RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 >   
  Topic: It's all settled!...Proof God Exists!, Apparently, by asking the question does< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2009,16:02   

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 04 2009,20:44)
Y'all know where this "inquiry" is head, dontcha.

I expect this:
- He'll ignore everything that was said.
- He'll whine about how mean and unfair it is that supernatural explanations are not allowed and how people who dare to suggest them are laughed out of the building expelled.
- After all, what is if the evidence suggest that the supernatural explanation is correct? Shouldn't we be allowed to follow it where it leads.
- Therefore, GODDIDIT.

Extra points for including Meyer's new book as "evidence".

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1020
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2009,22:48   

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 04 2009,14:44)
Y'all know where this "inquiry" is head, dontcha.

An A in the DrDr's class?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2009,09:20   

Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate that being brought up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?


I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws. So there wouldn’t be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations. To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (you’re beyond it) and act as a cause to create an effect, the cell type growing faster. So you’re manipulating matter, and you are outside of the matter you’re manipulating. But of course you’re still in the realm of the physical world with physical qualities working with natural laws.


Now I wouldn’t necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source, but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence? Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above) that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2009,12:34   

I'm an engineer and I like the term empirical. Empirical as far as I remember means measurable. The world is full of data and as we create new instruments we find more and more data.
Since before recorded history man has tried to interpret this data. Initially, everything had a god behind it but as we got more and more data we could interpret this information and give it natural causes rolling back God(s) to smaller and smaller gaps.

Now to me God has basically two forms. One is an active God who gets involved intimately in the world. The second is a God who may have "got the ball rolling" at the start but has not been involved in the world since.

The second God we can never detect and never disqualify and will need to be taken on faith forever.

The second God will need to fit into one of these gaps and already the gaps are so small that he is looking rather odd. If he poofed creatures into existence he certainly did a bad job of it as many of the designs are extremely jury rigged. Man has been here for a very short time so he has created a very big universe a very long time ago just for us.

Now Dembski, Behe etc will tell you that the data already shows the signs of a designer. But repeatably they have demonstrated that they can only do this by ignoring a lot of the data. The recent debate between Meyer etc demonstrated this where data discovered over the last 9 years has pretty much demolished any of the IDists arguments.

To me the clincher against the second type of God is that we should find some non-random attributes to what we see as being random. Does any category of human win more/less lotteries, survive cancer, miss tornadoes better than any other kind of human?

Now the current bet is that you are some kind of creationist and as I have said this can only be achieved by ignoring or misinterpreting data.

  
Cubist



Posts: 349
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2009,14:41   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,09:20)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species?
Yeah, I'd say the old guy got it right. In this context, it's worth noting that Darwin thought natural selection was "the main but not exclusive means of modification" (last sentence of the Introduction to Origin of Species); in other words, even Darwin himself explicitly acknowledged the possibility of processes at work other than natural selection, and later scientists have identified some of those other processes.
Quote
I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature...
Fine. What does that mean? How can you tell whether or not some Being X really and truly is "in some sense beyond nature"?
Quote
...acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws.
I ain't buying your don't-think-it-would-necessarily figleaf. If "this being/s" always "work(s) along with natural laws", and never "interfere(s)... with natural laws", why bother to describe it/them as "beyond nature" -- why not just say it/they is/are natural being/s that you don't happen to understand,, and be done with it?
Quote
So there wouldn’t be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations.
Do these "being/s" you speak of ever "interfere" with natural laws? If so, then yes, there is an "obstacle for arriving at generalizations".
Quote
To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (you’re beyond it)...
So in this context, you're using the word "transcend" as a synonym for "is not the same entity as"? Fine, but if so, I'd recommend that you just say "is not the same entity as", because that word "transcend" carries all sorts of extraneous connotations which can only get in the way of clearly expressing your ideas.
 
Quote
Now I wouldn’t necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source...
"wouldn't necessarily"? Again with the unconvincing figleaf!
"this supernatural source": Hmmm. "(T)his supernatural source". Before you were merely making nonspecific noises about supernatural entities as a general class, but now you say "this" supernatural entity, as if you have a particular candidate in mind. Fine: Exactly what sort of critter do you have in mind when you speak of "this supernatural source"?
 
