PDA

View Full Version : Evolutionism vs creationism



Pages : 1 2 [3]

gut
12-14-2010, 05:04 PM
> this guy not only realized that not only was there no evidence of a global Flood

i notice the word 'global' coming up, again. I still find it rather difficult to believe
that the bible uses that word, as nobody alive at that time knew they lived on a globe. Seems
like they were searching for a 'biblical' event that the bible never did claim to have happened.
So naturally, the logical thing to do when faced with the absence of proof for a non-existant
'biblical' event that never occured is to stop believing the things that the bible never told
you. Excellent. Makes perfect sense.

> I mean we have gut here talking about imprints of a coin implying that there is a coin.
We aren't even talking about imprints of a coin, but massive geological formation changes.

Strikes me as being a sentence very similar to:
I mean, we have infernovia here talking about geological changes. We aren't even talking about
geological changes, but the price of tea in china.
The two compared aspects of that sentence seem to have no relation. Did I imply that geological
change = imprint of god?

> As for the idea that evolution is a bunch of chance elements, yeah you can look
at it like that. In fact, the whole universe is a flux anyway and you can't isolate one thing from
another, so the basis of this idea is not correct (the idea itself is a misinterpretation of
this basic idea)

So in sentence 1, you tell me it is a logical view, then in sentence 2, you tell me it isn't.
At least I can agree with half of what you say.

> We don't know. And we can't, because the universe is defined as "everything."

I'm not sure the 'universe' is defined as everything. I would not say abstract things are part
of the universe, such as dreams or philosophy. Maybe after they are shared they are... maybe.

> We would have no way of actually interacting with it

What if it interacted with you, and only mentally?

> Eventually, in the span of billions of years, one of these mutations allows them to also interact with
the self-replicating process

So now it is 'enough blioloins of years' to start the process, and another 'enough bliolloions
of years' to mutate into boys and girls. Wanna to add another on for the developement of
pentium-chip-creating level of congitive abilities? Why not?

JellySlayer
12-14-2010, 05:32 PM
> this guy not only realized that not only was there no evidence of a global Flood

i notice the word 'global' coming up, again. I still find it rather difficult to believe
that the bible uses that word, as nobody alive at that time knew they lived on a globe. Seems
like they were searching for a 'biblical' event that the bible never did claim to have happened.
So naturally, the logical thing to do when faced with the absence of proof for a non-existant
'biblical' event that never occured is to stop believing the things that the bible never told
you. Excellent. Makes perfect sense.

The Bible uses the words "the whole earth" and "all creatures" and the like. Genesis 7:19, as but one example, pretty strongly suggests a global flood:

"19The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered."


What if it interacted with you, and only mentally?

Then it interacted with you physically. The "mind" is created by the brain, and it is responds to stimulus exerted on the brain. If the brain is damaged, the conscious mind of the person can, and often does, change. People suffering traumatic brain injuries may develop a completely different personality, despite retaining all of their original memories (or not, as the case may be). If something were interacting with you "mentally" then we should be able to see it by examining the electrochemistry of the brain.

infernovia
12-14-2010, 05:38 PM
i notice the word 'global' coming up, again. I still find it rather difficult to believe
that the bible uses that word, as nobody alive at that time knew they lived on a globe.
It could be "he flooded the world." It doesn't matter, the idea is that every spot on the planet was "flooded" and the animals which survived were the one that lived in the ark. Of course, there are signs of a more local flood in the "cradle of the world" around this time period, but certainly there were many animals that survived it outside of human interaction.


Strikes me as being a sentence very similar to:
I mean, we have infernovia here talking about geological changes. We aren't even talking about
geological changes, but the price of tea in china.
The two compared aspects of that sentence seem to have no relation. Did I imply that geological
change = imprint of god?

No, I am implying that a geological shift of a magnitude that we are talking about will leave an imprint bigger than a coin on a soil.


So in sentence 1, you tell me it is a logical view, then in sentence 2, you tell me it isn't.
At least I can agree with half of what you say.
Yeah, I didn't say it right. What I meant was that the whole universe is a flux. And the probability game is simply a misinterpretation of it by attributing identity to it. The idea that the identity doesn't change is incorrect, the idea of the flux however is correct.


I'm not sure the 'universe' is defined as everything. I would not say abstract things are part
of the universe, such as dreams or philosophy. Maybe after they are shared they are... maybe.
Thoughts and idea are part of the universe, they exist as electrons and the nerve interactions in your brain. This is only super-emphasized by the fact that you cannot think about something "outside of the universe," for you would have no knowledge of it.


What if it interacted with you, and only mentally?
Mental interaction requires, first of all, a physical interaction. For the mind and the body are not separate and function on the same basic physic, that is that it requires something to affect it to interact with it. There is nothing in our mind that is beyond the physical, if something did not affect us physically (aka, it is smaller than a photon) it would actually have no physical effect on our nervous system and by extension, the senses, meaning you would not know about it.


So now it is 'enough blioloins of years' to start the process, and another 'enough bliolloions
of years' to mutate into boys and girls. Wanna to add another on for the developement of
pentium-chip-creating level of congitive abilities? Why not?
No, because the functionality of life varies as soon as the first big step happened, the birth of the mortal being. Before then, all that would happen is simple cloning, moving, eating, processing. Aka, a really slow process that relies on things like radiation and very minute chance of mutation in the cloning process. This means that they really don't vary significantly from the original source so needs a long time to showcase large mutations. These guys can only be defined as "the immortals," their identity simply would not disappear.

But once the organisms themselves interact with the cloning process, thats when FORCED variance appears, aka the birth of the sexed mortal being (their child after all, cannot be considered a "clone", and their identity (the genetic code) has a very real chance of disappearing after the aging process). And from this point on, these chemical processes takes shorter and shorter time to diversify itself. So the first revolution took the longest, but everything after that has become much shorter. If another cataclysm happened, where 96% of the life on earth was destroyed, it would not the original billions of years to create complex organism.

infernovia
12-14-2010, 06:23 PM
And finally the question of the i7-980x doesn't appear through the same process as evolution?

Because the naturally self-selecting process of evolution first needs a form of replication, excess energy, movement. This excessive consumption (it expends energy to get energy) and the replication is the first step required for increased variance. So the reason that these chipsets did not occur through evolution is naturally because of the lack of the replication process and the lack of ability to gain power. If you could build a way for an intel-980x to consume power (indeed, it would need to consume more power than it really "needs") to generate clones of itself without needing the forced handling of a human beyond the first step, evolution will take hold.

But this does not mean the i7-980x is going to transform into a quantum computer, it might become similar to a cockroach instead.

gut
12-15-2010, 02:26 AM
>> I still find it rather difficult to believe that the bible uses that
word, as nobody alive at that time knew they lived on a globe

> so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered


Well, I'm quite surprised that those who wrote the bible did indeed manage to say 'global'
without actually saying 'global'... or knowing that they lived on a globe. I suppose I'll
never get too old to be amazed.

> The "mind" is created by the brain, and it is responds to stimulus exerted on the brain

I'll agree that electons are matter in the universe, and therefore OF the universe, but it is
the concept of 'patterns of electron flow' that I'm not sure about. That is because patterns,
or even numbers for that matter, aren't really matter. They are concepts only.

> a geological shift of a magnitude that we are talking about will leave an imprint bigger
than a coin on a soil

I think you misunderstood what I was saying with the 'coin imprint' thing.

> the whole universe is a flux.

I'm maybe having trouble with your use of the word 'flux'. Coming from an electical
background, my definition of flux matches both wiki definitions I could find quickly:

"> In the various subfields of physics, there exist two common usages
of the term flux, both with rigorous mathematical frameworks.

In the study of transport phenomena (heat transfer, mass transfer and fluid dynamics),
flux is defined as the amount that flows through a unit area per unit time[1] Flux in
this definition is a vector.

