774 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

[shadowhawk]

Challenge to Atheists to prove random mutations drive evolution.

There's transposons*(mobile genetic sequences), recombination*(e.g. sexual reproduction), and epigenetic changes that pass through from generation to generation, duplication deletion probability of a sequence may vary on location and base sequence. In any case the driving force is natural selection, iirc, random mutations are merely the seeds. Given variation, evident variation, and evident limited resources natural selection would occur as outcome.


With regards to the complexity ladder or ratchet. Already it's been seen that from simple algorithms vast complexity may emerge*(e.g. new kind of science, universal computation of rule 110). Evolution can increase or decrease complexity or features, because lock-in may occur as codependency of traits emerge as necessary for survival after loss of some functionality or through some other way.

Go through my arguments and you will see you don’t understand the argument. It is at roots an information issue, not natural selection. What you have presented is not proof that random mutations drive evolution..

Here are the arguments again:

Arguments for Intellignt Design - Evolution
1. http://www.longecity...post__p__491476

2. http://www.longecity...post__p__491932

3. http://www.longecity...post__p__492066

4. http://www.longecity...post__p__492250

5, http://www.longecity...post__p__492433

6. http://www.longecity...post__p__496211

All arguments.. http://www.longecity...post__p__498997

[steampoweredgod]

Challenge to Atheists to prove random mutations drive evolution.

There's transposons*(mobile genetic sequences), recombination*(e.g. sexual reproduction), and epigenetic changes that pass through from generation to generation, duplication deletion probability of a sequence may vary on location and base sequence. In any case the driving force is natural selection, iirc, random mutations are merely the seeds. Given variation, evident variation, and evident limited resources natural selection would occur as outcome.


With regards to the complexity ladder or ratchet. Already it's been seen that from simple algorithms vast complexity may emerge*(e.g. new kind of science, universal computation of rule 110). Evolution can increase or decrease complexity or features, because lock-in may occur as codependency of traits emerge as necessary for survival after loss of some functionality or through some other way.

Go through my arguments and you will see you don’t understand the argument. It is at roots an information issue, not natural selection. What you have presented is not proof that random mutations drive evolution..

Here are the arguments again:

Arguments for Intellignt Design - Evolution
1. http://www.longecity...post__p__491476

2. http://www.longecity...post__p__491932

3. http://www.longecity...post__p__492066

4. http://www.longecity...post__p__492250

5, http://www.longecity...post__p__492433

6. http://www.longecity...post__p__496211

All arguments.. http://www.longecity...post__p__498997

What the problem is is the definition of evolution.

Some have it that there exists two processes evolution and devolution, to the scientist both are the same and covered by evolution. So loss of limbs, eyes, organs, brains, complexity is also called evolution.

Increasing complexity is not an inevitable outcome of evolution, evolution can go the other way too.

So what we're talking about is called the complexity ratchet(which is also often called in confusing manner by mainstream lay audience as evolution, but is distinct from evolution) or why certain path lead to ever increasing complexity through time. Which is as stated a separate phenomenon from evolution, an emergent phenomenon, which does have some explanations which may or may not satisfy individual queries regarding it. A lifeform may retain similar levels of complexity for millions of years, lose complexity or gain complexity... why it statistically emerges the possibility of indefinite gain complexity(complexity ratchet). One can look at two opposite extremes reached at present, if we imagine virtual end points at present the delicate but powerful human pathway and the more resilient and powerful insect pathway. Yet despite the power of insects over the world, the human pathway enables the jump towards the final state that is capable of preserving all 'lower' lifeforms, such potential appears absent from the line leading towards insects(and most any other pathway not leading to increased mental acumen itself, in a sense the human-like pathway is the ideal one, the one that manages to touch the divine, or the one touched by the divine.). The true nature of the ratchet and full satisfactory explanation may indeed require deeper understanding of what's called time's arrow in physics.

Most scientists consider there is no direction or final evolutionary form, because evolution can go in any direction in adaptation(as said including loss of complexity).