Quote
...but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence?
As far as anybody can tell, yes. There are some unanswered questions about various of the details, but in no case is there anything which flatly cannot be accounted for by natural laws.
 
Quote
Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above)...
Hold it. "(A)s defined above"? You didn't "define" anything! You just tossed a couple of unsupported assertions in the general direction of a definition!
 
Quote
that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.
Me, I think you really need to sharpen up your thinking and clarify your ideas. I also think you need to figure out  a way to distinguish "X is beyond nature" from "X is something I don't understand" -- which, by the by, you conspicuously do not do at present.

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2009,17:03   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,15:20)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate that being brought up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?

I accept current evolutionary theory if that is what you're asking. That's more than just natural selection. You do realise that Darwin published his theory 150 years ago and science moved on a bit since then? Actually, for speciation to occur, natural selection wouldn’t even be strictly necessary. Genetic drift alone could, over time, lead to a build up of genetic and/or behavioural incompatibilities in geographically separated populations of a species that might result in reproductive isolation, i.e. they’d become two separate species. Of course, natural selection can contribute to or accelerate this process (once there is a geographical separation).
In plants, speciation frequently involves neo- or allopolyploidy (change in chromosome number), which can result in “instant speciation” (<a href="[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senecio_cambrensis" target="_blank">Example</a>).]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senecio_cambrensis]Example[/url]).[/URL] Again, no natural selection required.
Anyway.
You don’t really expect me to collect articles and books from the last 80 years or so, that describe the evidence we have for speciation? Why don’t you go look for articles about reproductive isolation or speciation at  PubMed yourself?  
   
Quote
I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws. So there wouldn’t be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations.

If it works along with "natural laws" it is indistinguishable from them. In that case, it is not necessary to invoke such a being as the natural laws on its own are sufficient to explain whatever it is you are investigating. You can assume that it is there, but you can't test for it. As far as science goes, it is a superfluous addition.
   
Quote
To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (you’re beyond it) and act as a cause to create an effect, the cell type growing faster. So you’re manipulating matter, and you are outside of the matter you’re manipulating. But of course you’re still in the realm of the physical world with physical qualities working with natural laws.

Well, I’m pretty certain that there’re some tests that would prove that I’m actually there and that it’s me putting stuff on the cells I’m working with. I’m a materialistic cause, AFAIK, and I haven’t violated any natural laws so far. So, what’s the point? No one denies that physical things can interact with other physical things.
But you say that your entity is supernatural, but not beyond nature? What does that even mean?
If it had some physical properties, we should find evidence of its existence. I wouldn’t hold my breath.
And as I said, if it is supernatural but works in accordance with "natural laws" it is indistinguishable from them.
 
Quote
Now I wouldn’t necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source, but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence? Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above) that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.

Humans are not beyond the natural, even if they build houses. That doesn’t violate any laws of physics.
“when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence”
I think that chemistry and physics are fully sufficient to explain the origin of life.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2009,19:05   

Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate you bringing that up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?

I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws

For example, we observe people building homes, cars, etc. using natural laws to create new things. People are separate or apart from the material their working on (transcendent), utilizing the laws of nature. So it seems to me that it is possible for this being/s to operate within the realm of regular discoverable rules.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1007
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2009,19:54   

Apart from the fact that you're asking the same questions you asked earlier in the day, to which there have been multiple responses, you need to look up "transcendent"  in a dictionary, find out what it means, then be specific about the sense of the word you're using.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
jswilkins



Posts: 50
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2009,19:56   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 06 2009,10:05)
I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws

For example, we observe people building homes, cars, etc. using natural laws to create new things. People are separate or apart from the material their working on (transcendent), utilizing the laws of nature. So it seems to me that it is possible for this being/s to operate within the realm of regular discoverable rules.

Your argument would therefore be:

We observe things within nature using natural law to achieve their ends

We can therefore discover natural designers and builders

The universe and its properties are posited as being due to a designer that is not constrained by natural law

THEREFORE we can discover supernatural designers

This argument was demolished by Hume in the Dialogues. A slightly less elegant debunking is this: published version incomplete online version

in which Wesley Elsberry and I point out that you cannot make inferences from "ordinary" (that is, natural) designers to "rarefied" (that is, supernatural) designers, because nothing licenses that inference.