In the field of electromagnetism and mathematics, flux is usually the integral of a
vector quantity, "

> the probability game is simply a misinterpretation of it by attributing identity to it.

I'll agree about the mistake of attributing identity to probability, but will disagree that
I have done that

> The idea that the identity doesn't change is incorrect, the idea of the flux however is correct.

So...
universe=flux
probability=identity
identity=change
flux=correct

> they exist as electrons and the nerve interactions in your brain.

Electrons? Yes. Patterns... I'm not so sure.

> This is only super-emphasized by the fact that you cannot think about
something "outside of the universe," for you would have no knowledge of it

See, this is where we disagree. I think it is possible to create.

> Mental interaction requires, first of all, a physical interaction.

Yes, a song requires an instrument.

> There is nothing in our mind that is beyond the physical

I think maybe there is.

> So the first revolution took the longest, but everything after that has become much shorter.

So you are saying evolution from primordial ooze to human is now on scale of 'miliards' only?

> And finally the question of the i7-980x doesn't appear through the same process as evolution?

Who asked that?

infernovia
12-15-2010, 05:15 AM
Well, I'm quite surprised that those who wrote the bible did indeed manage to say 'global'
without actually saying 'global'... or knowing that they lived on a globe. I suppose I'll
never get too old to be amazed.
If they said "the whole world" or "everything under the heavens" and we know that "everything under heaven" is a globe, would it be global or not? What other word do you want to describe it?

If its local, then its local. As I said, there is geological data in the "cradle of the world" during this time period. But that would contradict the claim of fundamental creationists.


See, this is where we disagree. I think it is possible to create.
Oh, I am not saying that there isn't anything outside of the universe, I am just saying it wouldn't matter.

How would you know? How would you interact with it? Since you deal with electrical components, I assume you understand the trouble with interacting particles that are tiny, and probably know of the problem of quantum mechanics. So, the problem I want to point out here is that anything measurable at anypoint of the universe (meaning anything that interacts with the universe) is part of the universe. So how can it leave the universe without interacting with anyother particle?

Thus I don't think it is possible to "create" such things. Unless you mean a signifier without a signified, which clearly does happen, but this isn't what we are talking about.


I'll agree about the mistake of attributing identity to probability, but will disagree that
I have done that
The question then, is that why would you consider a human being a "design" if this is so? A human being is simply functional. That it has bent the environment to its will can perfectly be accounted by evolution.

And yes, you could have an omnipotent being that just says "oh yeah, now there is heaven." But thats like creating an omnipotent being that says "oh yeah, now there is local-realism and quantum mechanics," its just intellectual laziness.


identity=change
As in identity is simply a snapshot of a system shifting (becoming, as changing implies one identity to another) over time (which is essentially what "the flux" is used as). So you can't nail down these things into an identity. An identification is simply a willful abstraction/error one uses for useful results. It is the identity that must be highlighted as the error here, not the other way around.


So you are saying evolution from primordial ooze to human is now on scale of 'miliards' only?
Why yes, in the matter of timespan, and not just humans but any complex creatures ever. As I said, the beginning were filled with immortal unsexed beings which were completely reliant on cloning. The sexual revolution was the first big step. But the human is simply an abstraction, the new life may evolve in such a way that "humanity" does not even come up...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_Extinction_Event

Just as Dinosaurs (or any such large reptillian creatures) did not succeed in the new generation and fell to the mammals, there is no guarantee that the abstraction called "human" will come up after an extinction event. Although there might be some animals very reliant on memory, analysis, and a modular ability to see different patterns as it sees fit to survive/repopulate.


> Mental interaction requires, first of all, a physical interaction.

Yes, a song requires an instrument.

> There is nothing in our mind that is beyond the physical

I think maybe there is.
I don't see how these answers correlate. And what part of our mind is "beyond physical?"


Ok, but forget about most of that. The question is "why does gut feel that believing in a God is necessary to understand the world?" Or more accurately, "why does he feel that it is important to bash the big no-answers in science, but not the big no-answer of God?"

Is it because, in his intelligence, he realizes that morality cannot be justified without an eternal being validating the existence of his ethics? Is it because he realizes that in this new model, morality would be little more than systems we create, and thus we would have to go beyond good and evil and appreciate the chaos we would be thrown into? Is it because he has been influenced by a little too many platonists?

Maybe. Probably all of the above.

As Neitzsche said, our language is composed of errors from our ancestors that has been untouched for thousands of years. And it is the same with "common sense." One needs a little faith in his senses to interpret things that has not become "common."

Grey
12-15-2010, 01:08 PM
> this guy not only realized that not only was there no evidence of a global Flood

i notice the word 'global' coming up, again. I still find it rather difficult to believe
that the bible uses that word, as nobody alive at that time knew they lived on a globe. Seems
like they were searching for a 'biblical' event that the bible never did claim to have happened.
So naturally, the logical thing to do when faced with the absence of proof for a non-existant
'biblical' event that never occured is to stop believing the things that the bible never told
you. Excellent. Makes perfect sense.

Actually people were fully aware in ancient times that the world is round. There's plenty of evidence for it, and ancient greeks even went so far as to make reasonably accurate guesses to the Earth's circumference. Even at the time of Columbus it was well-known - the idea that he set out to prove it is nonsense (he just wanted to find a new trade route to India, and people at the time believed the ocean was far too big for anyone to survive).

Of course I'm sure JellySlayer is paraphrasing when it comes to the Bible. However Genesis itself does quite clearly describe the flood as covering all lands, and drowning all people and animals. Something which didn't actually happen.

Silfir
12-15-2010, 02:44 PM
And which nobody with half a brain - or at least with the willingness to apply half a brain - actually believes did happen.

JellySlayer
12-15-2010, 03:13 PM
And which nobody with half a brain - or at least with the willingness to apply half a brain - actually believes did happen.

Well, I think that might be part of the problem. This (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/?page=1) is from 2004. Quoted in part below.



An ABC News poll released Sunday found that 61 percent of Americans believe the account of creation in the Bible's book of Genesis is "literally true" rather than a story meant as a "lesson."

Sixty percent believe in the story of Noah's ark and a global flood, while 64 percent agree that Moses parted the Red Sea to save fleeing Jews from their Egyptian captors.

The poll, with a margin of error of 3 percentage points, was conducted Feb. 6 to 10 among 1,011 adults.

[...]

Meanwhile, a Gallup Poll of 1,004 adults released Dec. 30 found that 61 percent of Americans believe "religion can answer all or most of today's problems,"

gut
12-15-2010, 05:49 PM
> What other word do you want to describe it?

Globe is fine. As I said, I just didn't think the people who wrote the bible knew Earth was round.

>>> This is only super-emphasized by the fact that you cannot think about
something "outside of the universe," for you would have no knowledge of it

>> See, this is where we disagree. I think it is possible to create.

> Oh, I am not saying that there isn't anything outside of the universe, I am just saying it
wouldn't matter.

There were no computers until invented. They went from not being in the universe to being in
the universe. I'm not talking about the elements from which they are made, but rather, the
design.

> How would you know? How would you interact with it?

I have not designed computers, but have created other things. As for how to interact with
the supernatural, I'll repeat what I've said earlier in this thread: I have never heard
voices or 'spoken with god'. You are confusing me with Jellyslayer :D

> I assume you understand the trouble with interacting particles that are tiny,
and probably know of the problem of quantum mechanic

Quantum goes beyond my interests, sadly.

> So how can it leave the universe without interacting with anyother particle?

Dunno about thing leaving the universe, and find myself kinda wondering how the conversation
got to this.

> Thus I don't think it is possible to "create" such things

Clearly, there IS a concept of god, so if it is a concept, and (according to your above
sentence) it is only possible to contemplate things that are part of the universe, that
means god is part of the universe :D :D :D

>> I'll agree about the mistake of attributing identity to probability, but will disagree that
I have done that

> The question then, is that why would you consider a human being a "design" if this is so?

