Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since "afterlife" has long gone out the window, I will add a couple of observations about ID.

The problem with saying that "ID" is not falsifiable is that "not ID" is equally unfalsifiable.

"Not ID" would be the claim that no intelligence is involved with evolution. It all happens via the actions of random forces. However, the existence of random forces can't be tested. Statistical models assume that the outcomes of certain trials are determined by "random forces" (rather than the laws of physics) which side steps the problem of identifying and measuring all of the physical forces involved with a trial.

Although assuming that random forces are at work can produce remarkably accurate results, that is not proof that the random forces are real. A mathematical model is only as good as the behaviour it fails to predict.

So if "ID" is not suitable for publication in a peer reviewed journal then "not ID" is equally unsuitable.

Nice Apologetic try.

By this measure science cannot draw any conclusions about anything.

This part in particular is crap.

the existence of random forces can't be tested. Statistical models assume that the outcomes of certain trials are determined by "random forces" (rather than the laws of physics) which side steps the problem of identifying and measuring all of the physical forces involved with a trial.

I'll let someone else deal with your false assumptions. If no one does I'll come back to your fallacies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Premised on the incorrect description of evolution as determined by "random forces". There are no "random forces".

I knew someone would address psion10. This is a good start.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you don't know what you are talking about then not responding is an option.

Oh for crying out loud! You've been here long enough to know how evolution works so we can surmise you keep reverting back to your flawed idea of how it works.

Random mutations in DNA/RNA which are observable (except they aren't completely random. Some segments of DNA and RNA are more likely to mutate plus a bunch of other stuff but that would involve me typing out a page or two so I'll just post some links below) are then acted on by selection pressures which can be positive, negative or neutral.

Khan Academy Mechanisms of evolution(might be over a lot of people's heads)

Nature: Why mutation is not as random as we thought

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yet another person who insists and persists in repeating and rehashing errors hoping that by dogged tenacity and magic they will one day become not errors.

WOW!!!

You have already been proven utterly wrong on this error you keep repeating... over and over and over...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well at least Psion isn't arguing against evolution. ...

Pretty sure getting the theory wrong when one should know better by now is arguing against evolution. Or did your sarcasm alert sign get knocked over?

We've had genetic science long enough it's time for these deniers to move on, look for new arguments if they must, or simply do what the Catholics did, admit evolution theory is correct. God of the Gaps must still have some room there to wiggle.

One can always use the line, we can't understand God but we know it's there. How else can people believe in an afterlife?


Or is that a false dichotomy?

 

[acbytesla]

Pretty sure getting the theory wrong when one should know better by now is arguing against evolution. Or did your sarcasm alert sign get knocked over?

We've had genetic science long enough it's time for these deniers to move on, look for new arguments if they must, or simply do what the Catholics did, admit evolution theory is correct. God of the Gaps must still have some room there to wiggle.

One can always use the line, we can't understand God but we know it's there. How else can people believe in an afterlife?


Or is that a false dichotomy?

Yes I was being sarcastic. Psion's either/or statement was a false dichotomy.

Of course that wasn't the only problem. I'm not a big fan of calling people liars. But there is no doubt that Behe, Meyer and anyone educated in science are being intellectually dishonest. But let's face it, there are lots of individuals out there that are very ignorant about science.

 

[arthwollipot]

Natural selection may not be but the reproduction process is not so clear cut.

A key component of evolution is the idea of reproduction with some "random" mutations. Maybe it is all deterministic and every mutation was "pre-programmed" but nobody knows.

I was going to respond to this but Skeptic Ginger got in before me. Even mutation is not particularly "random", and selection is anything but.

I repeat. "Well maybe God did it with magic we can never understand" is not an answer, nor a hypothesis, nor a even a guess. It's nothing.

It's an opinion.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I disagree that the ID proponents are lying about their claims.

They are lying when they say it's not about their god beliefs.

So Behe said:-

The designer need not necessarily even be a truly 'supernatural' being. …if one wishes to be academically rigorous, one can't leap directly from design to a transcendent God.​

But we all know what he was thinking of when he said 'designer'.

Then there was Phillip E. Johnson, the 'father' of ID:-

Phillip E. Johnson (June 18, 1940 – November 2, 2019) was a UC Berkeley law professor, opponent of evolutionary science, co-founder of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement, author of the "Wedge strategy" and co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC) . He described himself as "in a sense the father of the intelligent design movement". He was a critic of Darwinism, which he described as "fully naturalistic evolution, involving chance mechanisms and natural selection"...

At the age of 38, Johnson became a born again Christian following a divorce, and later became an elder in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Johnson recounted that on sabbatical in England he sought, through prayer, inspiration for what he should do with the rest of his life, and then received an epiphany after he read Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker (1986) and Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985)...