If God works within natural laws, then it is enough to discover and explain things through natural laws. If he doesn't, then science cannot identify his actions or distinguish them from chance or lawlike causality. Either way, God cannot be investigated by science, unless he is exactly the sort of designer that we are, and he isn't, ex hypothesi.

--------------
Boldly staying where no man has stayed before.

   
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,01:45   

John,

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

  
Cubist



Posts: 349
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,02:03   

Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,01:45)
John,

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

John wasn't denying the possibility that a meddling, trickster-type god could exist; rather, he was speaking of whether or not this "god"-thingie is something us puny humans can use science to investigate.

  
Cubist



Posts: 349
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,02:19   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,19:05)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate you bringing that up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?

I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws

For example, we observe people building homes, cars, etc. using natural laws to create new things. People are separate or apart from the material their working on (transcendent), utilizing the laws of nature. So it seems to me that it is possible for this being/s to operate within the realm of regular discoverable rules.

Why are you posting a Xerox copy re-run of an earlier post? Since it is the same set of questions, even unto copy-and-paste duplication of the phrasing used, I refer you to the response I posted the first time around; I see nothing in this 'new' post which would require a separate, different, response from me now.

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 455
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,05:20   

Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 06 2009,17:03)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,01:45)
John,

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

John wasn't denying the possibility that a meddling, trickster-type god could exist; rather, he was speaking of whether or not this "god"-thingie is something us puny humans can use science to investigate.

We can study god, we are already doing it in a negative way. Over the last couple of hundred years we have knocked out a whole raft of possible gods.
If there is any positive evidence that will give us a whole raft of information about god.

  
jswilkins



Posts: 50
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,05:42   

My line is that if there is a god, we could not distinguish his actions from either lawful physical causation or noise (either brought about by ignorance, or chance, or just those anomalies we inevitably find in every science). A trickster god is just more noisy. We simply cannot find anything that we cannot explain through natural processes (including evolution) or which remain as presently unsolved problems, which every science has.

I'll be away for a few days without easy internet access.

--------------
Boldly staying where no man has stayed before.

   
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,07:32   

Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,11:20)
   
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 06 2009,17:03)
   
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,01:45)
John,

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

John wasn't denying the possibility that a meddling, trickster-type god could exist; rather, he was speaking of whether or not this "god"-thingie is something us puny humans can use science to investigate.

We can study god, we are already doing it in a negative way. Over the last couple of hundred years we have knocked out a whole raft of possible gods.
If there is any positive evidence that will give us a whole raft of information about god.

If we disprove that god created the earth 6000 years ago, we haven't disproved the existence of god and we haven't disproved that a god created the earth. We have disproved simply that it happened 6000 years ago. If we disprove a worldwide flood we haven't disproved that there's a god and we haven't proved that he can't, in principle, cause a world-wide flood. We have simply proved that a world-wide flood didn't happen.
Of course, if someone thinks that either his god created the world 6000 years ago and caused a world-wide flood or he doesn't exist, then we have disproved HIS version of god.
But that doesn't mean that we've disproved the existence of a god who, in principle, would be able to both create an earth or cause a world-wide flood. i.e. we haven't disproved the subcategory of earth-creating, flood-causing gods, we have just shown that this subcategory didn't do it at a proposed time or hasn't done it, yet.
At least, that's how I see it.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,11:09   

Quote (JLT @ Dec. 06 2009,07:32)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,11:20)
   
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 06 2009,17:03)
     
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,01:45)
John,

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

John wasn't denying the possibility that a meddling, trickster-type god could exist; rather, he was speaking of whether or not this "god"-thingie is something us puny humans can use science to investigate.

We can study god, we are already doing it in a negative way. Over the last couple of hundred years we have knocked out a whole raft of possible gods.
If there is any positive evidence that will give us a whole raft of information about god.

