Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Dingdongs

Creationism or Evolution?

Recommended Posts

Eutyphro

This has nothing to do with what we don't know and entirely to do with what we do know based off observation. We know nature doesn't create complex machines with unified purposes, through observation nature tends to create chaos and disorder.

 

A complex mechanism that has purpose is the product of design, a computer for example is a machine composed of several parts which as a whole works together for a unified purpose which is to process information. Nature could never build a computer no matter how much time given nor an infinite amount of materials needed to do so because it simply lacks the capability to do so.

 

We know that it does make complex machines.. In fact, you are one. Your brain is 'a complex machine' consisting of 'several parts which as a whole work together for a unified purpose'. It evolved through natural selection out of lower species. If you believe otherwise, go publish a scientific paper on how the evolution of humans out of lower species can only be understood through divine intervention, and see what the scientific community thinks of it.

This explains nothing.. why would several invisible laws even come into existence in the first place out of nothing?

 

Can only be explained through divine intervention right? Still waiting for your scientific paper on 'eternal causes' that will completely rid us of this problem.

 

Alter the strength of the weak or strong nuclear force just a fraction and physical matter is incapable of existence. So many laws of physics are in place and working in coordination simply to allow for existence. It is widely agreed upon that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of matter and life.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

 

Sure I suppose if the only idea of god you're capable of imagining is the christian god portrayed on family guy then I could understand but personally I would have a hard time imagining god being anything like in human form, the mental image that comes to mind is something more.. abstract (not sure if that'd be the right word) along the lines of being non-physical. Something that exists outside time and the enormous universe is just some kind of project to it and life is just something that exists to appreciate it. Of course all this is unprovable I just think the view of god being some bearded man in the atmosphere is a very limited understanding of what many see it as.

 

So the universe is 'finetuned for' those things currently existing in the universe 'to exist'. Apart from your implication that such 'finetuning' has been done by divine intervention, which I doubt most physicists agree on, this is not entirely unsurprising. It's actually even pretty self evident. Yes, the laws of physics are in accordance with the existence of life, otherwise it wouldn't exist right? Mindblowing stuff.

 

Furthermore: "the enormous universe is just some kind of project to it (god) and life is just something that exists to appreciate it".. Can't you see how silly and laughable it is to imagine god as some egocentrical high school kid who creates a science project for it to 'appreciate' him. Makes me think of a South Park episode called 'Simpson Already Did It' where Cartman does such a thing..

 

 

It makes sense for you as in, you can't handle uncertainty, so you imagine things ('explanations'), which are not explanations but delusions. That understanding how everything came out of nothing is beyond human cognitive capacities.

 

 

This is ridiculous lol if anything atheism is a minority among the world even still well into the 21st century. Of course majority belief doesn't automatically equate truth but trying to say everything came from absolutely nothing- you're not going beyond humans cognitive capacities, you're simply breaking logic and claiming the illogical as logical.

 

We can argue about the origins of the popularity of religion, but it is pretty off topic. Apart from that, you are purposefully misquoting me and beind disingenuous to defend your irrationality. What I said was "I'm open to the possibility though, that understanding how everything came out of nothing is beyond human cognitive capacities."

I'm open to the possibility that human cognitive capacities can't grasp how everything came out of nothing. You interpreted me as saying the opposite, by purposefully misquoting me.

 

You claim this makes us understand 'how', as in, 'the first cause explanation'. But as has been pointed out, then the question remains how the first cause was caused etc ad infinitum. You respond calling it 'an eternal cause', which is a nonsensical expression

 

How is that nonsensical? Something that exists outside time and is eternal would not require an initial cause because it had no beginning.

I explained it, but you didn't quote that part: "Causality and time are cognitive categories of human beings. Why would categories like causality or time be meaningful beyond our physical/perceivable/empirical universe (our 'scientifically studiable universe')? How do you know categories like time and causality have meaning beyond the universe as accessible to human empirical science? You don't, which makes your metaphysical claims meaningless nonsensical speculation, and ockham's razor aplies, so they should be thrown in the bin."

 

Luckily though, you are explaining it once more yourself through the expression "that exists outside of time and is eternal". If it exists outside of time, then how the hell can it be eternal? If it is eternal, then it is inside of time forever.. right? What I propose is we cut all this stupid metaphysical crap, and leave it to theoretical physics. Humanity has been increasingly aware since empirical science became advanced in the 17th century (the Enlightenment) that we should throw this metaphysical nonsense in the garbage, and replace it with empirical science. Actually, people became aware of it before that.. Francis Bacon did, as an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Which explanation, the one of something coming from nothing?

The only people who ever purport that something came from nothing(ness) are creationists. Why must you insist on repeating this dreck?

 

You are completely misrepresenting what I'm saying..

No I'm not. It's logically impossible to believe in a transcendent creator without that creator breaking the very tenets that his existence was imagined to answer. An infinite being existing outside of time, even if that weren't a fundamental contradiction, would still be an uncreated creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith
We know that it does make complex machines.. In fact, you are one. Your brain is 'a complex machine' consisting of 'several parts which as a whole work together for a unified purpose'. It evolved through natural selection out of lower species.

 

 

Then prove it. Show me that nature can take a bunch of matter and assemble into a working, self sustaining machine.

 

 

Yes, the laws of physics are in accordance with the existence of life, otherwise it wouldn't exist right? Mindblowing stuff.

 

Just last page TChuck said "What you believe is irrelevant when it comes to fact. There's no indication that physics have been "dimed in"."

 

Just wanted to show him otherwise.

 

Furthermore: "the enormous universe is just some kind of project to it (god) and life is just something that exists to appreciate it".. Can't you see how silly and laughable it is to imagine god as some egocentrical high school kid who creates a science project for it to 'appreciate' him.

 

If you have the inability to view god as something more than a child then sure. Is it laughable for Rockstar to take credit for their work with GTA and their other virtual universes they've created?

 

 

Why would categories like causality or time be meaningful beyond our physical/perceivable/empirical universe (our 'scientifically studiable universe')?

 

Why couldn't they?

 

If it exists outside of time, then how the hell can it be eternal?

 

 

 

 

Eternal as in having no beginning or end. It isn't affected by time as we experience it.

 

Humanity has been increasingly aware since empirical science became advanced in the 17th century (the Enlightenment) that we should throw this metaphysical nonsense in the garbage, and replace it with empirical science.

 

 

As if science is the end all answer to everything? I do hope you realize how limited science really actually is.. it is a tool for understanding the universe and nothing more.

 

 

 

The only people who ever purport that something came from nothing(ness) are creationists.

 

Okay then what's your explanation for the cause of the big bang?

 

 

..would still be an uncreated creator.

 

 

Why is this an issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Then prove it. Show me that nature can take a bunch of matter and assemble into a working, self sustaining machine.

Straw man fallacy. No-one is making that assertion and, to be quite frank, you'd have to be terminally stupid to think they are. Machines, for all the reasons I've explained and you've completely ignored because you're pathologically incapable of acknowledging any response which claims you're factually wrong, do not exist in the natural world.

 

Okay then what's your explanation for the cause of the big bang?

Why is this even vaguely relevant? No-one is asserting nothing existed before the big bang so the whole thing is just crap comprehension on your part. The basic laws of physics dictate matter cannot come from nothing so why on earth would you believe that rational people thought that the universe did?

 

Why is this an issue?

Because the logic of believing in an uncreated creator directly contradicts the notion that all complexity must be the work of creation. I have no idea why you find this incredibly simple notion so hard to understand; it's one of the most basic and well-documented rebuttals of creationism in human history.

