Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
And who designed he/she/it?
Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?
- Thread starter Patrick1000
- Start date
And who designed he/she/it?
Why would you assume God would need to be designed? A juvenile question on your part if I ever heard one.
And why do you assume life would need to be designed? That sounds far more juvenile to me. An assumption of such massive self-importance that we must exist as the perfect creation of a perfect being? Nothing but juvenile.
I don't assume it. The evidence says it is. Just look at the principle of cause and effect. You cannot have the universe without a cause. Nothing in the natural world violates this principle; hence the natural world has a cause.
Is it an intelligent cause or not? Does it have principles and order?
The idea that intelligence is not involved in the origination of the universe is just wacked; maybe one of the wackiest things man has ever come up with. Every conspiracy theory in the world could be true and not hold a candle to this concept in terms of believability. By that, I mean almost anything else, no matter how fantastical, could be true, and yet wouldn't support this idea that the universe stemmed from nothing at all and has no intelligent cause.
What evidence? "Everything" isn't evidence for any thing.
You claim your designer to have no cause, then claim everything must have a cause. Why do you not see the problem with this?
I never implied that it did. You're letting your biases show again.
Not even a little. Perhaps you should read some of what was written. Darwin's Bulldog wasn't exactly an easy man to convince himself, and had a rather high reputation in the (predominantly if not entirely Creationist) scientific community himself.
Yes, it is. It is supported by innumerable fossils showing EXACTLY this process. It is supported by biochemical evidence. It is supported by anatomical evidence. It is supported by pretty much everything anyone could reasonably ask for. You're simply not rasonable.
As for "without purpose and design", until you establish that there was a designer you're at the level of a guy smoking pot with his buddies--no where NEAR a scientific idea. EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT, without the designer named and proven speculating on what sort of design would be made isn't even at the level of a testable hypothesis, much less a scientific theory.
This is a lie. The fossil record quite clearly shows that there's no designer, that we all evolved from the accumulation of minor alterations through time.
Here's a hint: when you figure out why you believe everything else needs to be designed and cannot have arisen from evolutionary processes, that's why we expect you to conclude that God--I'm sorry, the "designer"
--was designed. Simply put, if complexity is evidence of design than we must conclude that anything capable of designing life--which by necessity must be complex, because it engages in cognition (of which "design" is a subset)--must itself have been designed. To argue otherwise is nothing more than special pleadiing--a juvenile argument on your part if I ever heard one.WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,499
Consider St. Anselm's proof of the existence of God:
1 - God is that being greater than which cannot be conceived.
2 - Obviously, a God who exists is greater than one which does not.
3 - Therefore, God exists.
It is, you have to admit, a good trick: defining God into existence.
1 - God is that being greater than which cannot be conceived.
2 - Obviously, a God who exists is greater than one which does not.
3 - Therefore, God exists.
It is, you have to admit, a good trick: defining God into existence.
Nice dodge, randman, but it won't work. Evolution says NOTHING about the origin of the universe, and trying to equivocate between cosmology and biology merely shows intellectual dishonesty on your part. A system which is designed by an intelligence CAN show evolution. We've proven that--computer viruses can evolve. Therefore, even if the universe was designed evolution can still be true. So cosmology is irrelevant to this discussion.
Evolution does not exist within a vacuum. If the universe suggests there is a God, a Designer, a Creator, then we have to start with that assumption.
Therefore, evolution (which definition) can be true but should rightly be viewed within an ID paradigm.
Therefore, evolution (which definition) can be true but should rightly be viewed within an ID paradigm.
Last edited:
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,499
And the evidence specifically concerning universes is? How many universes have you examined?
You have just trotted out the Barber Paradox. I hope you don't think it is either new or convincing.
The fossil record shows something else entirely. If you disagree, please show where fossils show the accumulation of "minor alterations" from species to species resulting in macroevolution.
Please list the species in order and show the"minor alterations." List them as 1 and then 2 or A and then B, and show a sufficient chain of species to species producing minor alterations, or genus to genus will do, until we see a whole new family or higher taxa.
Should be easy. After all, you said the fossil record shows such things.
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,499
If the universe suggests that there is a God, a Creator, then we have to attempt to disprove that proposition, based on physical evidence. If no such disproof, based on physical evidence, is possible, the proposition must be ignored as scientifically invalid. Not, mind you, untrue - invalid.