If we disprove that god created the earth 6000 years ago, we haven't disproved the existence of god and we haven't disproved that a god created the earth. We have disproved simply that it happened 6000 years ago. If we disprove a worldwide flood we haven't disproved that there's a god and we haven't proved that he can't, in principle, cause a world-wide flood. We have simply proved that a world-wide flood didn't happen.
Of course, if someone thinks that either his god created the world 6000 years ago and caused a world-wide flood or he doesn't exist, then we have disproved HIS version of god.
But that doesn't mean that we've disproved the existence of a god who, in principle, would be able to both create an earth or cause a world-wide flood. i.e. we haven't disproved the subcategory of earth-creating, flood-causing gods, we have just shown that this subcategory didn't do it at a proposed time or hasn't done it, yet.
At least, that's how I see it.

Which is the point of a lot of the scientist/atheist books on the subject (like Stenger) - we can disprove the actions of certain god concepts (or certain gods if you want to call it that), but there are some kinds that are immune to all investigation.  However, if you have a god who leaves no evidence, how is that different than no god at all?  Without positive evidence for such a being, why should we take such an idea seriously?  

That's the way I see it, at least.  When Inquiry is asking about this god of his (it does seem he has a specific one in mind), I'd second the call for "what evidence do you have that would ask us to consider such a being?"  As a thought experiment it's fine, but if you want to consider it as a scientific question, let's see the evidence.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,11:10   

JLT - pretty much agreeing with you, just expanding on the topic.  Eventually I'll get an edit button, but I've got a ways to go.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,14:10   

Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 06 2009,17:09)
   
Quote (JLT @ Dec. 06 2009,07:32)
     
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,11:20)
         
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 06 2009,17:03)
           
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,01:45)
John,

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

John wasn't denying the possibility that a meddling, trickster-type god could exist; rather, he was speaking of whether or not this "god"-thingie is something us puny humans can use science to investigate.

We can study god, we are already doing it in a negative way. Over the last couple of hundred years we have knocked out a whole raft of possible gods.
If there is any positive evidence that will give us a whole raft of information about god.

If we disprove that god created the earth 6000 years ago, we haven't disproved the existence of god and we haven't disproved that a god created the earth. We have disproved simply that it happened 6000 years ago. If we disprove a worldwide flood we haven't disproved that there's a god and we haven't proved that he can't, in principle, cause a world-wide flood. We have simply proved that a world-wide flood didn't happen.
Of course, if someone thinks that either his god created the world 6000 years ago and caused a world-wide flood or he doesn't exist, then we have disproved HIS version of god.
But that doesn't mean that we've disproved the existence of a god who, in principle, would be able to both create an earth or cause a world-wide flood. i.e. we haven't disproved the subcategory of earth-creating, flood-causing gods, we have just shown that this subcategory didn't do it at a proposed time or hasn't done it, yet.
At least, that's how I see it.

Which is the point of a lot of the scientist/atheist books on the subject (like Stenger) - we can disprove the actions of certain god concepts (or certain gods if you want to call it that), but there are some kinds that are immune to all investigation.  However, if you have a god who leaves no evidence, how is that different than no god at all?  Without positive evidence for such a being, why should we take such an idea seriously?  

That reminds me of this:



:)
 
Quote
That's the way I see it, at least.  When Inquiry is asking about this god of his (it does seem he has a specific one in mind), I'd second the call for "what evidence do you have that would ask us to consider such a being?"  As a thought experiment it's fine, but if you want to consider it as a scientific question, let's see the evidence.

I fully agree.
In my previous post, I just wanted to point out what's a scientifically warranted conclusions and what isn't. If it had been shown that there was a catastrophic flood some thousand years ago, I bet a lot of people would've taken that as "scientific" proof that the biblical god exist. But it would've been their personal conclusion not a scientific conclusion.
That's all.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
tsig



Posts: 320
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,15:29   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,19:05)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate you bringing that up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?

I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws

For example, we observe people building homes, cars, etc. using natural laws to create new things. People are separate or apart from the material their working on (transcendent), utilizing the laws of nature. So it seems to me that it is possible for this being/s to operate within the realm of regular discoverable rules.

So you're god is just a human with a bigger tool chest.

  
tsig



Posts: 320
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,15:36   

Quote (JLT @ Dec. 06 2009,07:32)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,11:20)
   
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 06 2009,17:03)
     
Quote (MichaelJ @ Dec. 06 2009,01:45)
John,

I might have misinterpreted your argument but I can't see why there can't be a god who is a meddler. I agree with Dembski and Behe in this. These guys are dishonest turds but say someone did find a biological structure that had NO possible evolutionary pathways? Or something less subtle such as the stars lining up and saying "Dawkins is wrong".