 

You basically create the fictitious maxim "nothing can exist without a creator" and then suggest that the creator existed without being created, which is utterly illogical no matter how you spin it. If your mysterious creator can exist without being created there is absolutely no logical reason for a creator to exist at all as it clearly serves no purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

What I'd like to point out first is that we are falling into repitition, and I'm not going to repeat all the things already said by me and others, which you are ignoring. I'm going to make some more general comments to stop this continuing into the repitition this has fallen into.

"Show me that nature can create a self sustaining machine"

Seems like a topic for a professor to write a series of books about. Something that probably applies to all in this topic: we're laymen in these subjects, who depend on and trust scientific consensus and authority (except for Smith, who thinks we should replace it with medieval metaphysics). Asking me to explain how the first single organism arose out of matter is like asking me to rebuild a car after someone has seperated every part of it. I have a layman grasp of evolution, just like I have a layman grasp of how cars work. It is something I have a common sense grasp of, but I'm not a genius able to explain the theoretical physics of the origin of the universe and the chemistry/biology of the origin of the first life on earth, and I'm not able to rebuild a Volkswagen Beetle after it is deconstructed, but here an answer to what you are asking for in an article in Nature, in spoilers:

 

Insight into the descent of life has come from molecular palaeontology51. The 'standard model' of microbial descent52, 53 is based on small-subunit ribosomal RNA. One hypothesis54, 55 is of an early population of replicating organisms of uncomplicated design, possessing simple modular structures and functions, and mutually exchanging genes — the 'universal ancestor' was not one cell but a community sharing information. As evolution selected proteins to become more specific and efficient, genes became less exchangeable and divergence crystallized. From this 'universal ancestor' the 'standard' view51, 56 is that the two domains Bacteria and Archaea arose, and that later on, further along the 'universal phylogenetic tree', symbiosis produced the domain Eucarya57, 58.

The standard view52 clearly implies (but does not prove) that in the early microbial community in which the last common ancestor lived, life was hot and chemotrophic59 — the 'hyperthermophile Eden' hypothesis — although evidence for a hyperthermophile ancestry has been challenged60. Several geological settings could have hosted the Eden community. It could have lived in a brief (up to 1 million years) period of hot (approx100 °C) ocean after a major meteor impact, or possibly could have existed in a hydrothermal system (see Box 2). In the transient hot-ocean case, hydrothermal systems would have offered protective settings even after the ocean cooled.
An alternate version (the 'hyperthermophile Noah' hypothesis) is that the universal ancestor was not necessarily hyperthermophile, but diversified from an unknown Eden into an early population that included some hyperthermophiles near hydrothermal systems. During the earliest Archaean, it would have been likely that a major meteorite impact capable of heating the ocean to 100 °C would have hit the earliest community61, 62. Only hyperthermophiles could survive an impact catastrophe — the 'impact bottleneck'63. Perhaps two by-then-distinct lineages of descendants survived the bottleneck, one to lead to the bacteria and the other to the archaea. The 'Noah' was the last common pre-impact ancestor of those organisms that survived, except possibly some viruses64. Since then, the rainbow has shone over cool waters.
A third alternative is that the earliest evolution took place on Mars. There is no consensus whether life exists, or ever existed, on Mars, but early Mars, with then-vigorous volcanism, may have been a kinder, gentler habitat than Earth62. Large impacts would have occurred here too, but there was no deep ocean which could be vaporized to maintain a global steambath. Major impacts would have ejected many fragments from the surface of Mars, some of which would have landed on Earth. If Mars did have life, possibly one or more cells survived impact on Mars, ejection, freezing in space, and transfer to and landing on Earth, where the cell line then survived later ocean-heating bottlenecks associated with impacts. Gene transfer is potential signal rather than noise as parts of the tree on the same planet would exchange with each other. A tenable 'martian' explanation of the origin of the Eucarya is that the ancestral eukaryote was a later, second martian transfer. In this hypothesis, the ancestors of the eukaryote stem cell continued to evolve on Mars, after the time the ancestor of the archaea and bacteria had been ejected to Earth. If a cell from this line were later ejected to Earth, the newly arrived distant cousin could have hosted a symbiotic union with the bacteria.
Both the notional 'hyperthermophile Eden' and 'Noah' last common ancestors discussed here must have been DNA-based and chemically sophisticated, possessing many of the basic housekeeping proteins. But these might not have been the original replicating organisms. The variety of suggestions about the setting of the origin of life is wide and unconstrained, beyond the scope of this review. Where was Eden? Possible birthplaces and first habitats range from ancestry in an aerosol, to a cold pond under a glacier, to a small, warm pond near a hydrothermal system65, and many other alternatives.
The notion of a universal phylogenetic tree that crystallized into distinct branches has been criticized53, 66 on the grounds that lateral gene transfer between contemporaneous organisms may have been on a much wider scale than is implied by a tree. There is clear evidence today for lateral transfers of genetic information. However, such transfers between widely separated organisms would rarely be advantageous: for example, gaining information about photosynthesis would be of little use to a bacterium that lived deep in mud. Perhaps a better model is not a tree, even a mangrove, but a braided stream delta, with much cross-over, yet still clearly defined flows from the main distributaries. A closer analogy is the origin of languages: there are many parallels between the evolution of eukaryotes and the chimaera that amalgamated a Saxon root with French, Latin and Greek implants, and added doses of Arabic to Zulu, to make English.
Molecular phylogeny can be calibrated by reference to the geological record29, 67. To summarize, given the scale of the early bombardment, it is unlikely that Earth could have been a permanent habitation before about 4.2 or even 4.0 Gyr or less61. If the evidence from the Isua belt34 does indeed record life, and the age is interpreted correctly, then life is perhaps up to 3.8 Gyr old, or more; moreover, this life possibly existed by anoxygenic photosynthesis, implying that considerable speciation had taken place by then. The last common ancestor would have existed long before that. By about 3.5 Gyr the Rubisco signature necessarily implies global oxygenic photosynthesis32 and the evolution of cyanobacteria. Ancestral eukaryotes appear to predate 2.7 Gyr (refs 48, 49).



Is not something, I can as of yet truly grasp ( I can grasp it in a general sense, but not the actual vastly complex science behind these narratives).. But then again, you completely grasp it, understand it is insufficient, and are able to perfect it by adding the type of metaphysical speculation that has been discredited since the 16th century right? I may be an insufficient scientist.., but as a philosopher I'm capable enough to refute such nonsense, and I have in previous comments.

If you have the inability to view god as something more than a child then sure. Is it laughable for Rockstar to take credit for their work with GTA and their other virtual universes they've created?

Rockstar, consists of human beings.. Making an analogy between R* and god shows that you see god as some anthropomorphic entity, which I think is ridiculous, but if that is what you want to believe then you are free to do so. You might be percieving me as the type of combative atheist idiot that you have plenty of, who wants to destroy all religion through science but I'm not.. I'm pretty much an agnost. I actually sympathize with the sentiment that existence is bizarre and perplexing.. I share this sentiment, and I share the opinion that science and human knowledge is limited. What I am opposed to however, is when people out of this sentiment start speculating metaphysical nonsense and turn it into knowledge claims. If you call it spirituality or faith, your experience of life, then that's fine. I'm not a scientific fundamentalist who thinks every human value or opinion should be based on empirical science.. That's bizarre and stupid.