I consider human being a design do to how low the probability is, from the alternate theory. I
have been rather clear on that from the begining of this thread. Considering a probability as
being low is not the same as giving it an identity. Let me put it like this: There are people
who have won the lottery (multi-million-dollar ones) repeatedly, then suddenly stopped winning
after being investigated. Am I going to call it coincidence or foul. Remember, I have no
evidence upon which to base my decision, only my knowledge of probability.

>> identity=change

> As in identity is simply a snapshot of a system shifting (becoming, as changing implies one
identity to another

So now:
identity=changing identity

> It is the identity that must be highlighted as the error here, not the other way around

So it is a bad idea to take a snapshot of a changing system, then name it. OK, but I don't
really see how that relates to what we were talking about.

>> So you are saying evolution from primordial ooze to human is now on scale of 'miliards' only?

> Why yes

Excellent. It is kinda difficult to get some people to agree to that. The problem is, the less
time you have to work with, the less plausible evolution becomes, even if I grant you the
'imortal being' starting condition which is an idea I am not entirely sold on. Because some
have presented objection to this before, I'll give an example. Do you believe a single celled
organism could evolve into a human-like organism in 1000 generations? OK, how about 10K? etc...
You might not like the idea of associating a probability to each, but I do. I'll grant 100%
to infinity, but for the mere 10K generations it would be a number too small to type. Now,
considering time limits (only millions now), natural disasters, diseases, etc... and I just
don't think it is possible.

> The question is "why does gut feel that believing in a God is necessary to understand the world?"

No viable alternative exists. As I have stated, I am unwilling to believe, as you do, that
things bump together long enough, and make humans. No matter how you try to rephrase it, that
is what you are saying.

> "why does he feel that it is important to bash the big no-answers in science,
but not the big no-answer of God?"

I'm not doing that. If you search back through this thread, you will see my responses to those
on the religious side whom I consider aren't thinking logically. I do kinda like pointing out
the flaws in both the 'evolution explains it all' and 'god just made it that way' opinions.

> in his intelligence, he realizes that morality cannot be justified without an eternal being validating

Nonsense, and proof that you didn't read my previous posts. I'll cite this one from dorten
vs jellyslayer, on the topic of god's morality:


Dorten:
>> However there was mass murder, and I support it.

gut:
> I don't like the idea of being merciful to victomizers at all, and sometimes desire for them to die,
but if it was up to me to pull the trigger, I wouldn't if I had a choice. With all power at god's
disposal, I would imagine options to be possible. Murdering when one doesn't have to doesn't sound
very christian

> Actually people were fully aware in ancient times that the world is round

The people who wrote genesis did? This was my hanging point. I am also of the 'how did
the animals fit' kind.

grobblewobble
12-15-2010, 06:35 PM
Do you believe a single celled
organism could evolve into a human-like organism in 1000 generations? OK, how about 10K?

It took hundreds of millions of years before the first multi-cellular life appeared. Since it takes a bacterium in favourable circumstances about 30 to 60 minutes to reproduce, we are looking at something like 10.000.000.000.000 generations.

But the probability is not just a function of generations! It depends on the number of individuals in the population, too. Hypothetically speaking, if the population would be infinite, 1000 generations would be more than enough to evolve a human-like organism.

An estimate of the population size: (source) (http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0998/et0998s8.html)


The group, led by microbiologist William B. Whitman, estimates the number to be five million trillion trillion that's a five with 30 zeroes after it. Look at it this way. If each bacterium were a penny, the stack would reach a trillion light years.




Now, considering time limits (only millions now), natural disasters, diseases, etc...
Natural disasters do not slow evolution down, but speed it up. For example, after the extinction of the dinosaurs there was an explosion of diversity of mammals.

Grey
12-15-2010, 06:36 PM
> Actually people were fully aware in ancient times that the world is round

The people who wrote genesis did? This was my hanging point. I am also of the 'how did
the animals fit' kind.

It was a big ark. Indeed, the exact measurements in cubits are written in the book of Genesis, as well as the types of woods used, etc in immense detail. Very exciting reading.

As for whether the tomography of the world was known to the writers of Genesis.... I don't know. Certainly similar texts of that time period from Hindus were not aware (since they say the world is flat and carried on the back of 4 giant elephants who stand on the back of a humongous turtle that swims in a sea of milk encircled by a colossal snake). The writers of Genesis has slightly less imagination, but I'd guess they either thought the world was flat or didn't even think about it as a logical question.

JellySlayer
12-15-2010, 09:22 PM
There were no computers until invented. They went from not being in the universe to being in
the universe. I'm not talking about the elements from which they are made, but rather, the
design.

I think you two may be talking passed each other a bit. From my understanding, you aren't claiming that computers came from outside the universe, but rather that for some time they did not exist, and then a bunch of stuff was arranged in such a way that the object we identify as a "computer" now does exist. He is talking about outside the universe in the sense of "there exists some other universe or multiverse that is separate from our own". In your use of language, for example, if God were "not in the universe" that would imply that God does not exist. In his use of language, if God were "not in the universe" that would mean that God could exist in some other universe or multiverse that is beyond our own.

I think I agree with you to a degree here: abstractions don't really "exist" in the same sense that you or I do. I don't really know enough philosophy to be able to really debate this on any more than a very superficial level though. The significance of the problem in this particular context isn't exactly clear to me. It is certainly possible to create an abstraction, purely within your mind. The ability to create an instance of that abstraction is another matter entirely. Similarly, I'm not sure that it would make sense to say that something that is abstract can interact with something that is physical.


I have not designed computers, but have created other things. As for how to interact with
the supernatural, I'll repeat what I've said earlier in this thread: I have never heard
voices or 'spoken with god'. You are confusing me with Jellyslayer :D

Well, strictly speaking I never said that I heard voices either. I felt things that I interpreted to be God. While I certainly could say that I spoke to God in some sense of the term, that doesn't necessarily mean that any information is conveyed. I mean, I can speak to my coffee cup too, but that doesn't mean that the coffee cup is in a position to hear it.


> The question then, is that why would you consider a human being a "design" if this is so? [/COLOR]

I consider human being a design do to how low the probability is, from the alternate theory. I
have been rather clear on that from the begining of this thread. Considering a probability as
being low is not the same as giving it an identity. Let me put it like this: There are people
who have won the lottery (multi-million-dollar ones) repeatedly, then suddenly stopped winning
after being investigated. Am I going to call it coincidence or foul. Remember, I have no
evidence upon which to base my decision, only my knowledge of probability.

Well, I think the problem here is that probability is very hard to deal with when you're looking backwards. In some sense, for example, it makes sense to say that the probability of the universe spitting out humans is unity, because there exists at least once instance of humans in the universe. Without being able to reproduce the system in question, it's hard to judge one way or the other. We don't really have a good idea of what the odds are that we came to be, because our sample size is so small relative both to the size of the universe and to the timescales involved.

For science we, fortunately, can work in both directions. We can say, this theory explains evidence X, Y, and Z, but this isn't very useful. If the theory also says, if we perform experiment A, we should expect to see result B, then we can have more confidence in the correctness of our theory (and similarly, if our theory says we should get B, and instead we get C, then this generally means a problem with the theory).


>> So you are saying evolution from primordial ooze to human is now on scale of 'miliards' only?

> Why yes

Excellent. It is kinda difficult to get some people to agree to that. The problem is, the less
time you have to work with, the less plausible evolution becomes, even if I grant you the
'imortal being' starting condition which is an idea I am not entirely sold on. Because some
have presented objection to this before, I'll give an example. Do you believe a single celled
organism could evolve into a human-like organism in 1000 generations? OK, how about 10K? etc...
You might not like the idea of associating a probability to each, but I do. I'll grant 100%
to infinity, but for the mere 10K generations it would be a number too small to type. Now,
considering time limits (only millions now), natural disasters, diseases, etc... and I just
don't think it is possible.