John wasn't denying the possibility that a meddling, trickster-type god could exist; rather, he was speaking of whether or not this "god"-thingie is something us puny humans can use science to investigate.

We can study god, we are already doing it in a negative way. Over the last couple of hundred years we have knocked out a whole raft of possible gods.
If there is any positive evidence that will give us a whole raft of information about god.

If we disprove that god created the earth 6000 years ago, we haven't disproved the existence of god and we haven't disproved that a god created the earth. We have disproved simply that it happened 6000 years ago. If we disprove a worldwide flood we haven't disproved that there's a god and we haven't proved that he can't, in principle, cause a world-wide flood. We have simply proved that a world-wide flood didn't happen.
Of course, if someone thinks that either his god created the world 6000 years ago and caused a world-wide flood or he doesn't exist, then we have disproved HIS version of god.
But that doesn't mean that we've disproved the existence of a god who, in principle, would be able to both create an earth or cause a world-wide flood. i.e. we haven't disproved the subcategory of earth-creating, flood-causing gods, we have just shown that this subcategory didn't do it at a proposed time or hasn't done it, yet.
At least, that's how I see it.

Your god seems a mite insane.

I prefer The Great Apis Bull

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,15:36   

pits to chesty!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
tsig



Posts: 320
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,15:41   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,09:20)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate that being brought up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?


I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws. So there wouldn’t be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations. To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (you’re beyond it) and act as a cause to create an effect, the cell type growing faster. So you’re manipulating matter, and you are outside of the matter you’re manipulating. But of course you’re still in the realm of the physical world with physical qualities working with natural laws.


Now I wouldn’t necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source, but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence? Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above) that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.

Why would this being give a big red rats ass about you.

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2009,19:24   

Quote (tsig @ Dec. 06 2009,15:41)
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,09:20)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate that being brought up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?


I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws. So there wouldn’t be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations. To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (you’re beyond it) and act as a cause to create an effect, the cell type growing faster. So you’re manipulating matter, and you are outside of the matter you’re manipulating. But of course you’re still in the realm of the physical world with physical qualities working with natural laws.


Now I wouldn’t necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source, but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence? Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above) that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.

Why would this being give a big red rats ass about you.

Red-assed rats?  Nah.  I'd go with "why would this being give a big red baboons ass about you."

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 230
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,00:14   

Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 06 2009,18:24)
 
Quote (tsig @ Dec. 06 2009,15:41)
 
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 05 2009,09:20)
Do you hold to Darwin’s definition of natural selection: “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call ‘natural selection.” Including the idea that this process eventually brings about a new species? I would agree that we see this within a species. So I appreciate that being brought up, I should have been more specific. If you believe that this accounts for new species coming into being can you give me the empirical evidence for that view?


I should have defined what I meant by supernatural since this can be a rather messy term. By supernatural I mean a being or beings that are in some sense beyond nature acting on nature that cause certain things to come into existence. I don’t think these entity/entities would have to be beyond nature in order to impact nature. Further I don’t think this being/s would necessarily interfere but could work along with natural laws. So there wouldn’t be an obstacle for arriving at generalizations. To use the example given of conducting an experiment on a cell, you as an individual transcend the cell (you’re beyond it) and act as a cause to create an effect, the cell type growing faster. So you’re manipulating matter, and you are outside of the matter you’re manipulating. But of course you’re still in the realm of the physical world with physical qualities working with natural laws.


Now I wouldn’t necessarily attribute all acts to this supernatural source, but when it comes to living organisms, do natural laws account for their existence? Or like the building, house, etc. does there have to be something beyond the natural (as defined above) that brings those things into existence? Whatever the nature of that thing is, is more of a philosophical question. But the probability of such a being/s within the universe is I think an important scientific question.

Why would this being give a big red rats ass about you.

Red-assed rats?  Nah.  I'd go with "why would this being give a big red baboons ass about you."