As a reply to both you and sivispacem, yes I did argue that organisms as far as we understand them can be considered 'machines' (entities governed by scientific laws), and yes, I did also say multiple times, "I'm open to the possibility though, that understanding how everything came out of nothing is beyond human cognitive capacities." I'll elaborate on that: under 'everything', I consider all those entities studiable by empirical science (earlier referred to by me as the 'scientifically studiable universe'). I think it is possibly beyond human cognitive grasp to understand why those entities we can study and understand through our cognitive capacities, why those enties exist at all in the first place, and why there isn't just nothing. Why is there something and not nothing? Maybe 'something', 'nothing', 'cause', and 'time' are axioms of human nature, that relate to reality beyond our nature, just like the experience of a deaf person of sound as vibration relates to the experience of actual human hearing. And that's a metaphor to help elaborate my point, and not an absolute qualification.

Finally, it is interesting how continuously you ignore requests for elaborating on your metaphysical perspectives and how they replace/refute/complete modern science, but still continuously ask others to explain the theoretical physics behind the beginning of the universe and the chemistry, paleontology and biology behind the beginning of life.. Why is the burden of proof on those who believe in scientific authority? The burden of proof is on the religious zealots and metaphysicians who turn their nonsense into knowledge claims.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith
Straw man fallacy. No-one is making that assertion and, to be quite frank, you'd have to be terminally stupid to think they are. Machines, for all the reasons I've explained and you've completely ignored because you're pathologically incapable of acknowledging any response which claims you're factually wrong, do not exist in the natural world.

 

 

Your only defense is in semantics.. cells are beyond the engineering level of man made machines, there's no proof that nature can piece together a cell no matter how much material given.

 

Why is this even vaguely relevant? No-one is asserting nothing existed before the big bang so the whole thing is just crap comprehension on your part.

 

 

Because you claimed to have an explanation to the big bang, it's relevant because I'm asking you to explain it..

 

The basic laws of physics dictate matter cannot come from nothing so why on earth would you believe that rational people thought that the universe did?

 

 

Because people are stupid.. if I looked back far enough through this topic I could find your brigade telling me something can come from nothing as they cited Lawrence Krauss.

 

 

Because the logic of believing in an uncreated creator directly contradicts the notion that all complexity must be the work of creation. I have no idea why you find this incredibly simple notion so hard to understand;

 

 

Because you're repeatably misrepresenting what I'm saying, complexity alone is not evidence of intention, it requires purpose. This isn't hard to understand. Snowflakes are complex, but they do not have a specified purpose, a snowflake is not the result of intentional creation. A master cylinder is complex and also has a specified purpose of working the brakes, it is the product of intelligent design.

 

 

You basically create the fictitious maxim "nothing can exist without a creator"

 

 

Absolute nothingness cannot exist, therefore something in existence is eternal.

 

If your mysterious creator can exist without being created there is absolutely no logical reason for a creator to exist at all as it clearly serves no purpose.

 

 

How does a ultimate cause for existence serve no purpose? Unless you want to claim matter can spontaneously come out of thin air then Something in existence must be eternal, being the universe shows to be finite something outside the universe must be eternal. By all means it definitely serves a purpose.

 

 

Seems like a topic for a professor to write a series of books about. Something that probably applies to all in this topic: we're laymen in these subjects, who depend on and trust scientific consensus and authority (except for Smith, who thinks we should replace it with medieval metaphysics). Asking me to explain how the first single organism arose out of matter is like asking me to rebuild a car after someone has seperated every part of it. I have a layman grasp of evolution, just like I have a layman grasp of how cars work. It is something I have a common sense grasp of, but I'm not a genius able to explain the theoretical physics of the origin of the universe and the chemistry/biology of the origin of the first life on earth, and I'm not able to rebuild a Volkswagen Beetle after it is deconstructed, but here an answer to what you are asking for in an article in Nature, in spoilers:

 

 

So basically you don't understand an unproven theory therefore you blindly believe whatever a man in a big white coat told you despite whether or not it makes sense to you? How is this any different than blindly following the priests of the medieval days?

 

 

 

Rockstar, consists of human beings.. Making an analogy between R* and god shows that you see god as some antropomorphic entity, which I think is ridiculous, but if that is what you want to believe then you are free to do so.

LOL I'll try to spell it out for you.. The analogy between R* and a creator shares a common ground of intelligence and design and nothing to do with putting god into a human body.

 

 

Finally, it is interesting how continuously you ignore requests for elaborating on your metaphysical perspectives and how they replace/refute/complete modern science, but still continuously ask others to explain the theoretical physics behind the beginning of the universe and the chemistry, paleontology and biology behind the beginning of life..

 

 

My views don't replace modern science.. belief in intentional creation has no issues with evolution.. my issues with evolution are irrelevant to whether or not the universe was created. I simply have many doubts about macroevolution because I see the mechanisms don't explain what it claims, but that's secondary to the point.

 

 

Why is the burden of proof on those who believe in scientific authority? The burden of proof is on the religious zealots and metaphysicians who turn their nonsense into knowledge claims.

 

 

Because I understand that discussion of the metaphysical is simply beyond the grasp of science and can only be applied to logic alone therefore won't try to claim it as undeniable fact. People who are claiming things as facts which dispute what I say should by all means present the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

The analogy between R* and a creator shares a common ground of intelligence and design and nothing to do with putting god into a human body.

 

'Intelligence' and 'design', which are anthropomorphisms, 'Wanting appreciation', another anthropomorphism you used. You are probably subconsciously projecting yourself on your metaphysical entity...

 

Why is the burden of proof on those who believe in scientific authority? The burden of proof is on the religious zealots and metaphysicians who turn their nonsense into knowledge claims.

 

So basically you don't understand an unproven theory therefore you blindly believe whatever a man in a big white coat told you despite whether or not it makes sense to you? How is this any different than blindly following the priests of the medieval days? [...]

My views don't replace modern science.. belief in intentional creation has no issues with evolution.. my issues with evolution are irrelevant to whether or not the universe was created. I simply have many doubts about macroevolution because I see the mechanisms don't explain what it claims, but that's secondary to the point. [...]

Because I understand that discussion of the metaphysical is simply beyond the grasp of science and can only be applied to logic alone therefore won't try to claim it as undeniable fact. People who are claiming things as facts which dispute what I say should by all means present the evidence.

 

Because off course you have a perfect grasp of the paleontology, chemistry, biology and physics needed for grasping the scientific theories on how the first life arose out of inanimate matter? You have a perfect grasp of the vastly complex theoretical physics which hypothesize about the origin of the big bang? And you have consistently displayed these skill and used it as a foundation to build your theories of metaphysical rubbish on right..? No you haven't.. You've based them on thin air, and it is in thin air in which they dissolve.

Disputing metaphysical claims made up of thin air is like disputing the existence of the flying spaghetti monster... You are sending us on the most useless and stupid endeavor imaginable.

"Because I understand that discussion of the metaphysical is simply beyond the grasp of science and can only be applied to logic alone therefore won't try to claim it as undeniable fact."

For the last time... Logic is a human cognitive category. It is a cognitive tool, but it is itself not able to postulate the existence of anything. You are like a medieval christian aristotelian theologian... Postulating an anthropomorphic entity who 'needs appreciation', who has 'intelligence' and who 'designs', has nothing to do with logic whatsoever, and anyone actually studying logic or maths will laugh in your face if you think it does. Aristotle's unmoved mover has been thrown in the garbage since we have empirical science. You are subconsciously projecting yourself on an entity which you think is grounded in 'logic', but is actually grounded in superstition and delusion.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Your only defense is in semantics.. cells are beyond the engineering level of man made machines, there's no proof that nature can piece together a cell no matter how much material given.

 

Wrong. We have artificial cells. Also wrong. We exist. Nature made us. We're proof of it. Or were YOU designed and built by god inside your mother's womb?