10k generations? For what? For a relatively long-lived species like humans, that's 200,000 years maybe. For bacteria that's a month or so. Given that we have found evidence of life that is at least 500 million years old, even the longest lived species that we know of would have gone through many generations over that period.


The people who wrote genesis did?

I don't think they did. I'm not sure that it matters--I think the text certainly conveys the idea that the flood covered the whole Earth, regardless of its shape.

gut
12-16-2010, 05:35 AM
> It took hundreds of millions of years before the first multi-cellular life appeared.

For the record, this strikes me as the 'I KNOW' type of argument.

> It depends on the number of individuals in the population, too. Hypothetically speaking,
if the population would be infinit

It would not be. I thought I stated it clearly, but I will elaborate. I was pointing out the
aspect of evolution becoming less plausible with respect to a more limited timeframe. I
(rather generously, IMO) granted the starting condition of the 'imortal' finally becoming
a single celled organism that coincidentally also had a boyfriend evolve at the same time.
If I'm not mistaken, that was what infernovia described with his passage:

> These guys can only be defined as "the immortals," their identity simply would not disappear.

But once the organisms themselves interact with the cloning process, thats when FORCED variance appears, aka the
birth of the sexed mortal being

So rather than 'single celled', we could alternatively call them 'first sexed'. Doesn't
matter for the point that I'm making. My point is, you would start, not with an infinite
population, but with a population of 2. You would then have to produce human-like beings
in a time frame of millions of years. I don't believe it.

> Natural disasters do not slow evolution down, but speed it up.

I don't agree.

> after the extinction of the dinosaurs there was an explosion of diversity of mammals.

That makes little sense by the logic of evolution. Evolution is survival of the fittest.
The only trait that would be passed along from survivors of a catastrophic meteor hit
would be the increased likelihood of being able to survive catastrophic meteor hits,
(which I doubt would be a useful trait for the immediately proceding generations. What
you term 'explosion in diversity', I would call simple repopulation. There is little
reason to think that starting with a more limited gene pool (which is what WOULD result
from a catastrophy) would result in more fit beings.

> Well, strictly speaking I never said that I heard voices either.

I was teasing/exagerating.

> it makes sense to say that the probability of the universe spitting out humans is unity

agreed, but the question at hand is if 'the universe' includes god or not

> Without being able to reproduce the system in question, it's hard to judge one way or the other.

It's even worse than that. We'd need to ensure one universe had no god, and one that did.
Rather difficult, considering the tendancy of human-level-intelligence lifeforms to
build churches.

> 10k generations? For what? For a relatively long-lived species like humans, that's 200,000 years maybe.

I imagine the ones who just evolved beyond 'immortals' would have had short cycles, and the
cycles would increase with size and intelligence.

> Given that we have found evidence of life that is at least 500 million years old

Again, I see this as the 'I KNOW' philosophy. I rank it = with 'on the fifth day, god...'.
I simply don't believe claims of accurate measure into the 100's of milliards of years.

> I don't think they did. I'm not sure that it matters--I think the text certainly
conveys the idea that the flood covered the whole Earth, regardless of its shape.

Indeed, and that is what I found curious. I assumed since they didn't, or rather probably
didn't know the earth was a globe, they couldn't have used language to convey the concept
of a 'global' flood, yet they did.

infernovia
12-16-2010, 06:20 AM
> in his intelligence, he realizes that morality cannot be justified without an eternal being validating

Nonsense, and proof that you didn't read my previous posts. I'll cite this one from dorten
vs jellyslayer, on the topic of god's morality:
I don't see how that contradicts my statement. I think that the christian god (or any god) is a way to validate your morality, and that without the christian god, you really will have to abandon any idea of "the most valid ethic" or whatever. This is not to say that people don't pretend that their morality is still the "ideal," more that morality was founded upon God and the elimination of God must necessarily mean the elimination of the platonic idea of the "truly moral," atleast for those who dare.


I'm not doing that. If you search back through this thread, you will see my responses to those
on the religious side whom I consider aren't thinking logically. I do kinda like pointing out
the flaws in both the 'evolution explains it all' and 'god just made it that way' opinions.
No, I don't really care about the little tiny details. The no-answer of God is the premise that he is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient. The question is, what thing can contain everything, and even be beyond it? Wouldn't God be within the "everything?" And how can anything within justify everything? Basic set theory.

The premise of the no-answer in god is that he is a platonic model that can only exist as a complete signifier (aka, a mere word/concept). Does the object of the signifier (the signified) have any actual effect in the current world? The questions is really quite irrelevant to believing in him. Because people still feel the effect of a pure signifier.


Do you believe a single celled
organism could evolve into a human-like organism in 1000 generations? OK, how about 10K? etc...
You might not like the idea of associating a probability to each, but I do. I'll grant 100%
to infinity, but for the mere 10K generations it would be a number too small to type. Now,
considering time limits (only millions now), natural disasters, diseases, etc... and I just
don't think it is possible.
I think that organisms have done it really fast. 1000 generations is like a week really (a month lets say). So maybe at a billion generations or w/e, we can get something more complex. (In the normal world, "complex" multi-celled organisms are supposed to have come up at around 300 million years after-wards)

And lets not forget that each organism is an individual in itself, and the more organisms you have, the more chance of variations.

Natural disasters are nothing. One of those cataclysms are estimated to wipe out 90% of the life forms on earth. Yet they seem to handle it fine and go on to create enormous monstrosities in just 60 million years of time. Yes, not every multi-celled organism died... but that is a pretty short timeframe.


Clearly, there IS a concept of god, so if it is a concept, and (according to your above
sentence) it is only possible to contemplate things that are part of the universe, that
means god is part of the universe
As a signifier, yes. Meaning as a mere word, a concept, a hallucination in your brain. Lets explain what I mean by that:

Wolf, the word, is a signifier. The word "wolf" exists. "Wolf" is also associated with a signified, a collection of cells that are lined up in a certain way that matches several sensual criteria (what it looks like, what it smells like, how it acts, its ancestors etc.), this also exists. This is the first level of simulacrum, representation (something that attempts to reflect reality but is not it). But does this mean that you can create a signifier that immediately implies a signified? No, you can address the representations themselves (and thus mask/disfigure it). Eventually, you come into a signifier that has no relation to a signified. That is what it means to be "unreal."

See, this is where your "identity=change or w/e" is a simplification of what I am not saying. Identification is a willful error that a human partakes in because it is useful. Electrons, for examples, are fictional constructions (idealized particles) that are useful to model for constructing machinery. But that doesn't mean we have constructed electrons, when we model things with mathematics, we are mostly dealing with the signifier.


There were no computers until invented. They went from not being in the universe to being in
the universe. I'm not talking about the elements from which they are made, but rather, the
design.
When we say "the universe" we really mean "everything." That means what is possible for everything, for all time. Basically what we are dealing with is logic and the basis of thought. We are eliminating things that are "outside of the universe." Aka, contradiction in the words we have chosen and modeled the universe under.

JellySlayer
12-16-2010, 06:46 AM
> it makes sense to say that the probability of the universe spitting out humans is unity

agreed, but the question at hand is if 'the universe' includes god or not

Well, that depends, how exactly do you define God? If God is an abstraction, then, yes, God "exists" in some sense of the term, as in, it exists as a conception within the human mind. Or do you think God is made of matter and energy, as in God is a physical thing in the universe? If not, then the universe doesn't include God.


> Without being able to reproduce the system in question, it's hard to judge one way or the other.

It's even worse than that. We'd need to ensure one universe had no god, and one that did.
Rather difficult, considering the tendancy of human-level-intelligence lifeforms to
build churches.