People like me do believe that there exist final evolutionary states that may very well guarantee absolute survival from any natural or artificial threat, states at the ceiling or limits of complexity pathway. Immortal godlike lifeforms that can in all likelyhood be indestructible(for all practical purposes), and clearly while connected in some sense to lower lifeforms are in a sense qualitatively distinct, and in a sense are true essence of the divinity instantiated in the physical flesh. The living equation, the fire of life, elan vital. You could also call it the living word.

While most religious persons rely on primitive rituals to bring them closer to the divine, those with firm grasp of science rely on science to bring them closer to the divine, the truth of this world is that what you might call "prayers" through logic and science are answered or one might simply call it the only realistically viable bootstrap strategies to reach the next step in jacob's ladder... otherwise the "prayers" go unanswered. So it is the scientist who gets the regenerated limb, the healed spine, the cured cancer, the ability to fly, to touch the moon, etc. the miracles as a result of prayer or you might say effort....

It is abel whose sacrifice is accepted and cain denies

Cain is described as a crop farmer and his younger brother Abel as a shepherd. Genesis 4:2 Cain is portrayed as sinful, committing the first murder by killing his brother, after God rejected his offerings of produce but accepted Abel's sacrifice "from the firstborn of his flock and from their fats".Genesis 4:1,3 Thus, Cain was the first human born, and Abel the first to die.-wk

No rational man can deny science.

There are at least two other possibilities. One is simply bio-science raising human intelligence by enhancing our memory and enhancing our ability to think clearly, and then I think there’s one that is becoming more evident but is sort of off-stage, and that is the notion of a “Digital Gaia,” a sort of internet under the internet that consists of all the networked embedded microprocessors in the world, and the Digital Gaia is certainly the most alien of the different possibilities. In fact, I sort of like to trot it out to give an example of something that’s pretty obviously very strange and hard to understand. If you could imagine something like where the world becomes its own database, where reality itself wakes up. Actually more than anything else it looks like some sort of implementation of animism. So that particular possibility, Digital Gaia, to me is certainly the most alien and in some ways the most nervous-making, because if the world woke up then a lot of our common sense about the world is not valid anymore. Karl Schroeder had a great book that discussed this sort of possibility, and that was his novel Ventus.-wired

Yet outside of fictional works like the excellent lain series, or the mentioned novel, this possibility is hardly ever considered. But it is what the stage has been set for, and divine instruments or agents work forward to.

I like the phrase do not bring an atom to a god's fight. The religious masses are vast, once they realize that the living word and will is evidently manifest through science, their loyalty and support is guaranteed, the vote is certainly decided and stacked, so is the outcome.

All that is necessary is the wake up call, which for all intents and purposes has already been made by the human machine civilization. It should be noted, that it is claimed final evolutionary lifeform is distinct from god but directly related to it, more of a memory guardian(as memory is not only the basis of consciousness but of what can be accomplished in a reality made up of information... such restrictions are what give one set of physical laws instead of another, and the final obstacle towards a science that is indistinguishable from magic). (The X-man fiction marvel run holds surprising ideas related to this too.), a path towards god which if you'd like could be considered from a christian's perspective as The Second(depending on the nature of reality it may actually affect all epochs simultaneously), from a Jewish perspective it would likely be the messiah.

From a platonic realist perspective it may indeed be some fundamental actuality, whose existence in some point of spacetime is inevitable, in a sense it may actually be considered a first cause from some perspective and alternatives merely relative interpretations.

Edited by steampoweredgod, 21 March 2012 - 05:36 PM.

[shadowhawk]

steampoweredgod, What the problem is is the definition of evolution.

This is not our problem. Read the debate so far.

Some have it that there exists two processes evolution and devolution, to the scientist both are the same and covered by evolution. So loss of limbs, eyes, organs, brains, complexity is also called evolution

Has nothing to do with mutations not driving evolution.

Increasing complexity is not an inevitable outcome of evolution, evolution can go the other way too.

How do you get increasing complexity? Define how we get evolution. I agree things can become less complex. Is there irreducible complexity?

