1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Death and Evolution

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by FearGod, Jul 11, 2017.

  1. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    46,687
    Ratings:
    +15,104
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    That is simply not at all true.

    There is a reason why you don't.

    See? Coincidences happen in nature.

    No. I refuse to condone your lies, that is all.
     
  2. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    46,687
    Ratings:
    +15,104
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    Both are natural phenomena that lead to spontaneous organization of some form or another.

    Neither is good evidence of supernaturalism, and certainly not of a supernatural intelligence.
     
  3. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    25,834
    Ratings:
    +12,591
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    Absolutely!
    Our brains are a danger both to the planet and ourselves. Without them the planet would still be an Eden.

    Our cleverness is technological. Psychologically we remain tribes of killer apes. We apply our cleverness to warfare, exploitation of out-groups and unrestrained resource extraction. We're poor at long term planning -- not a problem during the Pleistocene, but today our inability to restrain ourselves or live within the planet's carrying capacity is destroying the planet and ourselves.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  4. FearGod

    FearGod Freedom Of Mind

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    15,702
    Ratings:
    +2,054
    Religion:
    Human
    Gravity is always gravity, but life has changed from bacteria to
    what we have today, how that is comparable?
     
  5. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    46,687
    Ratings:
    +15,104
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    Gravity is an actual fundamental force of physics. It literally shapes planets and whole solar systems.

    I don't doubt that you find the diversity of lifeforms more impressive, as is indeed your prerogative. But there is no clear objective reason why anyone should find it particularly significant among the many other spontaneous forms of order arising from chaos in nature. For instance, lifeforms are objectively a lot more ephemeral than planets.

    It is entirely valid to be in awe of the possibilities of nature and even to believe in a divine will behind it all. But we all should accept that some people will have such an inclination, while others will not - and that is all right. There is no point in attempting to convince anyone that one of those two possibilities is "right" and the other "wrong".
     
  6. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,003
    Ratings:
    +3,966
    Religion:
    ?
    Doesn't refute any claim I made whatsoever:

    "one of the most complex known subcellular structures"
    Not one of the most complex known structures... SUBCELLULAR structures. Huge difference. There is also a huge difference between their eyes and our eyes. There is also a huge difference between our eyes and starfish eyes. I didn't even know starfish had eyes until I looked it up just now - one at the end of each of their arms apparently.

    "...their eyes are also relatively simple and because they lack a brain, it's been difficult to figure out how or even if they could see. But new research suggests that the eyes of sea stars—the term scientists prefer, as the invertebrates aren't actually fish—can form rough images..."

    So, let's say you're God, and you don't want all of the starfish you created getting lost all the time, so you think "I've got it! I'l give them eyes!" Why do you give them a lowly version of an eye that can only "form rough images?" You've already got plans in the works, or have already created much more complex systems for sight and gathering visual input from surroundings... why short-change the starfish? Do you think God would consciously make the decision that the starfish needn't see any better than this? Or does it make more sense that the form of eye that a starfish has is likely just the only thing it ended up needing (so far) on its trek through the evolutionary spectrum, and that it reached a stable ecosystemic configuration even with the rough-image eye, and therefore further evolution of the eye hasn't ended up being necessary?

    I know what you'll say... that God, in His infinite wisdom, knew exactly what the starfish needed to be, because He created everything in the ecosystems anyway. Which is a terribly poor explanation, if I am being honest. Why did God bother to "fine-tune" the ecosystems at some moment in the distant past when changes would doubtless occur and adaptations would be necessary? Basically, even if He created the system with the ability to evolve and change (which it DOES, let's not kid ourselves here - Dodos, for example, used to exist, and they became extinct of their own accord, leaving a hole in their ecosystem that other animals filled or adapted into) it means that the system EVOLVES and changes - and has done so, ever since that first moment of creation when things were, apparently "fine-tuned." We see evidence all the time of existing creatures becoming too prolific, or not prolific enough, and the resulting tumult that TEMPORARILY occurs within the ecosystem. Then the system rectifies itself - without God. He either created it with the ability to evolve and adapt, or He isn't there. Choose one.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  7. Guy Threepwood

    Guy Threepwood Mighty Pirate

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    6,518
    Ratings:
    +1,709
    Religion:
    Non atheist
    I think there is a good comparison; Darwinism simply followed the intuitive logic of classical physics- In the Victorian age a handful of simple rules + lots of time and space were enough to account for all physical reality.

    Concepts of deeper hidden information, instructions guiding the development of the physical world, were still considered 'religious pseudoscience' It was a a bit of a trauma for some to accept that the nice simple model was fundamentally inadequate to explain physics, and for life- it's still literally intolerable for many
     
  8. FearGod

    FearGod Freedom Of Mind

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    15,702
    Ratings:
    +2,054
    Religion:
    Human
    Still I can't see any comparison between life and death and your analogy for gravity.

    Gravity is always there, but my point about death that it's made for a purpose,
    ending life and reproduction is made for earth to survive, it's a work of intelligence.
     