I'm not sure what the statement about churches has to do with the previous statement. I'd venture too, that we don't actually have enough evidence to say conclusively that "human-level intelligence lifeforms" build churches, since we haven't discovered any other than humans. I admit, finding extraterrestial life with similar (or identical) belief systems would be very compelling evidence for those particular beliefs. As I said, even though we can't run the universe from the beginning again to see what happens, that doesn't mean that we can't deduce anything about the world around us. Quite the contrary, in fact.


> 10k generations? For what? For a relatively long-lived species like humans, that's 200,000 years maybe.

I imagine the ones who just evolved beyond 'immortals' would have had short cycles, and the
cycles would increase with size and intelligence.

So that would mean lots of generations, would it not? Many more than 10k in the timescales we're dealing with.


Again, I see this as the 'I KNOW' philosophy. I rank it = with 'on the fifth day, god...'.
I simply don't believe claims of accurate measure into the 100's of milliards of years.

Why not? How do you explain measurements that do produce these sorts of values, and why do you think that they would be all so wrong about this?

For reference:
Talk Origins on the Age of the Earth (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html)
Isochron Dating (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html) (the main technique for finding the age of really old things; a bit technical)
Age of the Sun (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A%26A...390.1115B) (a non-isochron measure for the solar age; also a bit technical)

infernovia
12-16-2010, 07:08 AM
So rather than 'single celled', we could alternatively call them 'first sexed'. Doesn't
matter for the point that I'm making. My point is, you would start, not with an infinite
population, but with a population of 2
Yet the biblical account of adam and eve seemed to be fine for most people? <- just humorous, don't take this too seriously.

But what if, like the virus, we are dealing with a scenario of rape? That the "male" in this case starts inteferring with multiple chemical processes? Or, it could be accidental, an organism can eat another organism, yet could not digest it's code and thus be forced to replicate with it's code too. Like, it could be a number of things.


That makes little sense by the logic of evolution. Evolution is survival of the fittest.
The only trait that would be passed along from survivors of a catastrophic meteor hit
would be the increased likelihood of being able to survive catastrophic meteor hits,
(which I doubt would be a useful trait for the immediately proceding generations. What
you term 'explosion in diversity', I would call simple repopulation. There is little
reason to think that starting with a more limited gene pool (which is what WOULD result
from a catastrophy) would result in more fit beings.
But "the most fit being" is simply an abstraction... there is no such thing. You are correct, the things that would be selected are the ones who can survive the meteor, but what happens after the cataclysm ends and an enormous explosion of available energy happens? Again, natural selection, the organisms will explode in a frenzy, and that which can take advantage of it will be picked (let it be insects/reptiles/mammals). So while the cataclysm picked those who could survive it, the renewal of energy picks those who can take advantage of it.

And this "repopulation" can and does have a completely different face, the dinosaurs could not keep up with the mammals, and the crocodilian ancestors could not keep up with the dinosaurs in this "repopulation race."

You would then have to produce human-like beings
in a time frame of millions of years.
Yes, the first sexed organism is guessed at around 850 million years ago according to a biological clock that is within the cells (who knows if it is accurate or not, but comparatively, the oldest life is guessed at around 3 billion to 3.5 billion years ago to 2.2 billion years ago at the low end). They are also guessed to be from two gene pools. Like imagine they split every 20 minute. That puts us at 26000 generations in the first year. 21024000 million generations in 800 million years. Thats a lot of splits! And we are really only modelling just one branch of the tree here. Once you started accounting for the population and the generation, we are accounting for some large numbers here!

I mean, I could make more accurate models accounting for increased time spent on reproduction, death, and everything, but forgive me for being a bit lazy here. The first year by itself can produce truly insane number of these cells (2^26000), if we assume for the sake of easy modelling that these cells are "identical" to each other in terms of life-span and that none of them have died due to hazardous surroundings. And then we start accounting for environmental pressures, climates, and all of these things will force variation in one direction or another, and really, there is a lot of chances factored in that will force a "transformation" in these trillions of trillions of cells to one kind or another. Especially once you add sex to the equation which rapidly increases variation within the population when you have a changing environment/hazardous environment.

gut
12-16-2010, 07:38 PM
>> in his intelligence, he realizes that morality cannot be justified without an eternal being validating

> Nonsense, and proof that you didn't read my previous posts. I'll cite this one from dorten
vs jellyslayer, on the topic of god's morality:

I don't see how that contradicts my statement.

Then you must not have read it that time either. Step 1: you claim I think morality can't be
justified without god. Step 2: I disagree with the morality of an action that is attributed
to god. It is rather difficult to see how both your statement about how I think, and my
statement about how I think, can be true.

> I think that the christian god (or any god) is a way to validate your morality

I have stated previously that I need no religious text to validate my way of thinking. If I
find text that appears corrupted, I cast it off as easily as Jellyslayer.

> the elimination of God must necessarily mean the elimination of the platonic idea of the "truly moral

The elimination of god in your mind would be similar to the elimination of, say, racism.
Nothing more than a pattern of thought that could one day, just go away. Elimination of
god to my way of thinking would be more like, um, impossible.

> The question is, what thing can contain everything, and even be beyond it

One could counter with 'what finite mind can comprehend the infite'.

> Wouldn't God be within the "everything?"

An easier question to answer is that WE are within the everything, meaning everything we can
comprehend. Whether god is within what I comprehend or not, I can't say.

> In the normal world, "complex" multi-celled organisms are supposed to have come up at around
300 million years after-ward

It still amazes me that people put such faith in measures that reach into the hundreds of
milliards of years.

> Natural disasters are nothing

I disagree.

>> that means god is part of the universe

> As a signifier, yes. Meaning as a mere word, a concept, a hallucination in your brain. Lets
explain what I mean by that

No need to explain, I was teasing. There is some logic in what I say though, but only in a
way. Humans on every inhabited continents did form notions of god. One could say it is a
hardwired feature, not necesarily to believe, but to consider. Upon seeing miraculous
results, they have the choice, as I do, of believing said results are the product of random
crashings, or design. Most of them make the obvious choice ;)

> this is where your "identity=change or w/e" is a simplification of what I am not saying

That was more teasing.

> Electrons, for examples, are fictional constructions

Drats, there goes years of electrical study...

> When we say "the universe" we really mean "everything."

I'm not entirely sure that is what we are saying. That would encompass all abstract and
concrete things, all we do and don't comprehend. I think when most people say universe,
they are indicating concrete things of which they are aware. At least, that is rather
the context that I used the word in the post you quoted.

> how exactly do you define God?

This is where I tend to differ with so many, as I usually don't try. I've stated I have
never heard voices, seen miracles that I believed were real (like healing kind), spoken
in tongues, or any of the kind. My belief is well summarized with the analogy of 'seeing
an imprint of a coin impies the existance of a coin'. That is logic. Believing otherwise
takes faith that I don't have.

> God "exists" in some sense of the term, as in, it exists as a conception within the human mind

But WHY does it exist in so many minds? The condescending answer is to say that they just
never discovered evolution theory, but that isn't quite enough. People know the theory now,
yet many still find more logic in creationism.

> we don't actually have enough evidence to say conclusively that "human-level intelligence lifeforms"
build churches

I disagree. We have several seperate groups of humans, while technically not different species
(excluding the irish, of course), are diverse enough to give an indication. The logical
result of mixing together a miraculous world with an intelligence capable of appreciating it
is to contemplate creationism.

> So that would mean lots of generations, would it not? Many more than 10k in the timescales
we're dealing with

I will point out that 'many generations" != 'enough generations'. Remember the task at hand,
creating humans from 2 single celled organism.

> I simply don't believe claims of accurate measure into the 100's of milliards of years.

>> Why not?

Apply your own logic relating to controls. Have one rock/fossil/whatever that you absolutely
know is 100 zilliard years old, then run your tests. The test method that gets the date
right will have value in my eyes. Unfortunately, we have no controls from which to work.
There is no item that we KNOW is exactly 1 zillion years old, so there is no standard by
which they can measure the tests.