So what we're talking about is called the complexity ratchet(which is also often called in confusing manner by mainstream lay audience as evolution, but is distinct from evolution) or why certain path lead to ever increasing complexity through time. Which is as stated a separate phenomenon from evolution, an emergent phenomenon, which does have some explanations which may or may not satisfy individual queries regarding it. A lifeform may retain similar levels of complexity for millions of years, lose complexity or gain complexity... why it statistically emerges the possibility of indefinite gain complexity(complexity ratchet). One can look at two opposite extremes reached at present, if we imagine virtual end points at present the delicate but powerful human pathway and the more resilient and powerful insect pathway. Yet despite the power of insects over the world, the human pathway enables the jump towards the final state that is capable of preserving all 'lower' lifeforms, such potential appears absent from the line leading towards insects(and most any other pathway not leading to increased mental acumen itself, in a sense the human-like pathway is the ideal one, the one that manages to touch the divine, or the one touched by the divine.). The true nature of the ratchet and full satisfactory explanation may indeed require deeper understanding of what's called time's arrow in physics.

Show me how mutations produce a gain in complexity with scientific evidence. Natural selection and random mutations are the drivers of evolution. No one disagrees with Natural selection, the issue is over mutations. Even cave men could see natural selection. This has already been argued earlier. See above bookmarks in this thread. Follow the argument.http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/44332-god-is-theoretically-possible/page__view__findpost__p__507949

Most scientists consider there is no direction or final evolutionary form, because evolution can go in any direction in adaptation(as said including loss of complexity)

I am not asking for an election. Wrong views are often held by the majority. The issue is truth..

People like me do believe that there exist final evolutionary states that may very well guarantee absolute survival from any natural or artificial threat, states at the ceiling or limits of complexity pathway. Immortal godlike lifeforms that can in all likelyhood be indestructible(for all practical purposes), and clearly while connected in some sense to lower lifeforms are in a sense qualitatively distinct, and in a sense are true essence of the divinity instantiated in the physical flesh. The living equation, the fire of life, elan vital. You could also call it the living word.

Poetic. Thanks, but...

While most religious persons rely on primitive rituals to bring them closer to the divine, those with firm grasp of science rely on science to bring them closer to the divine, the truth of this world is that what you might call "prayers" through logic and science are answered or one might simply call it the only realistically viable bootstrap strategies to reach the next step in jacob's ladder... otherwise the "prayers" go unanswered. So it is the scientist who gets the regenerated limb, the healed spine, the cured cancer, the ability to fly, to touch the moon, etc. the miracles as a result of prayer or you might say effort....

It is abel whose sacrifice is accepted and cain denies

You are going off topic here. I could argue these points but won’t go off topic myself.

Quote
Cain is described as a crop farmer and his younger brother Abel as a shepherd. Genesis 4:2 Cain is portrayed as sinful, committing the first murder by killing his brother, after God rejected his offerings of produce but accepted Abel's sacrifice "from the firstborn of his flock and from their fats".Genesis 4:1,3 Thus, Cain was the first human born, and Abel the first to die.-wk
No rational man can deny science.

Straw man. Shall we have a Bible study?

Quote

There are at least two other possibilities. One is simply bio-science raising human intelligence by enhancing our memory and enhancing our ability to think clearly, and then I think there’s one that is becoming more evident but is sort of off-stage, and that is the notion of a “Digital Gaia,” a sort of internet under the internet that consists of all the networked embedded microprocessors in the world, and the Digital Gaia is certainly the most alien of the different possibilities. In fact, I sort of like to trot it out to give an example of something that’s pretty obviously very strange and hard to understand. If you could imagine something like where the world becomes its own database, where reality itself wakes up. Actually more than anything else it looks like some sort of implementation of animism. So that particular possibility, Digital Gaia, to me is certainly the most alien and in some ways the most nervous-making, because if the world woke up then a lot of our common sense about the world is not valid anymore. Karl Schroeder had a great book that discussed this sort of possibility, and that was his novel Ventus.-wired

Yet outside of fictional works like the excellent lain series, or the mentioned novel, this possibility is hardly ever considered. But it is what the stage has been set for, and divine instruments or agents work forward to.