  9. Guy Threepwood

    Guy Threepwood Mighty Pirate

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    6,518
    Ratings:
    +1,709
    Religion:
    Non atheist
    I agree, in many ways subcellular structures are more complex than cellular, just like subatomic physics is more complex than classical, and the code behind this forum software is more complex than it's functional result, right?

    All are examples of nested hierarchical information systems.


    neither did I, every day is a school day!

    It's a good question, but not a conclusion- e.g. meteors, volcanoes, earthquakes were once touted as God refuting examples of 'bad design' until we understood the crucial role they play in supporting life on Earth.

    So I can only guess at his rationale- which would be that yes, the starfish doesn't need better eyes to be a starfish-
    but we need better eyes to appreciate their beauty
    [​IMG]




    If we are defining evolution as change in the makup and distribution of life on Earth over time, then we agree. So does the empirical science, and so does Genesis- including animal life appearing first in the ocean, and culminating with mankind.. this suggests nothing about the design of a single cell morphing into a human being through millions of lucky mistakes

    Animals come with a predetermined capacity for adaptation, of course they do, just as this software allows us to tweak the color, size, and shape of the text.

    But as tempting as the extrapolation may be, this specific capacity for variation, can never be used to create the very system that supports that capacity! i.e. it's not just a matter of scale but a paradox inherent to nested information systems.

    in other words: adaptation is a specific design feature, one which is practically essential to any sophisticated functional design, not a comprehensive design method
     
  10. LuisDantas

    LuisDantas Aura of atheification
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    46,687
    Ratings:
    +15,104
    Religion:
    Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding.
    Natural phenomena are what they are. Life is not "planned" any more than gravity is, at least as far as actual evidence goes.

    I guess you believe in that. But you have not made a case for it.
     
  11. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,003
    Ratings:
    +3,966
    Religion:
    ?
    Except that the fundamental level of activity of the universe has been proven to support just this sort of adaptation. From this thread:

    Science of Abiogenesis

    "In 2009, in a landmark achievement, RNA that can self replicate without the need of any proteins or enzymes was evolved in the lab for the first time"

    Now - this is nothing more than a series of chemical compounds that have just the right properties such that, given the raw materials necessary they can form a "copies" of themselves. They automatically goes about the business of zipping themselves up alongside similar strands of elements, one forming a replicated compound of the other, and once these compounds reach stability, they separate into compound strings that can go on to do the exact same thing again. Again, this is at the fundamental levels of atomic attraction and interaction - no hand needed to move things along.

    "To make the process proceed indefinitely requires only a small starting amount of the two enzymes and a steady supply of the subunits."

    And the kicker:

    "Most of the time the replicating enzymes would breed true, but on occasion an enzyme would make a mistake by binding one of the subunits from one of the other replicating enzymes. When such "mutations" occurred, the resulting recombinant enzymes also were capable of sustained replication, with the most fit replicators growing in number to dominate the mixture."


    In other words, insane amounts of work automatically occurs in an extremely life-like (though not what we term "alive", obviously) manner, within a realm of nothing more than chemical compounds. I don't pretend that this proves anything more than what it proves - that the base level activities of the universe are sorely taken for granted. You might go on and say that certain "leaps" are "impossible" without some intervening intelligence, and that because scientists can't reproduce or figure out certain aspects of "life" it must mean that something larger is at play. But we don't need to consider the "leap" from no eye (or "half eye") to the human eye - all we need to envision is an incredibly long series of bunny-hops, occurring over amounts of time so vast we humans admittedly have a hard time grasping the enormity of that amount of time.

    And you believers give scientists way too much credit if you think it should be some "easy" task to reproduce something as complicated as life in a lab. I can only imagine that most people look around at the technology available in modern times and take for granted that scientists should be able to accomplish anything that is possible to accomplish using "science", and if they can't accomplish it... well then it must be God who instantiated that part, right? One thing I always like to point out... current technology can't even replicate the flavor of a banana - let alone the banana itself. And you expect them to churn out macro-evolved creatures and imbue non-living matter with life.

    Saying anything we see in nature is definitively impossible for natural processes to have accomplished alone is as insane an idea to me as it probably is for me to say "God had no hand in it" to you. Except that on my side I have, as evidence, the fact that nature and the base elements of this universe are constantly doing extraordinary things with God nowhere to be found in it. You, on the other hand, insist that something called "God" is involved, when that thing leaves ABSOLUTELY NO TRACE of its existence or involvement.
     
  12. osgart

    osgart Nothing my eye, Something for sure

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    3,997
    Ratings:
    +1,715
    poorly planned purposefulness , agency of creation are self evident to me. there's logic to the way creatures exist. there is a force of intelligent effort to survive out there. I don't see how anyone can get around this.

    wings to air, fins to water, feet to land. all of it implies a logical intelligent method.

    I am in no way supporting a God to exist, merely an intelligent force that designs things poorly, and makes the best of what's around to create life.

    eyes are for seeing, they don't mindlessly exist. anyone who doesn't see that has blinded themselves to simple evidential observance.
     