> How do you explain measurements that do produce these sorts of values, and why do you think
that they would be all so wrong about this?

I put these tests in the same catagory as I do the tests they ran a few years (decades?)
ago, predicting ice caps will all be gone in a few years. Very complex calculations,
taking a lot of data into account, much margin for error, yet accurate predictions are
published, presented as accurate. They refactor them later (when it is apparent they are
wrong), they admit simple mistakes, but quickly follow up with 'but that doesn't mean
the problem isn't real'.

I don't think dating something to hundreds of billions of years is impossible, and 40
years from now, they will be better at it than they are now. I would be quite surprised
if the calculations they come up with in 2050 will match those we see today.

I followed your links and found no information about the possibility of these tests being
one iota wrong. From this I surmise one of two things. A) there is absolutely no question
as to the perfection of these tests from any scientist alive. B) I have common sense, and
realize they have no interest in promoting the possible innaccuracies of the tests in
which they put so much faith.

> Yet the biblical account of adam and eve seemed to be fine for most people?

They were, by most accounts, not single-celled. How these accounts came to be, I can't say.
Yes, I'm teasing.

> So while the cataclysm picked those who could survive it, the renewal of energy picks
those who can take advantage of it.

Your new theory has more problems than the old one. Instead of passing along the trait of
being better suited to survive an appocalypse (which at least makes sense), you are saying
it is more a matter of passing along the trait of being best able to exploit post-appocalypse.
The flaw is that the beings most fit to exploit the post-appocalypse may well have died
within it.

> Yes, the first sexed organism is guessed at around 850 million years ago
according to a biological clock that is within the cells (who knows if it is accurate or not

In other news, I have personally deduced the first lifeform to have been colored green, and
sported 37 legs, according to the gut-method. Who knows if it is accurate or not?

> I could make more accurate models accounting for increased time spent on reproduction, death, and
everything, but forgive me for being a bit lazy here

I would put your findings in the same context as Isochron Dating.

> there is a lot of chances factored in that will force a "transformation" in these trillions of
trillions of cells to one kind or another. Especially once you add sex to the equation

At least you are kinda admiting that there are too many factors to take into account, so
I'll give you credit for that.

xan
12-16-2010, 08:27 PM
> God "exists" in some sense of the term, as in, it exists as a conception within the human mind

But WHY does it exist in so many minds? The condescending answer is to say that they just
never discovered evolution theory, but that isn't quite enough. People know the theory now,
yet many still find more logic in creationism.


It's not logic they find in creationism, it's convenience. As i see it there's 2 main reasons why people believe in a god or gods, First is that it's what they're taught from a young age and never bother to explore any alternatives, second is that it's more comforting to believe that there's some grand design, some divine loving entity that is looking after us, that we go to a magical happy place when we die, that there's a reason for life other than crude survival. This comforting lie is easier to accept than the truth that the universe is scary place, and is apathetic to our happiness and survival, that people die every day horribly and for no reason, and when they die, they're gone forever.

gut
12-16-2010, 08:44 PM
> it's what they're taught from a young age and never bother to explore any alternatives

They can go through school and not learn evolution theory? Wow! Funny how they could, and
I couldn't. Funny because I live in the most fundamentalist christian area of America,
perhaps the world.

> some divine loving entity that is looking after us, that we go to a magical happy place when we die, that there's a
reason for life other than crude survival. This comforting lie is easier to accept than the truth

Yet another beleiver in the 'I KNOW' religion.

Perhaps I will catagorize the catagorizers in two catagories :)
There are those who claim others are emotional rather than logical, because they are afraid
of the truth, that it is logical to believe differently. Then there are those who claim
others are brainwashed rather than logical, because they are afraid of admiting the truth,
which is that they themselves are brainwashed.

See how annoying that is?

infernovia
12-16-2010, 09:26 PM
One could counter with 'what finite mind can comprehend the infite'.
One would ask if you cannot comprehend infinity, how can you pose such a question in the first place.


An easier question to answer is that WE are within the everything, meaning everything we can
comprehend. Whether god is within what I comprehend or not, I can't say.
Yes, but easier doesn't mean it is the right one does it?


It still amazes me that people put such faith in measures that reach into the hundreds of
milliards of years.
Guesstimations. You would need to have something that actually effects the radio-isotopes to disprove it. And I am not saying it is not possible, there can be such things, but it doesn't seem very likely.


Humans on every inhabited continents did form notions of god. One could say it is a
hardwired feature, not necesarily to believe, but to consider. Upon seeing miraculous
results, they have the choice, as I do, of believing said results are the product of random
crashings, or design
Aka, a platonic model or a universe filled with flux. The former is definitely the easier of the two, but it doesn't mean it is correct.


> Electrons, for examples, are fictional constructions

Drats, there goes years of electrical study...
Like I said, useful error. It doesn't matter if electrons are "ideal" (aka a pure signifier/abstraction) as long as it provides a useful model to work with (after all, one must account for quantum mechanics...). Again, you take the easy way out, which is also the reason you won't let go of god.


I'm not entirely sure that is what we are saying. That would encompass all abstract and
concrete things, all we do and don't comprehend. I think when most people say universe,
they are indicating concrete things of which they are aware. At least, that is rather
the context that I used the word in the post you quoted.
Yes, as things that exists. For all time. For example, you could not have "a thing that is outside of everything" which would contradict our definition of "thing" "outside" and "everything." If you define east in the direction that the sun rises, you cannot have the sun rise in a not east direction. And yes, I am differentiating between things that exists and things that are pure abstractions, I am not sure why you aren't?


Instead of passing along the trait of
being better suited to survive an appocalypse (which at least makes sense), you are saying
it is more a matter of passing along the trait of being best able to exploit post-appocalypse.
The flaw is that the beings most fit to exploit the post-appocalypse may well have died
within it.
No, the new theory is that not only did these animals survive the apocalyptic conditions, but they must dominate in the post apocalyptic world.

So lets say you have species A and species B and species C. Species A dominates before apocalypse and has dominated the food chain, B and C are fighting the tough life and are inconsequential at this time, they are relatively underdeveloped at the time lets say.

Apocalypse happens, thoroughly knocking down the ability of A from the environment. But lets say species B and species C both kept their species intact (warm blooded in a cold apocalypse lets say). What happens when the world reverts back to abundance (aka pre-apocalyptic climate)? Which wins out?

Species A? But now it doesn't have the numerical superiority (or food chain superiority) anymore that kept B and C underground, so this means its a race to see which species can take advantage of the new environment faster.

So its not JUST that the animal had to survive the apocalypse, but it has to survive the post apocalypse. In post-apocalyptic conditions new mutations which could not survive in apocalyptic conditions (lets say, bigger size) could dominate in the post-apocalyptic ones and it will be reliant on which species can showcase these mutations faster (this dramatically increases the usefulness of sexual creatures btw). But then the apocalypse happens again, and then the mutations that rapidly took hold in post-apocalypse might be inferior in the new conditions. And so a new species might dominate.

Yes, there might be an organism within Species A that could take advantage of post-apocalyptic conditions that were completely wiped out (in fact, there are a number of these). But thats the nature of the world.


In other news, I have personally deduced the first lifeform to have been colored green, and
sported 37 legs, according to the gut-method. Who knows if it is accurate or not?
Yeah, guesstimations sure are that, guestimates. But its founded on something here, not nothing. I am sure this number will be modified in a bit, but I would place the timeframe around right. I would say that if the sexual revolution happened way before, then there is definitely something wrong with the current understanding of evolution/mutation theory.

And I am not saying that there aren't some interesting gaps we need to fill with evolution, there certainly is. But the premise is good, the evidence we have is clearly favoring it vastly (I will be surprised if it really is modified by that much, like the first lifeform is only 100 million years away from the first sexual one would be a big change in evo-biology), and seems to correlate with the law of large numbers and selection. So it seems to be pure psychological at the moment.