 

Because you claimed to have an explanation to the big bang, it's relevant because I'm asking you to explain it..

 

But you're not interested in explanation. Whenever someone explains something to you, you just ignore it and twist it.

 

Because people are stupid.. if I looked back far enough through this topic I could find your brigade telling me something can come from nothing as they cited Lawrence Krauss.

 

Oh the irony. Brigade. Lol. Shows your bias once again. Go back and quote people who said something can come from nothing.

 

Because you're repeatably misrepresenting what I'm saying, complexity alone is not evidence of intention, it requires purpose. This isn't hard to understand. Snowflakes are complex, but they do not have a specified purpose, a snowflake is not the result of intentional creation. A master cylinder is complex and also has a specified purpose of working the brakes, it is the product of intelligent design.

 

It really isn't hard to understand. You are comparing something that was created by nature with something that was created by a human. One is a natural process, one is the device of the human intelligence. The natural world has no need for a "master cylinder", thus you won't find it naturally. There's no natural process that generate it, thus you won't find it in nature. Nothing has an inherent purpose. Nothing. Humans don't, dogs don't. I explained that to you, but you ignored it. We, humans, meaning-making machines, give purpose to things.

 

Absolute nothingness cannot exist, therefore something in existence is eternal.

 

That's a retarded logic. Eternal implies time. If something exists outside time, it isn't eternal, it's something else, which you can't explain because it doesn't exist.

 

How does a ultimate cause for existence serve no purpose? Unless you want to claim matter can spontaneously come out of thin air then Something in existence must be eternal, being the universe shows to be finite something outside the universe must be eternal. By all means it definitely serves a purpose.

 

That's not how logic works. Or science. Or any kind of intelligent thought. It's akin to a child thinking that the rain is god crying because he did something bad. There's no ultimate cause for existence. No-one is claiming matter can spontaneously come from out of thin air. Transformative processes exist, living matter can change over time, going deep down into the very molecular level you find everything is made of the same building blocks. We are all the same matter. But when organized differently, it gives different results. Take LEGO. They are made of simple building blocks, but the constructions you can make, depending on the organization, are vastly different.

 

So basically you don't understand an unproven theory therefore you blindly believe whatever a man in a big white coat told you despite whether or not it makes sense to you? How is this any different than blindly following the priests of the medieval days?

 

Do you understand how brain surgery works? But you'd still have one. Do you understand how your gun is manufactured, designed, tested? No, but you'd still own one. Do you understand how your food is processed? No, but you still eat it. The theory, overall, makes a lot of sense. You don't need to go into the specifics unless you want to. I know the big picture of it, and it makes sense, so I'll believe in it until they prove it or refute it. Whereas the god theory can't be proven, so it's refuted by default. Science.

 

LOL I'll try to spell it out for you.. The analogy between R* and a creator shares a common ground of intelligence and design and nothing to do with putting god into a human body.

 

Except there's no common ground. Because one is an entity formed by people working in the real world. The other is made up fantasy.

 

My views don't replace modern science.. belief in intentional creation has no issues with evolution.. my issues with evolution are irrelevant to whether or not the universe was created. I simply have many doubts about macroevolution because I see the mechanisms don't explain what it claims, but that's secondary to the point.

 

Belief in intentional creation has ALL the issues with evolution. The mechanisms explain EXACTLY what it claims. YOU are the one who can't understand/accept it.

 

Because I understand that discussion of the metaphysical is simply beyond the grasp of science and can only be applied to logic alone therefore won't try to claim it as undeniable fact. People who are claiming things as facts which dispute what I say should by all means present the evidence.

 

And we have. Over, and over, and over. You just ignore it and don't reply to it. We've shown you the theories, the evidence, the facts. You've shown us faulty "logic".

 

I asked you some questions on my previous reply. In fact, in all my replies. And you just ignored all of them. Why's that?

 

Here, then, let's make it simple. Answer me these:

 

-You say that complexity/purpose means that a creator must be involved. The creator is complex/has purpose, so it must have been created. It this true or not? If it's true, then your creator was created by someone else, and on and on. If it's not true, then your creator is unnecessary. Which is it? Don't give me a bullsh*t "he's eternal" "it's metaphysics" excuse. You say it relies on logic. Then if it's logic, it's either of the above.

-You say something can't come from nothing. Yet you say this creator has always existed. Surely he must have had a beginning. Explain that hole.

-You say things have a purpose, therefore they were created with intention and logically a creator. Is purpose an objective definition?

-Refute this and this. If you want to support your intelligent creator, you'll have to.

 

Go on. Do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

Smith is correct about one thing.

several pages ago, people like myself were suggesting that 'something could come from nothing' and I did cite Lawrence Krauss (among others, like Sam Harris). the problem is that Smith doesn't remember the context. I never used "something from nothing" as a definitive argument, I wasn't trying to claim that this concept was an indisputable fact.

 

as I recall, Smith and others were claiming that it was impossible for something to come from nothing, in all scenarios. and the only thing I was trying to do was show that actually there are several schools of thought - ranging from macro astronomy to atomic physics - which suggest that 'nothing' can absolutely breed 'something.' it's not just a theory that someone made up out of thin air, it's a theory that developed from the long-form analysis of immense mathematical proofs and patterns.

 

and just because it's not easy to understand doesn't mean it's impossible...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

"Disputing metaphysical claims made up of thin air is like disputing the existence of the flying spaghetti monster... You are sending us on the most useless and stupid endeavor imaginable."

 

A flying spaghetti monster would be a physical object therefore wouldn't transcend space and time.

 

 

"For the last time... Logic is a human cognitive category. It is a cognitive tool, but it is itself not able to postulate the existence of anything."

 

 

Tell that to those who used logic to predict the existence of subatomic particles...

 

"You are subconsciously projecting yourself on an entity which you think is grounded in 'logic', but is actually grounded in superstition and delusion."

No you're right, I'm definitely projecting my all powerful ability to create the universe...

 

"Wrong. We have artificial cells."

 

 

That pieced themselves together from a pile of materials needed? I don't think so.

 

Also wrong. We exist. Nature made us. We're proof of it. Or were YOU designed and built by god inside your mother's womb?

 

 

This is completely fallacious, you're asserting your argument is fact to prove your argument.

 

 

But you're not interested in explanation. Whenever someone explains something to you, you just ignore it and twist it.

 

 

If I wasn't interested in hearing an explanation I wouldn't have asked.. everytime I ask this is the response I get. Show me the explanation without beating around the bush, this isn't a complicated request.

 

Go back and quote people who said something can come from nothing.

 

 

I'm not going to sift through years of posting to find quotes, several people have claimed through citing Lawrence Krauss that nothing can produce something. Diablo and others had made these claims before. Send them a PM and ask them yourself.

 

That's a retarded logic. Eternal implies time. If something exists outside time, it isn't eternal, it's something else, which you can't explain because it doesn't exist.

 

 

If something has no beginning nor end it is eternal, time may very well exist outside the physical universe but in a completely different state than as what we know it as being.

 

 

That's not how logic works. Or science. Or any kind of intelligent thought. It's akin to a child thinking that the rain is god crying because he did something bad. There's no ultimate cause for existence.

 

If there is no ultimate cause for the existence of the universe then you are essentially saying the big bang didn't need a cause and just happened spontaneously.

 

 

Do you understand how brain surgery works? But you'd still have one. Do you understand how your gun is manufactured, designed, tested? No, but you'd still own one. Do you understand how your food is processed? No, but you still eat it. The theory, overall, makes a lot of sense. You don't need to go into the specifics unless you want to. I know the big picture of it, and it makes sense, so I'll believe in it until they prove it or refute it. Whereas the god theory can't be proven, so it's refuted by default. Science.