  13. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,003
    Ratings:
    +3,966
    Religion:
    ?
    You've stated nothing but supposition, and have done so in a way that I feel betrays that you do not understand evolution in the slightest. You may think you do, but you don't. You wouldn't make such claims if you did. You simply wouldn't, because you would understand how foolish they sound as refutations of evolution.
     
  14. Guy Threepwood

    Guy Threepwood Mighty Pirate

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    6,518
    Ratings:
    +1,709
    Religion:
    Non atheist
    My original point was irreducible complexity though, how do you get that first bunny hop by pure fluke- your example would be a pretty huge hop you have to admit!


    Thanks for the thoughtful responses I appreciate them- certainly a lot more than one line dismissals as often seen here!

    As I touched on before, yes the development of life is a continuation of the development of the chemistry and physics that supports it.

    And so I agree with Darwin's original premise, that we might logically expect life to develop by a similar mechanism where chemistry and physics left off - only we understand that mechanism to be fundamentally different today.

    Before quantum mechanics, the idea of deeper, hidden, mysterious forces, guiding physics and chemistry towards specific functional results- was considered supernatural nonsense from the materialist perspective. And so similarly some did not like what THEY perceived as theistic implications of fine tuning- same went for the Big Bang for many

    My point being; refuting Darwinism does not mean being forced to accept God- the implications should not cloud the science either way, and that conclusion should be, as always, a matter of faith.

    I'm not that definitive about anything, as above I acknowledge my beliefs, faith as such. But what you propose does present a unique paradox- that all the laws of nature are ultimately accounted for by... those very same laws.

    Through QM etc we know that the theoretical question comes down to information, since even solid matter can be ultimately reduced to it

    I am arguing from the affirmative, not gaps- I'm proposing a 100% known and proven phenomena capable of creating such digital hierarchical information systems: Intelligent design, and you are using unambiguous proof of that right now.

    Whether or not the same can be created by purely unguided mechanisms? I can't say it's technically impossible, but we have no such similar proof of principle.

    But that's just the theory, the math, we also have the physical evidence and direct experimentation to consider... I think it all points to life merely developing where physcsi left off, according to very detailed and specific instructions at the quantum level
     
  15. shawn001

    shawn001 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    3,750
    Ratings:
    +471
    "according to ToE, a fully functional eye can spontaneously materialize by pure chance"

    This is utter nonsense.


    "Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye's evolution--what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.)"

    15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

    150 years after Darwin wrote his book, not a single counterexample of evolution has ever been found, but creationists keep on trying anyway, while science just keeps confirming it.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,003
    Ratings:
    +3,966
    Religion:
    ?
    However, wouldn't many people - those who came before those lab experiments I cited in my previous post - have said that RNA was "irreducibly" complex as a standalone molecule? Basically stating that it would be impossible for such a long-strand molecule to have come about of its own accord? Very likely yes. The point being, you don't know whether something is "irreducibly complex" until you do. You can, of course, throw your hands up saying "Gah! I just can't understand how it could have come about without an intelligence behind it!", but that still doesn't mean you KNOW.

    This overlooks something incredibly obvious, and something you have already called to in your own defense - irreducibility. At some level, NO MATTER WHAT COMPRISES REALITY, things simply are as they are, and have to be accepted as such. At some level there IS NO "WHY" to be answered in any meaningful sense. Because there is a reality to experience at all, it has to have some fundamental rules/bindings/workings. Why not those that we see in front of us? Especially considering that is all we can see?

    Positing an intelligence behind it all only adds another layer on top of that... one that also has to have some BASIS to its reality... some level at which nothing can be further reduced - a level at which things simply are the way they are, with no need for further explanation... and no need for guessing at directorial intelligence.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. shawn001

    shawn001 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    3,750
    Ratings:
    +471
    " irreducible complexity" is a term from the Creation Institute, (you know the ones that lied) and it has been proven totally false.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  18. shawn001

    shawn001 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    3,750
    Ratings:
    +471
    Michael Behe gets schooled on irreducible complexity


     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Boris56

    Boris56 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2011
    Messages:
    42
    Ratings:
    +6
    You don't have to imagine that. Planet Claire has pink air and the sky is red. No one ever dies there, no one has a head.
     
  20. Guy Threepwood

    Guy Threepwood Mighty Pirate

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    6,518
    Ratings:
    +1,709
    Religion:
    Non atheist
    As in the above discussion you may not have read, the simplest biological structure which collects, detects, produces and sends electrical/chemical information where it is processed to provoke an advantageous physical response.. is not an 'incomplete eye', it's a fully functional, fully integrated, highly complex eye- in ways Darwin could never have appreciated in the Victorian pre DNA pre-quantum age.

    Achieving this in one go by blind luck, if you excuse the expression, is mathematically problematic, and certainly not something we can replicate, observe, measure, record, repeat...

    for those of us who are sticklers for that sort of thing!
     
    #100 Guy Threepwood, Jul 12, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
Loading...