But heck, at least you can say "I don't know," thats atleast credit-worthy.

gut
12-17-2010, 12:50 AM
>> 'what finite mind can comprehend the infite'.

> if you cannot comprehend infinity, how can you pose such a question

Not being able to comprehend quantum physics doesn't prevent me from thinking such a
thing exists, or asking how anyone can comprehend it :) If quantum physicists exist,
it implies quantum physics exist, eh?
I'm having much fun with this.

> Yes, but easier doesn't mean it is the right one does it?

I answered your question by saying I don't know. I don't have a problem saying that if
it is true, and often wish other people didn't either.

> You would need to have something that actually effects the radio-isotopes to disprove
it. And I am not saying it is not possible, there can be such things, but it doesn't
seem very likely.

I have heard of such things (in passing) long ago, but have little interest in searching
links. Considering the number of skeptics in the scientific world, I imagine googling
would almost certainly turn up some date-testing related questions/controversies. The
point I was making, is that there are places/communities where mentioning such questions
would be considered taboo.

>>> Electrons, for examples, are fictional constructions

>> Drats, there goes years of electrical study...

> Like I said, useful error. It doesn't matter if electrons are "ideal" (aka a pure
signifier/abstraction) as long as it provides a useful model to work with

So electrons=fake, and you wanna me to try to prove otherwise? No thanks.

> you take the easy way out, which is also the reason you won't let go of god.

Declining a quest to prove the existence of electrons is not a sign of laziness, it is a sign
of having other interests. Believing in god is not a sign of laziness, but rather it is
simply a case of disbelieving some of the theories you believe, and for good reason.

> you could not have "a thing that is outside of everything"
...
I am differentiating between things that exists and things that are pure abstractions, I am not sure
why you aren't?

To my mind:

everything = everything we know
thing != ONLY things we know

Did that clarify, or just mix more?

> not only did these animals survive the apocalyptic conditions, but they must dominate in
the post apocalyptic world.

Agreed. By default, the survivors of appocalypse would have signifigant advantage over the
ones that died.

> Species A? But now it doesn't have the numerical superiority (or food chain superiority)
anymore that kept B and C underground, so this means its a race to see which species can
take advantage of the new environment faster

You are going heavily into theory here. I don't agree with your assesment at all, and
consider such ramblings in the 'I KNOW' line of thought. You don't know that is the way
things would have worked. We know the results, as we see them with our eyes, but claiming
conjecture like ^that is the fact of how said results came to be is just wrong.

Trying to prove that catastrophy speeds evolution by creating race situation is just flawed.
Alternate THEORY could be that most cold blooded creatures died for no other reason than
because they were cold blooded, not because they lost post-appocalyptic race for resource
collection.

> interesting gaps we need to fill with evolution, there certainly is. But the premise is good

I have stated in the past that evolution is logical. I don't imagine you read that though.

> the evidence we have is clearly favoring it vastly (I will be surprised if it really is
modified by that much

The evidence that small dogs can change to big dogs is sound. The evidence that bacteria
can transform into an adom player is less sound. I will be surprised if evolutionary theory
and 20-zillion-years-precision date testing doesn't continue evolving with each generation.

> at least you can say "I don't know," thats atleast credit-worthy.

Actually pride myself on being able to admit that without shame. So few can.

infernovia
12-17-2010, 02:00 AM
Gut, when I mean that evolution looks logical and sound, I mean that it looks about 90-96&#37; complete. If you can honestly say that humans did not come from some bacteria without some undetectable but allpowerful god, then you are saying you have serious problems with evolution as we understand it. So you cannot obviously think it is as logical and sound as I do, you actually think there is a profound error within it.

So yes, I bothered to read that. It doesn't change the response anyway.



So electrons=fake, and you wanna me to try to prove otherwise? No thanks.
Meh, whatever.


You are going heavily into theory here. I don't agree with your assesment at all, and
consider such ramblings in the 'I KNOW' line of thought.
Yet, I am simply postulating an example. A model. I don't really care if that is exactly what happened, but I am trying to portray a very simplistic idea of how a species could survive the apocalypse, yet die in the repopulation race. What we are entertaining is a "could something have worked out this way?" The traits could have been named XYZ for all I care, but I didn't so that it would be easy to read.


You don't know that is the way
things would have worked. We know the results, as we see them with our eyes, but claiming
conjecture like ^that is the fact of how said results came to be is just wrong.

Trying to prove that catastrophy speeds evolution by creating race situation is just flawed.
Alternate THEORY could be that most cold blooded creatures died for no other reason than
because they were cold blooded, not because they lost post-appocalyptic race for resource
collection.
And how do you explain they died? Were they like "oh I am cold-blooded, where is the razor blade so I can slit my wrist open?" You aren't even disagreeing with me at all actually, you are saying that one defecit it had (being cold-blooded) could not keep up with the warm-blooded species in the repopulation race.

I am not trying to prove the apocalypse speeds up anything. What I am saying is that it shifts the environment dramatically that can emphasize completely different traits than before and how such things could pan in the world history.


Not being able to comprehend quantum physics doesn't prevent me from thinking such a
thing exists, or asking how anyone can comprehend it If quantum physicists exist,
it implies quantum physics exist, eh?

Quantum mechanics is at least something definable that can be accepted or rejected.

Instead what you are doing is something different. You are saying "I don't think this thing here is comprehensible by anything, but yeah, it created everything." To me, then the question would be "how would it have created everything?" "What did it actually do?" etc. Everything else I would consider laziness. But of course you have a way out for this "It is impossible to understand what he actually did."

I can do this to justify sooo many fields its not even funny. Like, I can create a hidden variable "xyz" that takes care of the local-reality problem (which is undetectable by any man-made machine of course). I can make a hidden mechanic called "hidden demon" that can distort anything we have gotten sensually. So for me, I just can't hope to rely on a justification like that.

But to each his own. Edit: To clarify, if I did have to rely on a mechanic like that, I would rather say "I don't know" rather than pretend to know.

gut
12-17-2010, 03:23 AM
> you are saying you have serious problems with evolution as we understand it

I'll agree with that, mainly relating to time frames.

> I am trying to portray a very simplistic idea of how a species could survive the apocalypse,
yet die in the repopulation race
...
> I am not trying to prove the apocalypse speeds up anything.

I somehow messed grobblewobble's post #511 as being yours:

Natural disasters do not slow evolution down, but speed it up. For example, after the
extinction of the dinosaurs there was an explosion of diversity of mammals.

I am arguing with too many people to keep up with who is who :(
I will agree that a species could easily survive a catastrophy, only to die to something else.

> You are saying "I don't think this thing here is comprehensible by anything, but yeah,
it created everything."

Had to read this a few times before realizing that this is actually a pretty accurate
summary of how I think. I would say it is do to logic and process of elimination that I
arrive where I do. If everything we know doesn't fully account for the order that I see
with my eyes, then the remainder must fall to that which we don't. I think order doesn't
come from chaos (a big exploding nothing), so I think the 'remainder' isn't explosions
or collisions.

> To me, then the question would be "how would it have created
everything?" "What did it actually do?" etc. Everything else I would consider laziness.

That is rather the sticking point in the purely scientific theory as well, if I understand
it correctly. The 'first there was nothing, then it exploded' theory has begged the question
'where did the nothing come from'. The answer for both is "I dunno", and furthermore, I'm
not particularly interested. I have questioned many times if this ambivelance is
abnormal/reprehensible, and most people tell me it isn't. I just have other interests.

> But of course you have a way out for this "It is impossible to understand what he actually did.