Jesus Loves Inquiry and so does Badger3000:



--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

  
RDK



Posts: 229
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,08:43   

Two creotards at one time?  Sweet Jesus Christ.

This could be one of two things:

1. A pair of Dembski's students looking to stiffen up their grade in class as finals approach ever closer.

2. Debmski wielding the power of not one, but two socks, to create the illusion that more people support ID than really do.

When all else fails, just lift up the dress (I.E., check the IP's.  That is unless you're into that kind of thing).

--------------
If you are not:
Leviathan
please Logout under Meta in the sidebar.

‘‘I was like ‘Oh my God! It’s Jesus on a banana!’’  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

  
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,08:56   

Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 05 2009,14:41)
Again with the unconvincing figleaf!
"this supernatural source": Hmmm. "(T)his supernatural source". Before you were merely making nonspecific noises about supernatural entities as a general class, but now you say "this" supernatural entity, as if you have a particular candidate in mind. Fine: Exactly what sort of critter do you have in mind when you speak of "this supernatural source"?

 
As far as anybody can tell, yes. There are some unanswered questions about various of the details, but in no case is there anything which flatly cannot be accounted for by natural laws.

I figured the entity/entities, etc. was getting redundant. The supernatural source/s I have in mind is a designer or designers that could be in the world that caused living organisms to come into existence.


Science deals with probabilities so I’m not trying to flatly account or discount anything about natural laws. What I want to address and try to answer is the probability of living organisms coming about by way of natural laws versus a designer/s.

One of those unanswered questions is how do new species originate from already existing species. Is there anything that convinces you that there is greater probability that natural laws alone are responsible for this?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10114
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,09:04   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,08:56)
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 05 2009,14:41)
Again with the unconvincing figleaf!
"this supernatural source": Hmmm. "(T)his supernatural source". Before you were merely making nonspecific noises about supernatural entities as a general class, but now you say "this" supernatural entity, as if you have a particular candidate in mind. Fine: Exactly what sort of critter do you have in mind when you speak of "this supernatural source"?

 
As far as anybody can tell, yes. There are some unanswered questions about various of the details, but in no case is there anything which flatly cannot be accounted for by natural laws.

I figured the entity/entities, etc. was getting redundant. The supernatural source/s I have in mind is a designer or designers that could be in the world that caused living organisms to come into existence.


Science deals with probabilities so I’m not trying to flatly account or discount anything about natural laws. What I want to address and try to answer is the probability of living organisms coming about by way of natural laws versus a designer/s.

One of those unanswered questions is how do new species originate from already existing species. Is there anything that convinces you that there is greater probability that natural laws alone are responsible for this?

Well, one entity we know exists and one we don't. Also, one is more fabulous than the concept we wish to explain, so it may well violate Occam's razor.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
inquiry



Posts: 17
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,09:05   

Quote (JLT @ Dec. 05 2009,17:03)
I accept current evolutionary theory if that is what you're asking. That's more than just natural selection. You do realise that Darwin published his theory 150 years ago and science moved on a bit since then? Actually, for speciation to occur, natural selection wouldn’t even be strictly necessary. Genetic drift alone could, over time, lead to a build up of genetic and/or behavioural incompatibilities in geographically separated populations of a species that might result in reproductive isolation, i.e. they’d become two separate species. Of course, natural selection can contribute to or accelerate this process (once there is a geographical separation).
In plants, speciation frequently involves neo- or allopolyploidy (change in chromosome number), which can result in “instant speciation”

I could see where this may be possible. Two populations that are isolated from one another could/would go through genetic changes as they adapt to their environment. This could possibly lead to an inability for these populations to interbreed (because of geographical and genetic separation). Also smaller populations tend to genetically drift from the original genetic traits they possessed. And there is more potential in smaller populations for random genetic events. While this is okay in theory there are no known facts to support this theory.

Granted the example of plants is an example of speciation. But this type of speciation does not result in a new species. In order for the current evolutionary theory to hold there has to be evidence that a species came to be by splitting off from previous species.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,09:15   

Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 07 2009,09:05)
But this type of speciation does not result in a new species.

Does any part of that statement seem odd to you?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2119
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2009,09:43   

The "inquiry" train is slowly coming off the rails...

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
  160 replies since Nov. 24 2009,07:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]