:D] I also do not believe in what most call formal religion. I consider myself Wiccan, because it's the closest thing to what I do believe, but there are even some Wiccans that would raise an eyebrow at me I imagine. lol quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I feel that anyone that has to explain their beliefs in such a way as to convince others, may not know exactly what faith really is. I agree totally. I have no need to convince anyone else. I am not so arrogant as to believe that my way is the only way. [:D]

NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/5/2009 12:15:11 AM)
sigh Points granted too soon... quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 I regard the 1. origin of life, which we still can't figure out, Argumentum ad ignorantium. quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 2. "irreducibly complex" machines (such as the ATP synthase), Behe's irreducible complexity has been debunked as of years ago. Massimo Pigliucci perhaps does it best: http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/design.html quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 3. the strong analogy between various facets of the cell and human technology Because we are not machines ourselves? quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 4. the fine tuning of the universe When you play bridge, you are dealt a hand of 13 cards. Every time that happens, the odds of having been dealt that precise hand are less than 1 in 600 billion. Tell me, then, based on that probability, you'd accuse the dealer of stacking the deck? quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 5. the fact that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago Not sure how that, in any way, points to the existence of a deity... quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 to be sufficient evidence that there just may be a god. Only to someone wanting to find reason to believe in one a priori.

MasterHermes -> RE: Define God (8/5/2009 1:39:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl again, i ask... is it scientific proof you require? nope, just any objective evidence that REQUIRES intervention of a god based on our current understanding of physics and chemistry. that would be quite sufficient to make me an agnostic. The biggest trick religions played on people is they made them believe you are either atheist or you must believe the god which is portraited by them. Today most of the people become atheist because they have certain problems with religions. They found a safe harbor in science. Unfortunately , these people are so hurt, so angry, they never wonder what is the source of this harmony which also creates the physical laws in the universe. Now I'll give you the scientific answer you require. Everybody in this universe comes from the same energy. The complex structures makes us think things are all different, but as you go into atoms, and quanta , and so on.. You realize the stars, the earth, the woods or the human are all the same. If you are interested in quantum physics , you will also notice everything affects each other at sub-atomic level. Its more like they are sending messages to each other. So what do we know now? There is this undeniable energy in the universe , the whole universe made of. This energy is active, communicating, affecting, changing. And the mechanism arises from it allows stars and planets to form, nature to born, living things to exist. If you can be able to leave the religious folklore aside about there was a guy sitting on the clouds, and giving orders around , maybe you might have a chance of realizing neither the nature, nor the universe is not a mindless space as we want to believe it is. There is a very big difference between being mindless, and having an ego (that says I, and gets angry and rest of it). If you can free your mind from the effects of the religious folklore, try observing it. And be as scientific as you want, since no science can ever contradict with it. Science is the name of the discipline we have created for understanding the works of the life and universe. Our science obeys its rules, it doesn't obey our science. Best Wishes Hermes

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/5/2009 8:46:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 I regard the 1. origin of life, which we still can't figure out, 2. "irreducibly complex" machines (such as the ATP synthase), 3. the strong analogy between various facets of the cell and human technology 4. the fine tuning of the universe 5. the fact that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago to be sufficient evidence that there just may be a god. What does adding a god to any of those do to help your understanding of them? 1. Abiogenesis-at one point we couldnt figure out why an apple fell from a tree or the earth orbits the sun. Abiogensis is just another area of research where progress is being made, and hopefully will be accomplished in my lifetime. Just because something isnt understood doesnt mean that there has to be some supernatural hand to invent or guide it. Assuming that it does is the argument from igorance fallacy. 2. Behe was debunked years ago. There isnt a single example of "irreducible complexity" that has been demonstrated to not be possible through evolution. You are years behind on this one. 3. Not sure what you mean here. 4. The anthropic principle is totally consistent without the addition of a god. If you dont need it, dont add it. 5. Same argument from ignorance as abiogenesis. There are several theories of the formation of the universe that dont require a helping hand.

lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/5/2009 8:54:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy What does adding a god to any of those do to help your understanding of them? 1. Abiogenesis-at one point we couldnt figure out why an apple fell from a tree or the earth orbits the sun. Abiogensis is just another area of research where progress is being made, and hopefully will be accomplished in my lifetime. Just because something isnt understood doesnt mean that there has to be some supernatural hand to invent or guide it. Assuming that it does is the argument from igorance fallacy. Ignorance of what though? The word ignorance usually means that the knowledge is available, you are just not aware of it. What knowledge is available? Assuming that the knowledge is available , we are just not aware of it, is the height of chutzpah. We've been searching for the specification for years. I'm not saying that you shouldn't keep searching, but that it's confounded scientists for more than 50 years despite all the advances in technology and knowledge might be significant. If we never find the higgs boson, despite the UK spending billions of dollars on that collider, isn't it a good idea to say that our current theories are false and start looking for a different way of looking at the problem, rather than say "argument from ignorance!" quote: 2. Behe was debunked years ago. There isnt a single example of "irreducible complexity" that has been demonstrated to not be possible through evolution. You are years behind on this one. I'm not really sure what your point is, Behe himself said that irreducibly complex systems are indeed possible to evolve. Am I missing something? quote: 4. The anthropic principle is totally consistent without the addition of a god. If you dont need it, dont add it. The anthropic principle is wildy improbable to have occurred by chance, which is why many invoke multiple universes. quote: 5. Same argument from ignorance as abiogenesis. There are several theories of the formation of the universe that dont require a helping hand. See #1

lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/5/2009 8:59:05 AM)
I like Massimo but his essay here is a bit off. He mentions globins as an example of redundancy. Of course, a single component can carry out oxygen delivery. Just add more and it does it more efficiently. It's not irreducibly complex. So what? There plenty of other systems that are. He says: quote: "However, Behe does have a point concerning irreducible complexity. It is true that some structures simply cannot be explained by slow and cumulative processes of natural selection. From his mousetrap to Paley's watch to the Brooklyn Bridge, irreducible complexity is indeed associated with intelligent design. The problem for ID theory is that there is no evidence so far of irreducible complexity in living organisms." But in fact there is, take the ATP synthase, it's composed of at least 8 proteins, remove one protein, and the system can no longer synthesize ATP.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/5/2009 9:25:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy What does adding a god to any of those do to help your understanding of them? 1. Abiogenesis-at one point we couldnt figure out why an apple fell from a tree or the earth orbits the sun. Abiogensis is just another area of research where progress is being made, and hopefully will be accomplished in my lifetime. Just because something isnt understood doesnt mean that there has to be some supernatural hand to invent or guide it. Assuming that it does is the argument from igorance fallacy. Ignorance of what though? The word ignorance usually means that the knowledge is available, you are just not aware of it. What knowledge is available? Assuming that the knowledge is available , we are just not aware of it, is the height of chutzpah. We've been searching for the specification for years. I'm not saying that you shouldn't keep searching, but that it's confounded scientists for more than 50 years despite all the advances in technology and knowledge might be significant. If we never find the higgs boson, despite the UK spending billions of dollars on that collider, isn't it a good idea to say that our current theories are false and start looking for a different way of looking at the problem, rather than say "argument from ignorance!" quote: 2. Behe was debunked years ago. There isnt a single example of "irreducible complexity" that has been demonstrated to not be possible through evolution. You are years behind on this one. I'm not really sure what your point is, Behe himself said that irreducibly complex systems are indeed possible to evolve. Am I missing something? quote: 4. The anthropic principle is totally consistent without the addition of a god. If you dont need it, dont add it. The anthropic principle is wildy improbable to have occurred by chance, which is why many invoke multiple universes. quote: 5. Same argument from ignorance as abiogenesis. There are several theories of the formation of the universe that dont require a helping hand. See #1 1. This response is just repeating what you said before. That we havent found the answer to something isnt improved one iota by adding an external force that we also dont have any knowledge of. 2. Behe's entire book was based on his belief that some systems were too complex to have evolved. That is HIS defintion of irreducibly complex. Your response that he says they could evolve makes no sense. Please explain further. 4. Things that are wildly improbable happen every day. Given sufficient time and sufficient trials, the likelihood of each one of them happening approaches certainty. If you are talking about the formation of this universe, for example, there is essentially an infinite amount of time for it to have occurred since there is no measure of time before its creation. An infinite amount of time means certainty that every possibility will have occurred. The anthropic principle simply states that we are able to observe the results of that certainty. If the conditions for our universe didnt arise from one of those virtual infinity of trials, we wouldnt be here to think about it. Multiverse is not an attempt to satisfy a probability problem, it is a theory on on the physical mechanism for the creation of universes. It shows how each of those virtual infinity of trials happpens, it does not rely on there being a large number of them...it works for one without reliance on others.

lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/5/2009 9:45:49 AM)
quote: 1. This response is just repeating what you said before. That we havent found the answer to something isnt improved one iota by adding an external force that we also dont have any knowledge of. sure, but this fact coupled with the fact that the genetic code is "one in a million" , and highly optimal, nearly identical to morse code, etc, says to me that it may in fact be designed. That we can't find how it evolved simply strenthens that conclusion. (this goes back to my point #3). quote: 2. Behe's entire book was based on his belief that some systems were too complex to have evolved. That is HIS defintion of irreducibly complex. Your response that he says they could evolve makes no sense. Please explain further. No. He stated that they cannot evolve through a direct pathway, but that they can evolve through indirect pathways (e.g. co-option). His point was never that they are impossible to evolve, but that they are improbable. Very little can be shown to be impossible when it comes to history and so much is not known. So, it is unlikely that Behe could have possibly been debunked, since I am not aware of a single case where it has been shown to have a probable pathway through natural selection and random mutation. Not only that, but even if it has been shown for one case, it has not been demonstrated for the myriad of others. There are other considerations as well, depending on the evolutionary pathway you are proposing for a particular irreducibly complex system, your pathway will certainly have left fingerprints. There is lots to consider. quote: Things that are wildly improbable happen every day. Given sufficient time and sufficient trials, the likelihood of each one of them happening approaches certainty. If you are talking about the formation of this universe, for example, there is essentially an infinite amount of time for it to have occurred since there is no measure of time before its creation. An infinite amount of time means certainty that every possibility will have occurred. The anthropic principle simply states that we are able to observe the results of that certainty. If the conditions for our universe didnt arise from one of those virtual infinity of trials, we wouldnt be here to think about it. I disagree that "wildly improbable things happen everyday", but then again "wildly" is subjective. Time and space came into existence at the signularity. There is no evidence of a "time" to speak of before the signularity, since all the laws of physics break down. For this reason, multiverse theories are as speculative, and faith based as god belief.

Rule -> RE: Define God (8/5/2009 10:43:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 pathway will certainly have left fingerprints Indeed, there are such fingerprints. Evolving large biological molecules is fairly easy. I solved the origin of genetic material and proteins way back in the early eighties. (I have to write an article about it some day.) quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 Time and space came into existence at the signularity. There is no evidence of a "time" to speak of before the signularity, since all the laws of physics break down. There never was a Big Bang and thus no singularity. The BB is mere speculation, not a fact. Indeed, 'outside' our universe there is no time as we know it. We may suppose, though, that there is time as we know it not; plenty for the Divine to conceive of our universe.

NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/5/2009 11:20:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 sure, but this fact coupled with the fact that the genetic code is "one in a million" , and highly optimal, nearly identical to morse code, etc, says to me that it may in fact be designed. Can we go back to my deck of cards/bridge example? Humans have a habitual quirk of being iffy with grasping the likelihoods and unlikelihoods wrought from statistics. 1) Your argument is a false dichotomy: Even if, statistically, the "odds" argument was sufficiently sound to suggest "design", not only is it informatively useless, it says nothing about whether the "designer" (which is always what it comes down to) is even sentient to begin with and, if it is, what it is. You may as well be arguing for a race of purple gnomes that exist in an alternate universe exactly 60 seconds ahead of ours who, at every moment, use ice cream cones to paint the world we inhabit 1 minute later. 2) Statistical fallibility: A) "that the genetic code is "one in a million"" is a silly and erroneous presentation of evolution that suggests the genetic code popped up out of random emptiness, when the odds of it having been wrought when the molecular evolution that preceded it prefaced it are not nearly so unbelievable. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/32109513/ns/sports-baseball/ About a week and a half ago, Mark Buehrle pitched a perfect game. Rough statistics place the odds of doing that very thing (retiring 27 batters in a row) at about 1 in 16,500. Let's say, however, we've arrived at the game right before the last out. In order for Buehrle to log the perfect game (as far as our statistical analysis is concerned) he only needs to retire one batter. The odds of that? Based on average stats, 2 out of 3. So...the odds of him pitching a perfect game when he has already logged 26 straight outs are much different than expecting him to pitch the perfect game from scratch. quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 That we can't find how it evolved simply strenthens that conclusion. (this goes back to my point #3). This is a natural argument from ignorance. I had already made mention of it last time (argumentum ad ignorantium). Your apparent rebuttal to this is: quote: We've been searching for the specification for years. I'm not saying that you shouldn't keep searching, but that it's confounded scientists for more than 50 years despite all the advances in technology and knowledge might be significant. If we never find the higgs boson, despite the UK spending billions of dollars on that collider, isn't it a good idea to say that our current theories are false and start looking for a different way of looking at the problem, rather than say "argument from ignorance!" Let me try replacing certain terms for effect: "If we (as humans) never find a romantic human partner, despite the emotional and physical time spent on the endeavor, isn't it a good idea to say that our current theories of mating are false and start looking for a different way of looking at the problem (sheep, for instance), rather than say "argument from ignorance"? Obviously, no one would sensibly argue that being unlucky in love means we should resort to sheep. The reason the argumentum ad ignorantium is a logical fallacy is because it takes the entire realm of that which we do not know and supposes an answer (one specific answer, no less), without merit, because our figurative Buehrle is only on his 16th consecutive out and, by jove, we need that perfect game now! Next, the vacuousness of design: Let's swipe away all the fallacious reasoning we've already dealt with and grant your design idea merit! Okay, there's a designer. Um...now what? Surely we should spend time, scientific effort and taxpayer dollars trying to find out how to communicate with this designer, yes? Surely, there's no point in studying the phenomena as they happen to try and gain information on how they work (which is what science does..what we had been doing) because all we really need to do is speak with the designer! So...in every science class of the future where design is taught, every time a child asks a question: "How did this come about?" we can answer, "The designer did it!". And if the child follows that up with "How did the designer do it?"...well...we'll just make a phone call; assuming we've found a reliable communication means to the designer by then. I mean...I sure hope this designer is not some other type of sentient creature other than human-esque. It would really suck if a giant cosmic beetle was the source of all the "design" and the freakin' insect can't even speak human! But surely, no one means a "cosmic beetle" when they're speaking of a designer, right? [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 So, it is unlikely that Behe could have possibly been debunked, since I am not aware of a single case where it has been shown to have a probable pathway through natural selection and random mutation. That's because "random mutation" is a misrepresentation of how evolution works. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 I disagree that "wildly improbable things happen everyday", but then again "wildly" is subjective. Just today, two people succeeded beating one in 3,904,700 odds by matching all but the Mega Millions PowerBall numbers. Is 1 chance in about 4 million "wildly improbable" enough? What about two people doing it? And that's just the lottery! How about the odds of 11 people getting struck by lightning on two separate incidents on that very same day? "wildly improbable"? What if we combine the odds of the two events happening the same day?!?

dundreggen -> RE: Define God (8/5/2009 12:22:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 sure, but this fact coupled with the fact that the genetic code is "one in a million" , and highly optimal, nearly identical to morse code, etc, says to me that it may in fact be designed. That we can't find how it evolved simply strenthens that conclusion. (this goes back to my point #3). Actually (as a forensic biotechnologist here) DNA is very interesting, esp when you start to get into pop gen and statistics. But really anyone who studies molecular bio (genetics) tends to find far more evidence that points to evolution than design. If you want I can point some out but don't want to bog down this thread with too much science.. I have always found it fairly narrow minded to be strictly either or science or a god. A god could very well have put the whole thing into play including evolution. I mean if this is a being who is able to create things on an unfathomable scale, why would this little feat be beyond him/her/it? Who says a god couldn't have started the whole Big Bang by dropping his/her/it's equivalent of a dish towel?

lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/5/2009 12:23:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Can we go back to my deck of cards/bridge example? Humans have a habitual quirk of being iffy with grasping the likelihoods and unlikelihoods wrought from statistics. 1) Your argument is a false dichotomy: Even if, statistically, the "odds" argument was sufficiently sound to suggest "design", not only is it informatively useless, it says nothing about whether the "designer" (which is always what it comes down to) is even sentient to begin with and, if it is, what it is. You may as well be arguing for a race of purple gnomes that exist in an alternate universe exactly 60 seconds ahead of ours who, at every moment, use ice cream cones to paint the world we inhabit 1 minute later. I wasn't only making an argument from improbability here, but one that does inform us, to an extent, as to some of the qualities of the designer, in that he likes to design exactly like us (consider for example, what I said before about modularity as well). quote: 2) Statistical fallibility: A) "that the genetic code is "one in a million"" is a silly and erroneous presentation of evolution that suggests the genetic code popped up out of random emptiness, when the odds of it having been wrought when the molecular evolution that preceded it prefaced it are not nearly so unbelievable. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/32109513/ns/sports-baseball/ I don't know what "random emptiness" means. There are those that believe the code arose through Darwinian evolution, and those that believe it's a frozen accident, or some combination of the two. None of the so called theories behind the origination of the genetic code are established. What we do know is that if we take all kinds of codes from horrible to pretty dam good, and we ask a bunch of questions about them, like how good are you at error minimization, the code that currently exists, the one that is in use now, always pops out as the the one of the best out of a million. I think in a study , only one random variant was better. The one that was better had no similarity whatsoever to the one we currently use. In a second study, they estimated that the number of codes that would actually realistically work in a biological setting were much smaller, concluding that our genetic code may indeed be the best. Best in terms of error minimization. The genetic code also takes advantage of engineering logic, in that it is a parity code. Hamming came up with error coding theory in 1950, but it appears that someone else did 3 billion years ago with our genetic code. Lots of eerie examples like this. quote: About a week and a half ago, Mark Buehrle pitched a perfect game. Rough statistics place the odds of doing that very thing (retiring 27 batters in a row) at about 1 in 16,500. Let's say, however, we've arrived at the game right before the last out. In order for Buehrle to log the perfect game (as far as our statistical analysis is concerned) he only needs to retire one batter. The odds of that? Based on average stats, 2 out of 3. So...the odds of him pitching a perfect game when he has already logged 26 straight outs are much different than expecting him to pitch the perfect game from scratch. There are a lot more factors to consider when estimating the probability of someone throwing a perfect game , such as ERA. There are whole formulas I believe. In general, the probability for a pitcher to throw a perfect game is extremely low, which is why it's such a big deal when someone does it. I always did hate it when I am watching my favorite show on tv, and it suddenly cuts to some boring baseball game of some pitcher who just might pitch a perfect game, only to have the batter hit a single. Lots of fields use probability arguments in order to rule out such things as "flukes" even to straight up rule it out. For example, in Biology, if two genes have a sequence that is more than 33% similar (usually), it is said to be homologous (share a common ancestor), why? Because it is too improbable for that to be simply a coincidence. They must be related. quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 That we can't find how it evolved simply strenthens that conclusion. (this goes back to my point #3). quote: This is a natural argument from ignorance. I had already made mention of it last time (argumentum ad ignorantium). Your apparent rebuttal to this is: Let me try replacing certain terms for effect: "If we (as humans) never find a romantic human partner, despite the emotional and physical time spent on the endeavor, isn't it a good idea to say that our current theories of mating are false and start looking for a different way of looking at the problem (sheep, for instance), rather than say "argument from ignorance"? Not necessarily sheep. But if you do continually fail , then why not try working out? Getting a better paying job, improving your sense of humor and overall personallity. Obviously if you continually fail at something, it means you are doing it wrong! quote: So...in every science class of the future where design is taught, every time a child asks a question: "How did this come about?" we can answer, "The designer did it!". And if the child follows that up with "How did the designer do it?"...well...we'll just make a phone call; assuming we've found a reliable communication means to the designer by then. I mean...I sure hope this designer is not some other type of sentient creature other than human-esque. It would really suck if a giant cosmic beetle was the source of all the "design" and the freakin' insect can't even speak human! But surely, no one means a "cosmic beetle" when they're speaking of a designer, right? [;)] This isn't really an argument though right? This is you just taking the piss. quote: That's because "random mutation" is a misrepresentation of how evolution works. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU I've seen that video hundreds of time, nowhere does it say that random mutation is not an integral part of the Darwinian mechanism. It is. See here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 Just today, two people succeeded beating one in 3,904,700 odds by matching all but the Mega Millions PowerBall numbers. Is 1 chance in about 4 million "wildly improbable" enough? What about two people doing it? And that's just the lottery! What if you have the same two people winning it for a year? I would certainly conclude that they have rigged something. quote: How about the odds of 11 people getting struck by lightning on two separate incidents on that very same day? "wildly improbable"? What if we combine the odds of the two events happening the same day?!? Thats not that improbably during a thunderstorm, the 9 people were in the same room. And the other two were working in the field. How is that improbable? Now, what if the same two people get hit again, the same day , in a completely different area. Now thats improbable.

lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/5/2009 12:34:05 PM)
quote: Actually (as a forensic biotechnologist here) DNA is very interesting, esp when you start to get into pop gen and statistics. But really anyone who studies molecular bio (genetics) tends to find far more evidence that points to evolution than design. If you want I can point some out but don't want to bog down this thread with too much science.. I have always found it fairly narrow minded to be strictly either or science or a god. A god could very well have put the whole thing into play including evolution. I mean if this is a being who is able to create things on an unfathomable scale, why would this little feat be beyond him/her/it? Who says a god couldn't have started the whole Big Bang by dropping his/her/it's equivalent of a dish towel? I hope that I am not giving the impression that I am an anti-evolutionist, because I am not. In fact I very much think that evolution occured. But the origin of life is seperate from the fact of evolution. If the first cell/cells were intelligently designed, then that may have imparted a direction on the rest of evolution, which might be why some scientists are writing books like Life's Solution (by Simon Conway Morris). I am simply open to three options when considering biological evidence: Intelligent intervention channeled evolution coincidental evolution driven by the blind watchmaker I do not hold to one or the other , especially since there is so much we don't know. I definitely am open to all three playing roles in the origin and evolution of life. Why would anyone hold to just one of these options, it seems rather stifling to me.

NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/5/2009 12:50:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 Why would anyone hold to just one of these options, it seems rather stifling to me. Because "design" is a flaccid empty uninformative hypothesis. It would give us absolutely no empirical, veridical information to help understand the world we live in even if it was correct. We are still debating between alternate universe purple gnomes and cosmic beetles and theistic deities. Even under odds misunderstood by a misrepresentation of statistics of biological or cosmological functions, the only thing that makes something arguably "designed" is human incredulity and/or ignorance as to how it could have come about by means that can be organizationally strict and yet not wrought from a sentient puppeteer. You've ignored the fact that "design" offers nothing that can be taught short of having communication with the supposed designer.

lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/5/2009 12:58:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 You've ignored the fact that "design" offers nothing that can be taught short of having communication with the supposed designer. There is much that can be taught, especially when it comes to our own engineering methods helping us understand why molecular machines undergo self-assembly instead of using a little robotic arm to simply repair machines when they break down. It is because we looked to biology that we are not spending billions of dollars using that stupid method to build nanomachines. If evolution is channeled, If evolution is channeled there is even more to be learned, such as why amphioux looks like a vertebrate in waiting.

NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/5/2009 1:15:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 There is much that can be taught, especially when it comes to our own engineering methods helping us understand why molecular machines undergo self-assembly instead of using a little robotic arm to simply repair machines when they break down. It is because we looked to biology that we are not spending billions of dollars using that stupid method to build nanomachines. If evolution is channeled, If evolution is channeled there is even more to be learned, such as why amphioux looks like a vertebrate in waiting. None of which makes any case for a sentient puppeteer and none of which can be empowered in the understanding department by the presumption of one.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/5/2009 1:54:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lynk09 So, it is unlikely that Behe could have possibly been debunked, since I am not aware of a single case where it has been shown to have a probable pathway through natural selection and random mutation. Not only that, but even if it has been shown for one case, it has not been demonstrated for the myriad of others. There are other considerations as well, depending on the evolutionary pathway you are proposing for a particular irreducibly complex system, your pathway will certainly have left fingerprints. There is lots to consider. I disagree that "wildly improbable things happen everyday", but then again "wildly" is subjective. Time and space came into existence at the signularity. There is no evidence of a "time" to speak of before the signularity, since all the laws of physics break down. For this reason, multiverse theories are as speculative, and faith based as god belief. As I recall one of Behe's favorite "irreducibly complex" systems was the eye, which, as I said, has been bebunked. "Indirect pathways" are just a fall back when there is evidence of evolution but he doesnt want to admit it. Dawkins does a fine job in refuting Behe, but many did before him as well. Wildly improbably things dont happen every day? NZ's earlier bridge hand is a perfect example, the probability of any one hand happening is less than 1 in 600 billion. Every time one is dealt that result is wildly improbable, yet it happened.

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625