OK, not on topic. Don’t you like Evolution?

I like the phrase do not bring an atom to a god's fight. The religious masses are vast, once they realize that the living word and will is evidently manifest through science, their loyalty and support is guaranteed, the vote is certainly decided and stacked, so is the outcome.

All that is necessary is the wake up call, which for all intents and purposes has already been made by the human machine civilization. It should be noted, that it is claimed final evolutionary lifeform is distinct from god but directly related to it, more of a memory guardian(as memory is not only the basis of consciousness but of what can be accomplished in a reality made up of information... such restrictions are what give one set of physical laws instead of another, and the final obstacle towards a science that is indistinguishable from magic). (The X-man fiction marvel run holds surprising ideas related to this too.), a path towards god which if you'd like could be considered from a christian's perspective as The Second(depending on the nature of reality it may actually affect all epochs simultaneously), from a Jewish perspective it would likely be the messiah.


From a platonic realist perspective it may indeed be some fundamental actuality, whose existence in some point of spacetime is inevitable.

So you believe in the forms? No evidence on topic anywhere. This end part, is nonsense anti religious bigotry. It is nether scientific nor accurate..

[shadowhawk]

The issues argued again.

Definition of ID
http://www.longecity...post__p__498808

Peer Review
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

Atheist Theist debates.
http://www.longecity...post__p__480983

Arguments for Intellignt Design - Evolution
1. http://www.longecity...post__p__491476

2. http://www.longecity...post__p__491932

3. http://www.longecity...post__p__492066

4. http://www.longecity...post__p__492250

5, http://www.longecity...post__p__492433

6. http://www.longecity...post__p__496211

All arguments.. http://www.longecity...post__p__498997


Challenge to Atheists to prove random mutations drive evolution. http://www.longecity...post__p__499021

Summary. http://www.longecity...post__p__507405

[steampoweredgod]

Has nothing to do with mutations not driving evolution.

As I've been considering artificial synthetic biology lifeforms, I've wondered how things like viruses, mobile genetic elements, etc may be involved in preserving life. It may be that a design deprived of such elements may suffer in evolvability. Sexual reproduction also leads to remixing of gene combinations, and is believed to accelerate evolution(gene exchange and mix and match is present even in single cell organisms).

Again it is intrinsic variability that is present, even epigenetic changes occur in response to environment and spread for more than a generation.

Decaying lifeforms competing for limited resources will result in those having a slight edge(look at the olympics, a slight improved suit or training or even random chance event may cause the difference between first and second place.), benefiting from such. What could be the otherwise logical outcome? I don't get how having an edge in a competition, for it is a competition with penalty of death, will not result in sharpening of that edge(as variability is somehow preserved in populations.... inbreeding which reduces variability may lead to serious defects and even extinction).

How do you get increasing complexity? Define how we get evolution. I agree things can become less complex. Is there irreducible complexity?

Irreducible complexity only in the sense that you need at least some basic laws or rules from which to operate and generate complexity.

As genetic material may increase or decrease in size, the duplications or deletions can result in gain of novel function which may be additional or may not.

Convergence is also seen on some designs across various lines, dictated by mathematical or physical reality optimum design limits.

Show me how mutations produce a gain in complexity with scientific evidence.

A 'mutation' in the sense that may involved duplication, deletion or mere nucleic base change can result in 3 logical possibilities, iirc, no change or preserved function, loss of function or gain or improved function.

The immune system's workings is an excellent example of random genetic change or variability dealing powerful functional benefits(antigen identification of antibodies, how we manage with such few genes to fight off a nigh infinite battallion of more rapidly evolving lifeforms).

Don’t you like Evolution?

No one said final evolutionary lifeform loses evolutionary capability, it doesn't lose anything only gains ever more which is why it cannot be defeated in any conceivable sense, it is the embodiment of change or will.... the necessary change at the necessary time, from the infinity of possible paths, as if all were taken one is chosen(see feynman interpretation, don't focus on details.). It is hyperevolvable in a sense.