 

 

How does it make sense if it can't even be demonstrated in the lab?

 

 

I'll believe in it until they prove it

 

 

Ah this makes sense.. lol

 

Belief in intentional creation has ALL the issues with evolution. The mechanisms explain EXACTLY what it claims. YOU are the one who can't understand/accept it.

 

 

Then you can show me step by step how the mechanism of macroevolution produced the ball joint.

 

You say that complexity/purpose means that a creator must be involved. The creator is complex/has purpose, so it must have been created. It this true or not? If it's true, then your creator was created by someone else, and on and on. If it's not true, then your creator is unnecessary. Which is it? Don't give me a bullsh*t "he's eternal" "it's metaphysics" excuse. You say it relies on logic. Then if it's logic, it's either of the above.
-You say something can't come from nothing. Yet you say this creator has always existed. Surely he must have had a beginning. Explain that hole.
-You say things have a purpose, therefore they were created with intention and logically a creator. Is purpose an objective definition?
-Refute this and this. If you want to support your intelligent creator, you'll have to.

 

 

1. I've never claimed god had a purpose.
2. No, the ultimate cause would never have had a beginning.. it's eternal hence why it'd be the ultimate cause. Try to walk yourself through how you could create something that has no beginning.. god was not created it has always existed for eternity.
3. Yes I'd say purpose is objective. A computer serves an objective purpose to process information, a bearing serves an objective purpose to reduce friction. DNA's purpose is to store the information required to build the human body.
4. Those are referring to the god of the bible.. which I've repeatedly said I don't believe in. But of course atheists seem to only acknowledge one or two religions out the entire world.
Edited by GrandMaster Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

This is completely fallacious, you're asserting your argument is fact to prove your argument.

 

Because we are the fact. We are the proof that nature made us. There wasn't a god working inside your mother's belly for 9 months and then you appeared. There was a bunch of cells that connected and followed the process and slowly generated you.

 

If I wasn't interested in hearing an explanation I wouldn't have asked.. everytime I ask this is the response I get. Show me the explanation without beating around the bush, this isn't a complicated request.

 

It is when everything we reply with you simply change direction and move the goal posts. But here it is. That's the current state of the theory.

 

I'm not going to sift through years of posting to find quotes, several people have claimed through citing Lawrence Krauss that nothing can produce something. Diablo and others had made these claims before. Send them a PM and ask them yourself.

 

My mistake. However, can you then disprove Lawrence Krauss et al papers and show that you can't produce something from nothing?

 

If something has no beginning nor end it is eternal, time may very well exist outside the physical universe but in a completely different state than as what we know it as being.

 

And we have no evidence of any of that. It's nice to pose these theories. But they don't answer anything, cause they can't be proven or disproven, and it doesn't solve any question. I can claim we are all actually ghosts living into the memory of our successors, and that's why we can't travel through time. But it isn't a useful proposition.

If there is no ultimate cause for the existence of the universe then you are essentially saying the big bang didn't need a cause and just happened spontaneously.

 

Cause as in a reason, a purpose. There's no purpose to the universe, it just exists. There's no purpose to the big bang, it wasn't an effect that "needed" to happen, it just happened. There's no purpose to the rain, it's just an effect of the atmospheric system. We are starting to know what happened during the big bang, and we can only speculate about what happened before the big bang. But the big bang could have happened by chance.

 

How does it make sense if it can't even be demonstrated in the lab?

 

Because evolution is largely a process that takes generations and generations to unfold itself drastically. But even that aside, we have demonstrated it.

 

Ah this makes sense.. lol

 

Way to get things out of context. Gravity is still a theory, hasn't been 100% demonstrated in a lab, but we believe in it, because the theory is solid and there's good data to support it. Likewise with evolution. Or are you going to say Gravity doesn't exist either?

 

Then you can show me step by step how the mechanism of macroevolution produced the ball joint.

 

No, because the ball joint isn't a living creature that started its life as a regular joint and evolved into a ball joint. But in the natural world, we have the hip and the shoulder bones, which act like a ball socket, and that's where the inspiration for it came from. And here's a paper suggesting how it evolved. You also seem to not know what macroevolution means, so here you go.

 

1. I've never claimed god had a purpose.

2. No, the ultimate cause would never have had a beginning.. it's eternal hence why it'd be the ultimate cause. Try to walk yourself through how you could create something that has no beginning.. god was not created it has always existed for eternity.
3. Yes I'd say purpose is objective. A computer serves an objective purpose to process information, a bearing serves an objective purpose to reduce friction. DNA's purpose is to store the information required to build the human body.
4. Those are referring to the god of the bible.. which I've repeatedly said I don't believe in. But of course atheists seem to only acknowledge one or two religions out the entire world.

 

 

1. You said that complex things had a purpose, and must have been created because they are complex. The creator is also complex. Ergo, there must have been a creator to the creator. So, which is it?

2. Going back to number 1, something that is complex must have been created. Your eternal creator is extremely complex, it must have been created. Creation begins at some point in time. So? Again, without any "eternal" or "metaphysics".

3. It isn't. What's the purpose of a dog? To me, it's none. I don't like dogs. To you, I don't know. To the farmer, it's to keep the chickens safe. Which is the true purpose? There isn't an absolute purpose. We, meaning-making humans give them purpose.

4. No, I do not "seem to only acknowledge one or two religions". I've studied different religions, practiced different branches inside a religion, and likely have far more experience with it than you. Your "god" also falls neatly in the definition of those articles, since it would need to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. And that just can't happen, as those articles presented.

 

You can go on and claim that "oh it's beyond our imagination" and that's just blue sky thinking. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, but it doesn't solve any problem, is a poor answer to any question, can't be proven or disproven so it has no scientific validity, and doesn't help humanity move forward in their quest for knowledge.

Edited by Tchuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Your only defense is in semantics.

And you're incapable of producing a single argument which doesn't immediately betray your preconceived bias towards believing in a divine creator come what may. In case you're completely unaware, semantics are important. The only reason you dismiss them is because you're utterly clueless as to their relevance.

 

there's no proof that nature can piece together a cell no matter how much material given.

The fact there's no proof for an infinite divine creator doesn't stop you believing in it. I'm the first one to admit there are numerous unanswered scientific questions as will all evolutionary scientists. But even your assertion here is ridiculous. The implication you're making is that nature constructs a cell, which isn't actually the case, as the cell may not be "constructed" at all. The simplest, earlier organisms are though to comprise little more than a collection of a handful of amino acids inside a membrane. Miller-Urey has replicated the creation of all of the base amino acids seen in living organisms without any design intervention so the building blocks of life have demonstrably created themselves. Single cell organisms aren't much more complex than that- we have no linear chromosomes, we have no nucleus, no real structure. The issue is replicating the conditions and timescales, which are both fundamentally unknowns at this point, but the fact they're unknowns does not make them impossible or even improbable as you seem to imply.

 

Your problem is that you still don't understand even the basics of the process. Everything you talk about us "piecing together this" or "constructing that", which I'm pretty sure is just a further manifestation of your desire to claim everything is designed. Nature doesn't "piece together" anything, or "construct" it. There's no design or purpose, no Paley's Watch or organics car factory- they're all false analogues.

 

Because you claimed to have an explanation to the big bang

Actually, I didn't. I just said that the notion of something coming from nothing wasn't what proponent of the big band theory were actually stating. As you well know, there are numerous theories floated as to what existed "before" the big bang (IE the start of our timescale) but they Weill remain just theories for the foreseeable future as the notion of observing something which happened either outside of our timescale or independent of it is currently a physical impossibility.

