Atheists....

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

05-09-2007, 03:40 PM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hand_Of_God

Red, I got your point, but let me say something. I don't say evolution is right at all costs in it's last formulation, but it is a scientific theory (in fact it can be confirmed or disproved by observations, for example finding ancient animals which respect or not what the model expects). On the other side, ID is not a scientific theory, because it has no way to do that (you can always say you see a designer in nature). So, one can believe there is an Intelligent behind universe who created or organized all, there's no problem, but it is not science. For me Evolution Vs ID is not a real match between 2 scientific models like could be dark matter vs mond. :alien:

Here's how they work: evolution proceeds from the foundation that God is not the creator of Life; ID does. Both theories - once they establish the "ground rules" look to nature for clues that they believe point to their separate conclusions that they've already arrived at even before examining the data. Both camps utilize the same data. They simply interpret it differently because each side has already established the "creator": ID says it's God, evolution says it's chance. There you go.
05-10-2007, 04:25 AM
Lote-Tree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Here's how they work: evolution proceeds from the foundation that God is not the creator of Life; ID does. Both theories - once they establish the "ground rules" look to nature for clues that they believe point to their separate conclusions that they've already arrived at even before examining the data. Both camps utilize the same data. They simply interpret it differently because each side has already established the "creator": ID says it's God, evolution says it's chance. There you go.

Chance?

You know nothing about Biological Evolution.

"chance" is mostly an illusion caused by our inability to see everything.

Mechanisms such as natural selection, mutations, sexual selection, genetic drift etc are not based "chance". Even mutations have definite properties, governed by genetic processes and natural law: there are germ mutations, point mutations, frame-shift mutations etc.
05-10-2007, 10:23 AM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

Chance?

You know nothing about Biological Evolution.

"chance" is mostly an illusion caused by our inability to see everything.

Mechanisms such as natural selection, mutations, sexual selection, genetic drift etc are not based "chance". Even mutations have definite properties, governed by genetic processes and natural law: there are germ mutations, point mutations, frame-shift mutations etc.

Well, hello, Lote; we meet again at last.

I know enough to know that things unguided by a conscious entity/design/"program" must be relegated to chance. "Natural selection" - what exactly drives that? That things have "properties" begs the question: how did those properties develop: design or chance? Genetic processes - how did those come about? Design or chance? Processes don't just appear out of nowhere - something initiates the process. You have not gone back far enough, my friend. I'm talking about the beginnings of life itself - before any "life processes" existed (which is where you went).
05-10-2007, 11:36 AM
Lote-Tree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Well, hello, Lote; we meet again at last.

Hola chappy :-)

Quote:

I know enough to know that things unguided by a conscious entity/design/"program" must be relegated to chance.

"chance" is a merely an illusion as I said before.

Quote:

"Natural selection" - what exactly drives that?

Natural Selection is the DRIVE.

Quote:

That things have "properties" begs the question: how did those properties develop: design or chance?

Natural Selection itself is not based on "chance" - please study it properly.

Quote:

Genetic processes - how did those come about? Design or chance?

Natural Selection itself is not based on "chance".

Quote:

Processes don't just appear out of nowhere - something initiates the process.

Yes. Natural Laws initiates it.

Quote:

You have not gone back far enough, my friend. I'm talking about the beginnings of life itself - before any "life processes" existed (which is where you went).

As I said before research into abiogenesis is still at early days yet. But evolution is a fact and due course abiogeneis will also be established as a fact. But we are not sure how long this will take. Perhaps discovery of life on other planets - even bacterial life will help us in this regard or perhaps discovery of a second "abiogenisis" along side the current one may establish this fact...
05-10-2007, 01:09 PM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

Hola chappy :-)

"chance" is a merely an illusion as I said before.
Natural Selection is the DRIVE.
Natural Selection itself is not based on "chance" - please study it properly.
Natural Selection itself is not based on "chance".
Yes. Natural Laws initiates it.