That isn't the way I would answer the question above. I would say I don't know how, as I
just did. There is no problem in my mind of god using/creating physics, matter, energy,
whatever to accomplish things. That is why I am much more accepting of the idea of evolution
than the majority of people I live near. It is entirely desirable, in my eyes, for people to
investigate physics or religion if they have an inclination, to try to find the remaining
answers. I won't be joining them though, as I feel no need to.

> I would rather say "I don't know" rather than pretend to know.

Then at least we are in agreement on one thing :D
I would also prefer you say you don't know than pretend to ; )

infernovia
12-17-2010, 04:00 AM
That is rather the sticking point in the purely scientific theory as well, if I understand
it correctly.
Science hasn't explained it completely for my satisfaction, and that's fine. I am ok with a "I don't know" if I don't understand. So that is my solution, I would rather not create a validation that is really based on nothing.

But yeah, I guess thats the difference between you and me.

Edit: This came off as a really snarky comment, I definitely didn't mean it like that.

gut
12-17-2010, 04:54 AM
> I would rather not create a validation that is really based on nothing.

I have issue with the words 'create' and 'nothing'. I prefer 'strongly suspect' and
'hints/imprints/suggestions'. Of course I didn't invent the notion of god, there are
milliard of humanoids who swear they can commune with it.

EDIT: we are the only 2 people logged in to the forums :D

xan
12-17-2010, 05:58 AM
Gut, would you go about your life any differently if you didn't believe in god?

gut
12-17-2010, 07:11 AM
I can't predict alternate realities.

xan
12-17-2010, 08:25 PM
I can't predict alternate realities.

I was hoping it would be an exercise in reason rather than prediction.

gut
12-17-2010, 11:24 PM
OK, I'll try.

I had notions of right and wrong drilled into me by a religious parent. If I did not have said
parent, and said drilling, I would have turned out much differently indeed. There were many
right decisions I made earlier in life, in part, do to a belief in god and the logic that it would
be wrong to harm his creations (including me).

Considering the environment I was born into, without a belief and respect for god I would
have prolly fallen into the following habits/pitfalls in my earlier years, and they may very
well have continued into later years: tobbaco, alcohol, marijuana (and/or other illegal drugs),
racism, vandalism, tatoos, thievery, foul language, jail, promiscuity (STD's), mistreating
females, violence, etc...

The reason I speculate this, is because those are the problems I see in nearby communities
that aren't as religious as the one I live in. No, it is not a money thing, as the average incomes
are similar. Seems having two churches and zero liquor stores within walking distance of one's
house is a rather good idea.

On a sad note, my county was just voted 'wet' in the last election :(
I invite you all to come, get drunk, and vandalize your hearts out. Maybe then they'll change it back.

xan
12-18-2010, 07:29 AM
OK, I'll try.

I had notions of right and wrong drilled into me by a religious parent. If I did not have said
parent, and said drilling, I would have turned out much differently indeed. There were many
right decisions I made earlier in life, in part, do to a belief in god and the logic that it would
be wrong to harm his creations (including me).


Would you agree that it would have been possible for you to receive moral instruction that wasn't based on god? Moral instruction that could have guided you just as effectively about what's right and wrong when making decisions?



Considering the environment I was born into, without a belief and respect for god I would
have prolly fallen into the following habits/pitfalls in my earlier years, and they may very
well have continued into later years: tobbaco, alcohol, marijuana (and/or other illegal drugs),
racism, vandalism, tatoos, thievery, foul language, jail, promiscuity (STD's), mistreating
females, violence, etc...


Do you think that these undesireable habits and behaviours are something that all people who don't believe in god are going to fall prey to? Do you concede that there are other systems of morality which don't stem from religion that can guide people away from these things.



The reason I speculate this, is because those are the problems I see in nearby communities
that aren't as religious as the one I live in. No, it is not a money thing, as the average incomes
are similar. Seems having two churches and zero liquor stores within walking distance of one's
house is a rather good idea.


There are many places in the world where there's no prominent religion yet there are not these problems that you seem to think an absence of religious instruction can encourage. Perhaps it's cultural pressures that encourage this behavior in America rather than an absence of belief in god.

gut
12-18-2010, 10:08 AM
> Would you agree that it would have been possible for you to receive moral instruction that wasn't based on god?

I don't think it is a matter of possible, as much as probable.

> that there are other systems of morality which don't stem from religion that can guide people away from these things.

Sure, but fear of prison ('getting caught') doesn't seem to motivate those in
society who feel somewhat bulletproof and are too young/stupid to fully
consider consequences.

> There are many places in the world where there's no prominen
t religion yet there are not these problems that you seem to
think an absence of religious instruction can encourage.

Perhaps they aren't bombarded by alcohol and drug merchants. Religion isn't
a prerequisite for having a moral population, but it is a handy line of
defense for those who are compelled to raise their children just downwind
of liquor stores.

> Perhaps it's cultural pressures that encourage this behavior
in America rather than an absence of belief in god.

Love the phrase 'in America'. If you think those problems I mentioned are
American exclusives, you are prolly from Liechtenstien. Other than that,
you are 100&#37; correct. Furthermore, I find questions like: "Do you think that
these undesireable habits and behaviours are something that all people
who don't believe in god are going to" line of questioning to be insulting
and simpleminded. For the record, duh, no.

xan
12-18-2010, 10:01 PM
Love the phrase 'in America'. If you think those problems I mentioned are
American exclusives, you are prolly from Liechtenstien.


Well, a lot of your observations come from your immediate community and surrounding communities, I don't see that it's that unfair to refer to your observations as "in America". If I implied that these are things that are exclusive to America, that was not my intent, just that they are present where you've observed them.

You live closer to Liechtenstein than I do ;)

tapi
01-07-2011, 03:23 AM
Creation narriative is about the meaning and condition of man and his relation with God, not about the creation of the universe. What good would it have been for the priestly author of the book to recite the Periodic Table of the Elements? Or to discuss deuterium or cosmic microwave anistotropy? All that is part and parcel of the coming into being of the Universe, but why would the author of the Scripture want to tell anyone, let alone a primative desert tribe.

Grey
01-07-2011, 03:48 AM
Perhaps we would not have been so primitive were people's minds more open to different possibilities. Religion was often stifled scientific advancement by preaching one unquestionable view of the world. Who knows how much further we could have come without it?

Soirana
01-07-2011, 04:53 AM
OK, I'll try.

the reason I speculate this, is because those are the problems I see in nearby communities
that aren't as religious as the one I live in. No, it is not a money thing, as the average incomes
are similar. Seems having two churches and zero liquor stores within walking distance of one's
house is a rather good idea.


zero liquor stores? How do people survive in there?..

gut
01-07-2011, 05:18 AM
most aren't yet like the dwarves from DF, they don't need alcohol
to get through the working day. They just wait until they want some,
then drive the 20 minutes it takes to get to neighboring couties.

well, that is what they USED to do :(

Toan
01-07-2011, 07:28 AM
"Yet"

And then they changed.

Does it mean they're now the DF dwarves I know and love? =O

JellySlayer
01-07-2011, 05:50 PM
> that there are other systems of morality which don't stem from religion that can guide people away from these things.

Sure, but fear of prison ('getting caught') doesn't seem to motivate those in
society who feel somewhat bulletproof and are too young/stupid to fully
consider consequences.

Most moral systems aren't based off of fear or legalism. While laws try to reflect the moral fabric of society as best they can, there is no reason that simply because something is legal that it must also be moral. A law may be immoral, moral, or amoral depending on circumstance, and the moral system that you subscribe to. Thus fear of getting caught is a rather immature way to go about making moral judgments--it works as a rule of thumb in some cases, but does not allow for any real social evolution. It also makes people suspectable to the whims of tyrannical lawmakers.

gut
01-07-2011, 10:46 PM
> fear of getting caught is a rather immature way to go about making moral judgments

many people are pure idiots. making them behave properly through use of stun
guns is not entirely objectionable to me. How about fear of stun guns?