 

it's relevant because I'm asking you to explain it..

It's not relevant at all to the actual topic. Remember, we're discussing evolution versus creationism here, not "how did the universe start?". I know its a favourite tactic of yours go throw as many complex but largely unrelated questions into your responses as some kind of denial-of-service attack, knowing that constructing responses is far more time consuming than posing the question and therefore meaning people are less likely to waste their time constructing a response and that you can claim they were unable to and therefore you must be right.

 

Because people are stupid

Well, it takes one to know one.

 

it requires purpose.

Except purpose doesn't exist as I've already explained at least once. There is no purpose in evolution or the natural world.

 

Absolute nothingness cannot exist, therefore something in existence is eternal.

Not necessarily. The two are not mutually exclusive; you can still achieve a universe in which at no point is there absolute nothingness without requiring a transcendent entity that exists through all of it.

 

How does a ultimate cause for existence serve no purpose?

Serves no logical purpose in the argument. If you create one complex, "purposeful" entity which is capable of existing without creation, you fundamentally contradict the idea that complex, "purposeful" entities require creation. It doesn't matter if you try and separate one from the other by placing them on a different, eternal "timescale", you're still fundamentally breaking your own rule.

 

Also, stop assuming everything has purpose. An uneducated man could look at a river channel and say "that must be evidence of design as it has both complexity and purpose" but we all know it's simply a product of fairly basic physics. You can't logically go around claiming anything you don't understand must therefore be a manifestation of purpose and therefore creationism, it's utterly infantile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith
Miller-Urey has replicated the creation of all of the base amino acids seen in living organisms without any design intervention so the building blocks of life have demonstrably created themselves. Single cell organisms aren't much more complex than that

 

 

That is ridiculous to claim and you should know that. Even the oldest records of single celled organisms highly resemble modern cells, there is an enormous gap between some amino acids and a functioning, self sustaining cell.

 

Everything you talk about us "piecing together this" or "constructing that", which I'm pretty sure is just a further manifestation of your desire to claim everything is designed.

 

 

Well because quite literally a must be pieced together in a very specific manner to function, you can't just throw everything needed for a cell in a petri dish and it just becomes a working cell.. it doesn't work like that, nature creates disorder and chaos.

 

I just think you may find it uncomfortable to acknowledge how complex cells really are.. people have been trying to create just one single celled organism from scratch in the laboratory and have repeatably failed decade after decade.. I'm not entirely saying it's impossible but even with intelligent minds at work it seems improbable.

 

 

It's not relevant at all to the actual topic. Remember, we're discussing evolution versus creationism here, not "how did the universe start?".

 

Well that's not very fair, there isn't really much contradiction between evolution and creationism so the two ideas aren't exactly incompatible. Maybe it'd be more fitting for it to be retitled what it should be, atheism vs theist debate and discussion.

 

I think the topic of how the universe started and the origins of the physical laws is much more relevant to the discussion of theism vs atheism than discussing the cause of different species.

 

 

Except purpose doesn't exist as I've already explained at least once. There is no purpose in evolution or the natural world.

 

 

I have a hard time agreeing on this, it's very obvious to anyone what purpose the eye or stomach serves. There is no subjective debate over the purpose of the nose or ears. The only reason you don't want to admit these biological mechanisms have purpose is because you know intent implies design but that can't exist in your worldview because you like to claim the exact opposite of what's observed is possible.

 

If you create one complex, "purposeful" entity which is capable of existing without creation, you fundamentally contradict the idea that complex, "purposeful" entities require creation.

 

 

I'm not sure how many times I've clarified this specifically to you yet you insist on ignoring it?

 

I'll repeat myself again, I do not believe god has a purpose. God may be incredibly complex but I have no reason to suspect it has a purpose.

 

Also, stop assuming everything has purpose.

 

 

Funny you say that..

 

An uneducated man could look at a river channel and say "that must be evidence of design as it has both complexity and purpose" but we all know it's simply a product of fairly basic physics. You can't logically go around claiming anything you don't understand must therefore be a manifestation of purpose and therefore creationism, it's utterly infantile.

 

 

Where have I claimed observed natural phenomenons such as rivers are designed? Rivers don't have a specified purpose or function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

"Disputing metaphysical claims made up of thin air is like disputing the existence of the flying spaghetti monster... You are sending us on the most useless and stupid endeavor imaginable."

A flying spaghetti monster would be a physical object therefore wouldn't transcend space and time.

 

How is something 'transcending space and time' even intelligible? It's not, it's horsesh*t. And in a similar way I could say 'a spaghettimonster transcending space and time'. You can't prove to me spaghettimonsters can't transcend space and time, because the idea that you can 'prove' or 'disprove' anything beyond human cognitive grasp is sh*t.

"For the last time... Logic is a human cognitive category. It is a cognitive tool, but it is itself not able to postulate the existence of anything."

 

 

Tell that to those who used logic to predict the existence of subatomic particles...

 

This is exactly this type of thick headed stupidity which points out you have no idea at all what the hell you are talking about science wise, and why noone should or will take you seriously on the subject, and it makes it likely that this is my last reply. You think atomic particles get postulated based on pure logic? They don't. They get postulated to explain empirical data. You think theoretical physics postulates delusional metaphysical rubbish? It doesn't, hence why it is called physics and not metaphysics.

 

"You are subconsciously projecting yourself on an entity which you think is grounded in 'logic', but is actually grounded in superstition and delusion."

No you're right, I'm definitely projecting my all powerful ability to create the universe...

That's probably pretty much the only aspect that this entity has different from you (next to him being metaphysical), because according to you he even "needed appreciation" just like you. He's an all powerful imaginary version of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

That is ridiculous to claim and you should know that. Even the oldest records of single celled organisms highly resemble modern cells, there is an enormous gap between some amino acids and a functioning, self sustaining cell.

The gap really isn't that great. Without stuff like the flagellum and several of the other parts of the single cell which are likely to be products of evolution, a single cell organism is actually very simple. Gram negative mycoplasma are simple enough that we've been able to create self replicating ones in a lab. I don't understand why you seem to think it's such a leap in complexity from self-creating amino acids to mycoplasma. They don't even have cell walls. Pelagibacter ubique is probably as close as we have to a modern impersonation of early single cell organisms. And they're hilariously trivial in their complexity- in fact their long chain amino acids are about the most chemically complex element of them.

 

Well because quite literally a must be pieced together in a very specific manner to function

Well, no, not really. There's no reason they have to be "pieced together" at all. Again, this is just you unintentionally using language which implies creationism. Yet again. I'll be impressed if you could make a single point without implying creationism. So far you haven't.

 

it doesn't work like that, nature creates disorder and chaos.

According to whom? You? And what's your qualification to make this statement? Nothing at all, you say? Interesting.

 

I just think you may find it uncomfortable to acknowledge how complex cells really are

Which is funny, because I think you dramatically overestimate their complexity.

 

there isn't really much contradiction between evolution and creationism

It's funny you should say that given you've spend the last few days incessantly arguing evolution is not empirically correct. You've not been arguing that creationism can coexist, you've been arguing evolution is simply wrong. Badly, it must be said, but that certainly has been your intent.

 

I think the topic of how the universe started and the origins of the physical laws is much more relevant to the discussion of theism vs atheism

Good for you. In case you haven't noticed, we aren't discussing atheism versus theism.

 

I have a hard time agreeing on this, it's very obvious to anyone what purpose the eye or stomach serves.

You're confusing function and purpose. The only reason we see organic processes achieving a purpose is because we imprint our own consciousness on them. The natural world is fundamentally without purpose but most entities have a function. Purpose is a solely human illusion.