Despite having no formal background in biology, he felt that he could add insight...

What kind of 'insight' can a religious convert with no scientific background offer? Why yes, "God did it"! He already bought into the whole pack of lies when he became a 'born again' Christian, but that wasn't good enough. He had to bolster his 'belief' in the supernatural by attacking naturalism.

But was he lying? Of course. That he was lying to himself doesn't make it any less of a lie.

 

[psionl0]

That's swell. What is your point again?

My post was clear enough. If your claim is that this is all the result of "random forces" then you need to be able to identify these forces or prove that they exist if you are to prove your claim.

Is your entire schtick to point out that god and god adjacent things are unfalsifiable, nebulously comment on how this relates to the definition of atheism, and then run away?

No.

 

[arthwollipot]

If your claim is that this is all the result of "random forces"...

It isn't.

 

[psionl0]

Random mutations in DNA/RNA which are observable (except they aren't completely random. Some segments of DNA and RNA are more likely to mutate plus a bunch of other stuff but that would involve me typing out a page or two so I'll just post some links below) are then acted on by selection pressures which can be positive, negative or neutral.

Yes, that is how it works. So what are you disagreeing with?

 

[psionl0]

It isn't.

What is it then?

 

[Olmstead]

My post was clear enough.

It really isn't. Your whole modus operandi seems to be to make people guess at what you want to say, so you can keep the discussion as nebulous as possible.

Do you want to know why the universe's physical laws are such as to make abiogenesis and evolution happen, or is your point that we do not yet understand exactly how abiogenesis happened? Or some third thing?

 

[psionl0]

I don't know of any evidence of an intelligence outside of an organic brain or silicon cpu. So why would we consider that, planets, stars, galaxies or life were the result of an intelligence? How would we test for that Psion?

Why does everybody assume that if I am not channeling Leumas then I must be a die hard religious nut who is secretly trying to convert everybody?

You know very well that there is no test for "intelligent" forces. That doesn't mean that we have to throw existing theories out of the window. It just means that we can't prove them and have to be prepared for newer, better theories to come along.

 

[psionl0]

It really isn't.

It is. You are just obfuscating it because you don't want to be seen to agree with anything I post in any way.

 

[arthwollipot]

What is it then?

That evolution is a result of natural, non-random, non-intelligent forces.

 

[Pixel42]

What is it then?

It's the result of four billion years of evolution by natural selection.

 

[Chanakya]

Intermission over, pthread resumes in full pcolor. Hang on a minute, let me go refresh my ppopcorn.

 

[Leumas]

Why does everybody assume that if I am not channeling Leumas then I must be a die hard religious nut who is secretly trying to convert everybody?

Because of this

.... Your whole modus operandi seems to be to make people guess at what you want to say, so you can keep the discussion as nebulous as possible.

and insisting on incessantly repeating over and over errors that you have been show to be errors.

You know very well that there is no test for "intelligent" forces.

Do you mean like the Tooth Fairy or like Leprechauns??? Or do you mean bleeding GOD???

Com on and say it clearly... why the obfuscation???

That doesn't mean that we have to throw existing theories out of the window.

What blasted "existing theories"??? Do you mean the TOOTH FAIRY or do you mean Pixie Fairies???

Ah... of course not... you mean GOD DID IT....

Com on say it clearly... why the obfuscation???

It just means that we can't prove them and have to be prepared for newer, better theories to come along.

Really....

So are you waiting for Aliens did it or are you looking for what exactly??

The GOD DID IT codswallop is not a new or better "theory" since it came along with the CAVEMAN SHAMAN who threw virgins into the volcano to satisfy the GOD DID IT "theory".

Come on say it clearly... you just want to keep the GOD DID IT claptrap but put a new SPIN on it and hide it under a thin layer of veneer and pass it off as a "newer, better theory"... don't you???

If there are no "random forces" then there must be "intelligent forces".

And it all becomes glaringly clear when one reads the above fallacy in admission and combines it with your incessant and indefatigable insistence on denying randomness.


But the question which you will never answer is... do you mean GOD DID IT???

Of course you mean that... but you will never admit it... and that is why

.... Your whole modus operandi seems to be to make people guess at what you want to say, so you can keep the discussion as nebulous as possible.

 

[Leumas]

My post was clear enough. If your claim is that this is all the result of "random forces" then you need to be able to identify these forces or prove that they exist if you are to prove your claim.

Random events can result from perfectly non-random forces.

I think you are totally confused about what an event is and what a force is.

Also all this has been discussed previously in a very lengthy thread where you kept on incessantly denying randomness.

And now it becomes glaringly clear why you really really do not want to admit there is randomness....

If there are no "random forces" then there must be "intelligent forces".

Because you want to keep GOD but dress him up in a new Emperor's clothing of "intelligent forces" "theory".




.