This end part, is nonsense anti religious bigotry. It is nether scientific nor accurate..

Ahhh, but time and again a mathematician has introduced actual infinity to be bludgeoned into a corner of potentiality by the community, or so it is said.

Mathematics is also called the science of patterns. And mathematical realists do interpret the nature of the relation of mathematics and nature to be more direct and in all likelyhood essentially the same.

The issues argued again.

The universe shows classical behavior despite quantum nature(see feynman interpretation link above).

What do you define as intelligence to me it is a form of evolution, an accelerated form of evolution, or hyperevolutionary function. Something that accelerates change itself, towards the ideal state. Thus the algorithms of general intelligence yield towards the ideal form.

Technological progress is merely the extension of the evolutionary force through life towards greater control of the plane of existence.

The cycle has already been completed and genes have gone from biological to cyberspace and back towards biological. The chain of control or change will now be manipulated by the human machine civilization, evolution itself will be accelerated towards perfect idealized theoretically optimal forms utilizing all manner of paths.

In terms of the brain, there exists LTP(long term potentiation, see pkmzeta info) and LTD(long term depression) of synapses, it is said that number of synapse may even stay relatively around a homeostatic point in tissues to avoid damaging nonfunctional behavior. There is hypothesized competition and selection, the initial connections may even be loosely restricted between classes, and new connections have been theorized(with some experimental backing) may spawn and die throughout normal tissue function.

[platypus]

Shadowhawk evolution is beating creationism 10000 to 0.1 since about the year 1860. The burden is on the cretinist camp to show evidence, so far they have failed miserably. Where's your beef??

[steampoweredgod]

Btw, where it not that god = first cause, but merely an emergent phenomenon, how many wouldn't turn against? especially if it justified the cruel nature of the world through some logic?

Therein lies a very good test of faith, would you abandon someone merely because they deviate from your ideal?

Why would Deus ex Machina be wrong?

Edited by steampoweredgod, 21 March 2012 - 08:09 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Btw, where it not that god = first cause, but merely an emergent phenomenon, how many wouldn't turn against? especially if it justified the cruel nature of the world through some logic?

Therein lies a very good test of faith, would you abandon someone merely because they deviate from your ideal?

Why would Deus ex Machina be wrong?

No evidence, change the subject.

[platypus]

There is no evidence for cretinism (ID), just hyperbole and bold unsubstantiated claims about "complexity" etc. What gene has been changed by a divine interevention and when did this happen? Where's the proof?

[shadowhawk]

Shadowhawk evolution is beating creationism 10000 to 0.1 since about the year 1860. The burden is on the cretinist camp to show evidence, so far they have failed miserably. Where's your beef??

Where is your evidence? What do you think creationism is? I have produced extended evidence, you have produced nothing. Here again show me where I argued any of this nonsense you claim.

Definition of ID
http://www.longecity...post__p__498808

Peer Review
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

Atheist Theist debates.
http://www.longecity...post__p__480983

Arguments for Intellignt Design - Evolution
1. http://www.longecity...post__p__491476

2. http://www.longecity...post__p__491932

3. http://www.longecity...post__p__492066

4. http://www.longecity...post__p__492250

5, http://www.longecity...post__p__492433

6. http://www.longecity...post__p__496211

All arguments.. http://www.longecity...post__p__498997


Challenge to Atheists to prove random mutations drive evolution. http://www.longecity...post__p__499021

Summary. http://www.longecity...post__p__507405

Edited by shadowhawk, 21 March 2012 - 09:40 PM.