 

God may be incredibly complex but I have no reason to suspect it has a purpose.

So the creator lacks purpose, yet it's creation had purpose? Doesn't that strike you as odd? Surely purpose can only come from other purpose? How does a purposeless creator create purpose?

 

Where have I claimed observed natural phenomenons such as rivers are designed?

You haven't. It's simply a natural conclusion from your failure to actually define "purpose". There is no "purposeful" element in life, be thst a product if complexity or otherwise, which is not replicated by simple physics. Who are you to say that a sensory organ is more objectively purposeful than a river bed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith
"The gap really isn't that great. Without stuff like the flagellum and several of the other parts of the single cell which are likely to be products of evolution, a single cell organism is actually very simple. Gram negative mycoplasma are simple enough that we've been able to create self replicating ones in a lab. I don't understand why you seem to think it's such a leap in complexity from self-creating amino acids to mycoplasma. They don't even have cell walls. Pelagibacter ubique is probably as close as we have to a modern impersonation of early single cell organisms. And they're hilariously trivial in their complexity- in fact their long chain amino acids are about the most chemically complex element of them."

 

 

It's claimed mycoplasma have lost their cell walls over time and came from cells that had walls. I'm not sure how valid that is but still intersting nonetheless.

"Gram negative mycoplasma are simple enough that we've been able to create self replicating ones in a lab."

 

 

Could you cite this? I'd be interesting in reading about it.

"Well, no, not really. There's no reason they have to be "pieced together" at all. Again, this is just you unintentionally using language which implies creationism. Yet again. I'll be impressed if you could make a single point without implying creationism. So far you haven't."

 

 

Pieced together as in there are hundreds of individual parts that need to be in the correct place and built in specific sequences to function and work. Like I said before you can't just throw a pile of matter into a petri dish and watch it self assemble into a cell.

"According to whom? You? And what's your qualification to make this statement? Nothing at all, you say? Interesting."

 

 

According to every living person who has observed nature.. Can you show me an observed example of nature assembled something from scratch into a lower state of entropy?
"Which is funny, because I think you dramatically overestimate their complexity."

 

 

I've posted this video before and I'm sure I'll post it again. A single cell is more complex than anything man has created, if you claim cells are not really that complex then what's that saying about the ISS space station or the land rover on Mars mission? Are those all simple feats as well?
"It's funny you should say that given you've spend the last few days incessantly arguing evolution is not empirically correct. You've not been arguing that creationism can coexist, you've been arguing evolution is simply wrong. Badly, it must be said, but that certainly has been your intent."

 

 

Yes I do not fully believe macroevolution as fact, this has nothing to do whether life was intended or not but simply the claims made about the mechanisms driving macroevolution do not appear to be able to account for what we see today. For all I know the very first cell could have been created with all the information needed to produce every living creature today, possibly Individual biological families were created separately and went to create the variations within their own types (felines; jags, cheetahs, tigers, lions, housecat, bobcats ect). Personally evolution would make much more sense if there was intention driving it but for entirely random mutations to create biological mechanism with specified purposes is far fetched imo. I believe the evidence for common decent can be used just as equally for common design as well.

"Good for you. In case you haven't noticed, we aren't discussing atheism versus theism."

 

 

Well, it doesn't much so appear that way. The discussions in nearly every post seem to revolve around the idea of a god.
"So the creator lacks purpose, yet it's creation had purpose? Doesn't that strike you as odd? Surely purpose can only come from other purpose? How does a purposeless creator create purpose?"

 

 

Doesn't really strike me as odd..
HOW does a purposeless creator create purpose? I'm not entirely sure what process is used to create things, though it'd be interesting to know.

"You haven't. It's simply a natural conclusion from your failure to actually define "purpose". There is no "purposeful" element in life, be thst a product if complexity or otherwise, which is not replicated by simple physics. Who are you to say that a sensory organ is more objectively purposeful than a river bed?"

 

 

Well because a sensory organ is built by the cell through DNA specifically for it's function, for an eye is built with the biological receptors to detect specifically the electromagnetic spectrum. A river isn't built by little protein engineers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

It's claimed mycoplasma have lost their cell walls over time and came from cells that had walls. I'm not sure how valid that is but still intersting nonetheless.

 

It's interesting, true. Thanks to the lack of any biological record stretching back far enough we simply don't know what (in terms of structure) the earliest single cell organisms looked like. Any argument from the complexity of current single cell entities in my view ignores this fact.

 

 

 

Could you cite this? I'd be interesting in reading about it.

 

http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/first-self-replicating-synthetic-bacterial-cell/photos

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium

 

 

 

Like I said before you can't just throw a pile of matter into a petri dish and watch it self assemble into a cell.

Again, no-one is claiming that it would. Like the conditions for spontaneous creation of long chain amino acids, the physical conditions for the creation of early single cell organisms are likely to have been quite specific and difficult to replicate. Just throwing matter into a Petri dish is clearly a false analogy.

 

 

 

According to every living person who has observed nature.

Well clearly not. Otherwise intelligent design would have scientific traction. And yet it doesn't.

 

 

 

Can you show me an observed example of nature assembled something from scratch into a lower state of entropy?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

 

 

 

I've posted this video before and I'm sure I'll post it again

I'm sure you will too, ad nauseum apparently, but I can't actually watch it and even if I could have don't particularly care, as I find YouTube videos utterly lacking as a compelling source of information. The basic structure of gran negative bacteria is incredibly simple; the complexity of their genetic structure is fairly trivial. And yet again the issue arises that we don't actually know what resemblance there is between current single cell organisms and those that first existed. Remove all the component parts that aren't essential for self-replication and you have something which is little more than its component parts.

 

 

 

A single cell is more complex than anything man has created

I'm not sure I agree from a technical perspective. But given complexity is basically subjective anyway, I don't think it really matters. You're entitled to your own opinion.

 

 

 

Yes I do not fully believe macroevolution as fact, this has nothing to do whether life was intended or not but simply the claims made about the mechanisms driving macroevolution do not appear to be able to account for what we see today.

The fact that current theories are incomplete is acknowledged by basically every single scientist involved in the discipline. We're replicating the conditions of the early world and experimenting with synthetically created bacteria in order to answer these questions. The fact those answers aren't yet complete doesn't make the rest of the theory less viable though. Attempting to fill those gaps with a creator does basically nothing to inform us about it.

 

 

 

Personally evolution would make much more sense if there was intention driving

It's comments like this which make me think you really don't understand the basics of the whole thing. We know random mutations drive evolutionary progress because we have observed it. The E Coli long term evolution experiment had proven without doubt that random mutations are responsible for evolution.

 

A creator is not necessarily God. You yourself have said this.

 

 

 

Doesn't really strike me as odd..

HOW does a purposeless creator create purpose? I'm not entirely sure what process is used to create things, though it'd be interesting to know.

I don't understand how something without purpose can create purpose. It seems logically absurd. What drives creation unless it is purpose?

 

 

 

Well because a sensory organ is built by the cell through DNA specifically for it's function

You're attempting to resort to an argument from complexity again, as if sensory organs have suddenly appeared our if nowhere. And, I fear I repeat myself, as still aren't talking about purpose. Purpose is a solely human creation. We see purpose because we understand it as a concept but it doesn't exist objectively. There is no such thing as objective purpose; there is only objective function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MaXWebeR

It is funny to see that you foreign dudes have debate about evolution and creationism just like in my country.

 

But even we have some trolls who still believe world is flat. :D So you all are lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoreyDog2014

It is funny to see that you foreign dudes have debate about evolution and creationism just like in my country.