Please outline the physical evidence which would disprove the existence of God/Creator. If no such evidence is possible, the proposition is invalid. Not untrue, mind you - invalid. Impossible to prove one way or the other.
Last edited:
Nope. Wrong again. There is no physical evidence that physical reality exists because to "prove" that, one must accept the assumption in the first place.
Science works with assumptions all the time. ID is more than that and demonstrates in the physical world with physical evidence that ID is true and useful, but it's not necessary to begin working from that assumption.
Also, the principle of cause and effect is sufficient to show the Designer exists. The only question is how and why the Designer acts.
The evidence to disprove the Designer then is to disprove cause and effect and disprove reality itself as being real. If real, then there is a Designer.
Science works with assumptions all the time. ID is more than that and demonstrates in the physical world with physical evidence that ID is true and useful, but it's not necessary to begin working from that assumption.
Also, the principle of cause and effect is sufficient to show the Designer exists. The only question is how and why the Designer acts.
The evidence to disprove the Designer then is to disprove cause and effect and disprove reality itself as being real. If real, then there is a Designer.
Last edited:
Please list the species in order and show the"minor alterations." List them as 1 and then 2 or A and then B, and show a sufficient chain of species to species producing minor alterations, or genus to genus will do, until we see a whole new family or higher taxa.
Should be easy. After all, you said the fossil record shows such things.
Can you please do this. Should be easy, right?
Should be easy. After all, you said the fossil record shows such things.
Can you please do this. Should be easy, right?
Attempt to justify dodge noted. Even if the universe was designed, viewing biology as designed is a naked equivocation. We have proof that a system which is designed can have undesigned elements thanks to evolutionary processes. I say "we have proof", not "we have evidence", because WE HAVE THE SYSTEM: computer viruses. Humans created computers--they are the product of an intelligent designer (or not so intelligent, depending on your views). Humans even created the environment in which these viruses were tested (no, I don't mean all of them--I'm referring to specific experiments here). But they didn't create the viruses--they arose due to evolutionary processes. Thus, the viruses are not designed. Thus, a system which is designed does not necessarily lead to ID being correct.
For someone who insults others for errors in logic, this is a pretty big failure on your part.
Feldman and Schweitzer have already done so for decapods. A paleontologist out of OSU did this for conodonts. Gould, Eldritch, and others have done so for mollusks. So no, no thanks. I'm not going to do your research for you. Besides, after what happened last time I provided something for you to read (you ignored it, preferring to look at the pretty pictures), I'm not convinced you're being honest in your request. I think you're a lier.
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,499
Now that's what I call Proof by Blatant Assertion,
Assume, for the moment, that the first two statements are correct - that the universe has a Designer. It does NOT, in any way shape or fashion, follow that said Designer bothered to direct evolution. This is as gross a logical fallacy as I've ever encountered.
Krikkiter
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,282
Wow you really are just the garden variety creationist aren't you? This would have to be one of the oldest and most willfully ignorant arguments in the history of Neo-creotardism.
Actually, my brother-in-law was involved in doing exactly what randman implies we can't do. He was working on the conodont research at OSU. A lot of paleontology is things like sifting through grains of sand to find microfossils. Basically, they went from simple (one-"tooth" forms he'd found in one strata) to more complex (multi-"tooth" forms he found in later strata), and he predicted, based on paleoecology, stratigraphy, etc to predict where to find the intermediate forms (more than one "tooth", but less than the older one). His team found every single transitional form. All of them. Every one. Everything from one to I believe seven "teeth". So yeah, we know it happens.
As an aside, the word "tooth" and "teeth" are in scare-quotes because conodont fossils are typically (read, overwhelmingly) single pieces of calcite that form inside some other organism (I believe we've found them, but I forget what they are--I think fish, but I can't remember, I don't deal with microfossils so it only comes up when talking to my brother-in-law). The increase in teeth isn't a major morphological change, but rather the equivalent of an extra bump on one of our bones.
As an aside, the word "tooth" and "teeth" are in scare-quotes because conodont fossils are typically (read, overwhelmingly) single pieces of calcite that form inside some other organism (I believe we've found them, but I forget what they are--I think fish, but I can't remember, I don't deal with microfossils so it only comes up when talking to my brother-in-law). The increase in teeth isn't a major morphological change, but rather the equivalent of an extra bump on one of our bones.