As I said before research into abiogenesis is still at early days yet. But evolution is a fact and due course abiogeneis will also be established as a fact. But we are not sure how long this will take. Perhaps discovery of life on other planets - even bacterial life will help us in this regard or perhaps discovery of a second "abiogenisis" along side the current one may establish this fact...

You have missed the point: "natural laws" are blind forces that have no conscious will to act; as such, their existence is due to something (or Someone); life either came from conscious design, or the random workings of a "consciousless" universe. I say "chance" because there is no set law that says life must exist at all or that it must be created; one answer is God created it; the other is that the blind forces of nature somehow created it - but obviously not by conscious design. Natual laws may be obeying some particular property or process, but I'm talking about the origination of life - which is not due to any particular "natural process."

And you still didn't tell me what "drives" natural selection.
05-10-2007, 01:23 PM
Lote-Tree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

"natural laws" are blind forces that have no conscious will to act.

It does NOT need a "conscious" will. Just like DeepBlue Chess playing computer does not needs a consciouss will to act. All it needs is some rules to follow. And those rules are inherent in the nature itself - like conservation of Energy etc.

Have you come acrosss John Conways Game of Life? all it needs is simple rules...

Quote:

I say "chance" because there is no set law that says life must exist at all or that it must be created

True, our theories do not predict the fundamental constanst of nature yet. But M theory is showing lots of promises in that regards.

Quote:

Natual laws may be obeying some particular property or process

That is all you need. The rest is driven by Natural Selection.

Quote:

And you still didn't tell me what "drives" natural selection

Natural Selection is the DRIVE.

Are you asking me what powers it?
05-10-2007, 03:23 PM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

It does NOT need a "conscious" will. Just like DeepBlue Chess playing computer does not needs a consciouss will to act. All it needs is some rules to follow. And those rules are inherent in the nature itself - like conservation of Energy etc.

Deep Blue is a bad example because a conscious will designed the program that runs it. Where do the "rules" come from? What do you mean "inherent in nature" - who says nature has to be the way it is? Nature (matter) has always existed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

True, our theories do not predict the fundamental constanst of nature yet. But M theory is showing lots of promises in that regards.

"Showing lots of promise." (i.e. as unverifiable as God)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

That is all you need. The rest is driven by Natural Selection.

Natural Selection is the DRIVE.

Are you asking me what powers it?

I'm asking where the "logic" of natural selection came from - because it is a system that is at work in living things. Once life was created, how did natural selection get "activated" or "configured" (for lack of better terms)?
05-11-2007, 08:13 AM
Lote-Tree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Deep Blue is a bad example because a conscious will designed the program that runs it.

This is what you said:

Quote:

...blind forces that have no conscious will to act.

And I said you don't need a "conscious will" to act. DeepBlue does not need a "consciouss will" to play chess - it follows rules.

Quote:

Where do the "rules" come from?

For you the Rules come from your Idea of God.

From science it seems that the rules are inherent in nature.

Quote:

What do you mean "inherent in nature"

like Conservation of Energy, momentum...

Quote:

- who says nature has to be the way it is?

For you it is God to others it is the part of the reality that many have called God, Nirvana, Tao etc..and to others no one really...

Quote:

Nature (matter) has always existed?

This seems to be the case - Matter/Energy is neither created or destroyed.

Quote:

"Showing lots of promise." (i.e. as unverifiable as God)

You said you know how science works?

Science does not at the moment predict what the fundamental constants of the universe is. M Theory is showing lots of promise in that regards.

Quote:

I'm asking where the "logic" of natural selection came from - because it is a system that is at work in living things.

Why only living things? It works with any replicators that produces varients that compete for resources in the environment. Where did it come from? from the very nature of the replicators that produces varients that compete for resources in the environment.

Quote:

Once life was created, how did natural selection get "activated" or "configured" (for lack of better terms)?