 

But even we have some trolls who still believe world is flat. :D So you all are lucky.

Oh flat Earthers still exist in all countries.

 

Had a debate with an American on Twitter other day who was adamant the earth was flat and the rapture was coming on the 24th Sep, he was a conservative Christian. Seems to not be responding to me anymore... Wonder why :)

 

He even tried showing, with mathematics, why the earth was flat, until pointed out he had plucked some of the angles out of thin air to make the maths fit. I find alot of creationists/flat earthers rather intellectually dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

They're not dishonest, just stupid. I genuinely don't think they mean to maliciously bend scientific reality; they just lack enough of an understanding to know better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoreyDog2014

They're not dishonest, just stupid. I genuinely don't think they mean to maliciously bend scientific reality; they just lack enough of an understanding to know better.

The lack of knowledge is always telling when they confuse Evolution with Abiogenesis.

 

If they understood the two are separate, may make Evolution easier to stomach for alot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bartleby

If they understood the two are separate, may make Evolution easier to stomach for alot.

I'm not sure. A common complaint about evolution is that there is evidence for "microevolution", but not "macroevolution". These are actual scientific terms which are often misappropriated by creationists to mean things they don't necessarily mean, like "macroevolution" being code for "an ape giving birth to a man", or some other idea that demonstrates a lack of understanding as to how evolution works and how it defies our need for labels. The more progress science makes and the more it's accepted, you'll see these types of arguments spring up as religious skeptics are dragged kicking and screaming along for the ride. They'll accept whatever they can no longer deny, but anything else yet to be widely accepted is vehemently argued against.

 

It's also nice to see Grandmaster Smith is just as obstinate to his opponent's arguments (and reality) as ever.

Edited by Bartleby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoreyDog2014

 

If they understood the two are separate, may make Evolution easier to stomach for alot.

I'm not sure. A common complaint about evolution is that there is evidence for "microevolution", but not "macroevolution". These are actual scientific terms which are often misappropriated by creationists to mean things they don't necessarily mean, like "macroevolution" being code for "an ape giving birth to a man", or some other idea that demonstrates a lack of understanding as to how evolution works and how it defies our need for labels. The more progress science makes and the more it's accepted, you'll see these types of arguments spring up as religious skeptics are dragged kicking and screaming along for the ride. They'll accept whatever they can no longer deny, but anything else yet to be widely accepted is vehemently argued against.

 

It's also nice to see Grandmaster Smith is just as obstinate to his opponent's arguments (and reality) as ever.

That is very true.

 

I've spoken with conservative Christians who claim 'Micro' is the work of their personnel choosen deity yet 'Macro' can't possibly happen, they fail to see the two are the same just over different time span.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sneakyboi23334

As an agnosticist I would believe neither, if we evolved from monkeys, what did monkeys evolve from? Did everything evolve from something else? What was that first thing?

 

Let me tell a little story, it was a Math class, the subject was "possibility" (percent %), i asked the teacher "What is the possibility of life on space?" as a joke, but he took it too seriously and explained it anyway, he said "Earth was unhabitable billions of years ago, it was full of volcanos and lavas and was too hot, maybe humans came from other planets after Earth became habitable?", and that makes sense for me. I would rather believe in a scifi Doctor Who-like scenario than believing two utterly idiotic theories with no proof.

Edited by The Lone Spirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

As an agnosticist I would believe neither, if we evolved from monkeys, what did monkeys evolve from? Did everything evolve from something else? What was that first thing?

 

Let me tell a little story, it was a Math class, the subject was "possibility" (percent %), i asked the teacher "What is the possibility of life on space?" as a joke, but he took it too seriously and explained it anyway, he said "Earth was unhabitable billions of years ago, it was full of volcanos and lavas and was too hot, maybe humans came from other planets after Earth became habitable?", and that makes sense for me. I would rather believe in a scifi Doctor Who-like scenario than believing two utterly idiotic theories with no proof.

We didn't evolve from monkeys and there's plenty of evidence for evolution. Also, it's utterly pointless to discuss probability when something has already happened.

Edited by The Yokel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii

As an agnosticist I would believe neither, if we evolved from monkeys, what did monkeys evolve from? Did everything evolve from something else? What was that first thing?

 

Let me tell a little story, it was a Math class, the subject was "possibility" (percent %), i asked the teacher "What is the possibility of life on space?" as a joke, but he took it too seriously and explained it anyway, he said "Earth was unhabitable billions of years ago, it was full of volcanos and lavas and was too hot, maybe humans came from other planets after Earth became habitable?", and that makes sense for me. I would rather believe in a scifi Doctor Who-like scenario than believing two utterly idiotic theories with no proof.

 

 

Bacteria/protozoa. Multicellular life came from unicellular life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDagger

As an agnosticist I would believe neither, if we evolved from monkeys, what did monkeys evolve from?

Monkeys and Humans evolved from a common ancestor.

 

 

Did everything evolve from something else?

Yes, aside from the first organism.

 

 

What was that first thing?

Some very simple organism, I'm not so hot on how much you need for something to count as life but we're likely talking a very, very simple single-cellular organism.

 

And while the idea of life coming from another planet isn't out of the question (again, just really simple single-cellular stuff here), where would that life come from? It has to start somewhere, it can't just spontaneously appear on a planet just to come here y'know

 

(the answer is by evolving from simple life btw)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sneakyboi23334

 

As an agnosticist I would believe neither, if we evolved from monkeys, what did monkeys evolve from?

Monkeys and Humans evolved from a common ancestor.

 

Did everything evolve from something else?

Yes, aside from the first organism.

 

What was that first thing?

Some very simple organism, I'm not so hot on how much you need for something to count as life but we're likely talking a very, very simple single-cellular organism.

 

And while the idea of life coming from another planet isn't out of the question (again, just really simple single-cellular stuff here), where would that life come from? It has to start somewhere, it can't just spontaneously appear on a planet just to come here y'know

 

(the answer is by evolving from simple life btw)

 

Yes, you're right, everything was caused by something else, there was one thing that started it, that's the whole point of being agnostic, it's impossible to know if there was a first thing everything now evolved from or if there was a creator, or anything else, you just can't know.

 

 

As an agnosticist I would believe neither, if we evolved from monkeys, what did monkeys evolve from? Did everything evolve from something else? What was that first thing?

 

Let me tell a little story, it was a Math class, the subject was "possibility" (percent %), i asked the teacher "What is the possibility of life on space?" as a joke, but he took it too seriously and explained it anyway, he said "Earth was unhabitable billions of years ago, it was full of volcanos and lavas and was too hot, maybe humans came from other planets after Earth became habitable?", and that makes sense for me. I would rather believe in a scifi Doctor Who-like scenario than believing two utterly idiotic theories with no proof.

We didn't evolve from monkeys and there's plenty of evidence for evolution. Also, it's utterly pointless to discuss probability when something has already happened.

Please tell me about that "plenty of evidence".

The only proof for evolution is "Monkeys are genetically and physically similar to us, that means we evolved from them.", how is that proof?

Edited by The Lone Spirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

We've been able to observe evolution actually taking place in controlled environments. Notably Richard Lenski's E Coli long term evolution experiment, in which one sealed sample evolved the ability to aerobically process the citrate in growth medium, something naturally occurring E Coli cannot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

I'll never understand these people. Expecting a debate about a subject that's pretty much an established scientific fact. It stems from both ignorance and arrogance. I tell the guy that we didn't evolve from monkeys and it doesn't even register. If only people were smart enough to know how ignorant they are. Maybe they'd shut the f*ck up about things they know nothing about.

Edited by The Yokel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.