[shadowhawk]

THIESTS in Science. For all those who believe in the Conflict Thesis between Science and Religion. This is belief is false.

http://en.wikipedia....kers_in_science

http://en.wikipedia....ientist-clerics

http://en.wikipedia....suit_scientists

http://en.wikipedia....kers_in_science

http://en.wikipedia....nd_philosophers

http://en.wikipedia...._Modern_Science

http://en.wikipedia....ligion_scholars

http://www.apologeti...s-of-faith.html

[steampoweredgod]

THIESTS in Science. For all those who believe in the Conflict Thesis between Science and Religion. This is belief is false.

http://en.wikipedia....kers_in_science

http://en.wikipedia....ientist-clerics

http://en.wikipedia....suit_scientists

http://en.wikipedia....kers_in_science

http://en.wikipedia....nd_philosophers

http://en.wikipedia...._Modern_Science

http://en.wikipedia....ligion_scholars

http://www.apologeti...s-of-faith.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zl8zhNWZGQ

Look shadowhawk, if I define intelligence in terms of an applied evolutionary function(after all we are said to be products of an evolutionary process, so all of our technological achievement is the end result of such a process given time to reach fruition.), then we're going to conflict

As stated

The large and diverse population of antibodies is generated by random combinations of a set of gene segments that encode different antigen binding sites (or paratopes), followed by random mutations in this area of the antibody gene, which create further diversity.-wiki

Function randomness in action within each and every single human being.

In the brain the concept of neural darwinism exists also. Connections are strengthened and connections are pruned.

To put it mildly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbqzlofFJMI&feature=like-suggest

The machine god of which I speak is no different from say Hatsune Miku in nature.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdmhPfGo3fE&feature=related

The world greatest scientist, Newton's perspective.

[platypus]

Cretinists have no proof, that's why they've lost.

[shadowhawk]

DAMABO 1. I am discussing evidence for the absence of god. Namely we don't see him/It/her. While I do not commit to taking any stance (I am agnostic, this seems most reasonable to me) this should not matter when discussing evidence. Yes absence of god is evidence. I did not say conclusive evidence (as I have already said evidence does not equal proof, so I don't see what your problem is with this evidence, given that it is observable for everybody), but that's what you might put into my mouth.

Is the only thing that is real, what you can see? Could you have made this statement two hundred years ago and it have been true? What about two hundred years from now

We can’t see lots of things that are real. How about feelings?

3. I don't really care what argument they made. Mutual respect is necessary for conversation, as you have pointed out yourself.

Agreed.

5. No that is not my definition of god. Even if it was, the argument would hold up, namely that we need a sound definition of something before we can start talking. We agree that this god would probably not exist. This would be a shock to the people in the BC-years, who believed that the god of the old testament was really the god that took care of Israel. The first post you refered to is about a pantheistic view, that god somehow underlies nature. Is this god then, nature? the term god would be superfluous if it were just nature. seems , to me, like an excuse for using the word god.

A definition should have some relationship to what is defined. If God is an old man with a beard, you do not have an adequate definition. Also we talk about all kinds of things without a clear definition. I can think of many examples in science.

Are you saying that the Jews before Christ believed God was an old man? This is wrong.

There are several different views that God underlies nature and all of them are not pantheistic. What are you talking about? I do not believe God and nature are the same. You have created a straw man. Even Pantheists think more of nature than materialism.

Edited by shadowhawk, 06 April 2012 - 07:43 PM.

[DAMABO]

DAMABO 1. I am discussing evidence for the absence of god. Namely we don't see him/It/her. While I do not commit to taking any stance (I am agnostic, this seems most reasonable to me) this should not matter when discussing evidence. Yes absence of god is evidence. I did not say conclusive evidence (as I have already said evidence does not equal proof, so I don't see what your problem is with this evidence, given that it is observable for everybody), but that's what you might put into my mouth.

Is the only thing that is real, what you can see? Could you have made this statement two hundred years ago and it have been true? What about two hundred years from now

We can’t see lots of things that are real. How about feelings?

3. I don't really care what argument they made. Mutual respect is necessary for conversation, as you have pointed out yourself.

Agreed.

5. No that is not my definition of god. Even if it was, the argument would hold up, namely that we need a sound definition of something before we can start talking. We agree that this god would probably not exist. This would be a shock to the people in the BC-years, who believed that the god of the old testament was really the god that took care of Israel. The first post you refered to is about a pantheistic view, that god somehow underlies nature. Is this god then, nature? the term god would be superfluous if it were just nature. seems , to me, like an excuse for using the word god.