Soon as replication started and created varients that competed for resources in the environment so did natural selection.
05-12-2007, 03:35 PM
weepingforloman

Okay, I think we need to address the basic point here: what is life? Where does it come from? We still have no clear idea of what "life" is, in and of itself. If we did, the debate over abortion would be different. We really don't know what "makes" something alive, dead, or inanimate. You can talk about electricity, but you can run electricity through just about anything and it will not come to life. Furthermore, I can't remember who did it, but a while ago, someone tried running an electrical current through all the chemicals the evolutionists believe to have been present at the beginning of life. Amino acids were produced, but that more or less shows that it takes more than energy to be animate. Secondly, my strongest objection to evolution is this: evolution is believed to depend on mutation (no one should be able to deny that, or else I'm totally stupid). When have we ever seen a mutation that has a positive effect on life? When have we seen a significant mutation that did not cause the death of the organism? Do we know for sure that an organism can even mutate far enough beyond its original form to evolve without being stillborn or dying immediately? And besides, what are the odds that a significant number of organisms, living in the remote past, all happened to have the same, beneficial mutation, find and mate with each other, and survive enough to create a new species? Someone want to calculate that? Besides, Lote, Red has a point. You continue to say that natural laws are a beginning in themselves, but that simply cannot be.
05-12-2007, 05:49 PM
Lote-Tree

Quote:

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

Okay, I think we need to address the basic point here: what is life? Where does it come from? We still have no clear idea of what "life" is, in and of itself.

Life at the level of DNA is just digital information replication.
05-12-2007, 07:27 PM
NSAM

Slightly irrelevant, but on the poll above doesn't being "not sure" whether you're an Atheist or not make you, by definition, Agnostic?
05-12-2007, 10:10 PM
weepingforloman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

Life at the level of DNA is just digital information replication.

My point is, we don't know what animates matter, including genetic information. A cell is considered the lowest common denominator of life: DNA is not living, according to the scientific definition, so that doesn't quite hold up. "Digital?"
05-12-2007, 11:44 PM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

This is what you said:

And I said you don't need a "conscious will" to act. DeepBlue does not need a "consciouss will" to play chess - it follows rules.

Deep Blue's ability is the product of a conscious will enabling it to act.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

For you the Rules come from your Idea of God.

It is a cop-out to answer a question directed to you by answering it in terms of how you think I see it. Why don't you answer the question, please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

From science it seems that the rules are inherent in nature.

Why should Nature have the rules it has?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

like Conservation of Energy, momentum...

You gave an example of a natural process, but you did not answer my question as to why/how these rules would be "inherent" in nature - nature could be configured in a number of ways - why this way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

For you it is God to others it is the part of the reality that many have called God, Nirvana, Tao etc..and to others no one really...

Cf. my second response above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

This seems to be the case - Matter/Energy is neither created or destroyed.

Matter is not self-existent; it must have come from somewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

Why only living things? It works with any replicators that produces varients that compete for resources in the environment. Where did it come from? from the very nature of the replicators that produces varients that compete for resources in the environment.

I can't cut through all that "replicator" stuff - aren't things that "replicate" alive? Your first sentence seems to indicate that non-living things also experience natural selection - huh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

Soon as replication started and created varients that competed for resources in the environment so did natural selection.

Why?
05-13-2007, 03:21 AM
The Atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

I can't cut through all that "replicator" stuff - aren't things that "replicate" alive? Your first sentence seems to indicate that non-living things also experience natural selection - huh?

Prions, RNAs - there are several "non-living" replicators.
05-13-2007, 05:44 AM
Lote-Tree

Quote:

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

My point is, we don't know what animates matter, including genetic information. A cell is considered the lowest common denominator of life: DNA is not living, according to the scientific definition, so that doesn't quite hold up. "Digital?"

What I am saying is that life at the level of DNA is digital replication of information. So what is life? Life is digital replication of information? What is the differences between lump of rock and DNA? DNA is a replicator and lump of rock is not. You say DNA is non living so is a lump of rock - and the differences is? DNA replicates itself. So what animates life? Replication of digital information?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page