A definition should have some relationship to what is defined. If God is an old man with a beard, you do not have an adequate definition. Also we talk about all kinds of things without a clear definition. I can think of many examples in science.

Are you saying that the Jews before Christ believed God was an old man? This is wrong.

There are several different views that God underlies nature and all of them are not pantheistic. What are you talking about? I do not believe God and nature are the same. You have created a straw man. Even Pantheists think more of nature than materialism.

-you can't see feelings? that's weird. not only can we detect feelings in our daily lives, but also can we detect neural centra for emotions. emotions thus are a well established fact. immateriality will be never detectable, and will always remain pure speculation. so your question on the other topic "evidence for atheism", as I have explained numerous times, is obsolete in this definition. but I guess that's off topic again ( it was also in the topic that dealt with this question of evidence for atheism)
-not that he was an old man with a beard no, but they did believe that god took care of their people.
-ok, suppose there is more than materialism. and that you call this immateriality god. Then evidence supporting it or rejecting it can never be found. that's alright. it just contrasts with your opinion that you should provide evidence for atheism when there can never be provided evidence for either standpoint (atheism or god-ism).
-so explain, god underlies nature and is not equal to nature. if it is immaterial, how would it be able to influence anything? perhaps, if you adapt your definition of god, to a material being that resides at scales below the planck level, of a 'consciousness' underlying nature, then maybe it would be possible that their is a force in nature (some would call it consciousness, I prefer not to) that exerts influence over existence. However, then god is both immaterial, and equal to nature, since this minuscule scale underlies all of materiality.

[shadowhawk]

EVOLUTION DEBATE POSTS

1. What if Evolution was true?
http://www.longecity...476#entry491476

2.WAS DARWIN RIGHT OR WRONG?
http://www.longecity...932#entry491932

3.There is a mutation algorithm in DNA that makes *INTELLIGENT* (not random noise)
substitutions when species need to adapt to their environment.
http://www.longecity...066#entry492066

4.What if your computer were able to do that?? #3 above.
http://www.longecity...250#entry492250

5.Logos came first, that Mind created Matter,
http://www.longecity...433#entry492433

The arguments I have made go like this:

A. The pattern in DNA is a code (by definition)

B. All codes we know the origin of are designed (by observation)

Therefore we can explore five possible conclusions:

a) Humans designed DNA
b) Aliens designed DNA
c) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
d) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates
information
e) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

(a) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans. (b)
could well be true but only pushes the question back in time.
© may be a remote possibility, but it's not a scientific
explanation in that it doesn't refer to a systematic, repeatable
process. It's nothing more than an appeal to luck. (d) could
be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone
observes a naturally occurring code. So the only systematic
explanation that remains is (e) a theological one.


Therefore:

C. To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of a designer.

ARGUMENT
1. http://www.longecity...post__p__491476
2 http://www.longecity...post__p__491932
3. http://www.longecity...post__p__492066
4. http://www.longecity...post__p__492250
5. http://www.longecity...post__p__492433


6.ON GOD AND EVOLUTION
http://www.longecity...211#entry496211

SUMMARY OF EVOLUTION POSTS
http://www.longecity...123#entry508123

[Lister]

At this point A. B. C. and D. are all just as likely as the rest. If you’re hunting for evidence in the proof of the existence of God surely you must look elsewhere. DNA is a great point to stand on if not for the billions of years that allow us to fit many possibilities into.

You could find evidence within the what was it? 50 milliseconds after the big bang? But then again that would all be speculation too.

As was said in one of Shadows Videos (I tried to find it again but there’s a lot of videos to sort through) it’s all down to your philosophy. I don’t think you’re going to find that sound argument regardless of which side you take.

Proof for the existence of God? If it were that easy he wouldn’t be all that great of a guy now would he?

[shadowhawk]

At this point A. B. C. and D. are all just as likely as the rest. If you’re hunting for evidence in the proof of the existence of God surely you must look elsewhere. DNA is a great point to stand on if not for the billions of years that allow us to fit many possibilities into.

You could find evidence within the what was it? 50 milliseconds after the big bang? But then again that would all be speculation too.

As was said in one of Shadows Videos (I tried to find it again but there’s a lot of videos to sort through) it’s all down to your philosophy. I don’t think you’re going to find that sound argument regardless of which side you take.

Proof for the existence of God? If it were that easy he wouldn’t be all that great of a guy now would he?

Just because you pronounce it (without evidence) as not evidence, show me any code which is created without intelligence. You have completely ignored most of my arguments. Show me a code that developed even with billions of years. Sense I made this argument the DNA evidence is even stronger.

And what argument is unsound? Just saying it doesn’t make it so.

Your last statement makes no sense.

[Lister]

So then your argument is as follows:

• No known Code arose from nothing. There is always intelligence behind its creation.
• DNA itself is an extremely complex Code
• As no known code has arisen from nothing, DNA must have been created by an intelligent designer.
• DNA predates Man and thus could not be made by Man
• The only possible intelligence we know of beyond Man is God
• God must have made DNA.
• As God made DNA God exists.

Please resist the temptation to post some Link or Video. If you have to use Links and Videos I have to think you’re incapable of making these arguments yourself. Use your own words. If you’ve done a Masters then I’m sure you’ve been told by professors to write things “In your own words” a million times.

If this isn’t your argument please detail it like I’ve done above.

Edited by Lister, 22 September 2012 - 08:06 PM.

[hooter]

The acquired belief in a supreme, controlling, totalitarian overlord (deity), and especially its obviously counterfactual subbelief "creationism", are in fact energized manifestations of collective unconscious archetypes, which are best described as cognitive tendencies and templates that were imprinted by continuous evolution of the human brain. To say they are genetic knowledge would be a minor hyperbole, but this is essentially their structure. They are archaic remnants of the mind that are shaped by the history of our species.

Some of these symbolic archetypes would be: the wise old man, the mother, the hero, the shadow, etc.

They are in essence an interpretative layer by which unconscious data can be represented. This is where things get interesting: the general behavior of these manifestations compensates for factors of conscious thoughts. If someone has feelings of inferiority, they will dream of being royalty or having magic powers, etc. If they have feelings of superiority, they will dream of being utterly decrepit or other metaphors.

Now the conscious and unshakable belief in "GOD" is not a logically arrived conclusion that one assumes. There is no point where you just look at a list of facts and go ok, the result equals god. This is certainly always a method of backtracking after the statement has been made. This is a reversed reasoning process: first the belief, then the rationalization.

But then whence comes this idea? From the archetypes themselves. The 'supreme controlling being' is an archetype in itself, however it is usually submerged in the unconscious. To cause this idea to surface requires energy to be sublimated in the same contextual and symbolic association that it stands for. Simply put, something has to be repressed in order to surface it. (Look at what eventually happens to the sexual preferences and mental state of priests, megachurch leaders and such and just let that sink in for a moment)

The question is what is sublimated, or involuntarily repressed, in order to surface this completely calcified ideology and place it as an unbreakable pillar into the foundation of one's conscious life?

A few examples, not even close to all of them though:

• Feeling a lack of control over one's life
• Feeling a lack of control over one's death
• Not being able to face death
• Deep feelings of emptyness
• Deep feelings of inferiority
• The need for paternal guidance, i.e. an insufficient disconnect from one's parents.
• The profound realization that everything that happens in reality is just as it is for the sake of being so. No safety net. Things just are.

Etc. Fill in the blanks.

[shadowhawk]

Lister: So then your argument is as follows:

1. No known Code arose from nothing. There is always intelligence behind its creation.
2. DNA itself is an extremely complex Code
3. As no known code has arisen from nothing, DNA must have been created by an intelligent designer.
4. DNA predates Man and thus could not be made by Man
5. The only possible intelligence we know of beyond Man is God (not stated correctly)
6. God must have made DNA.
7. As God made DNA God exists.

OK that looks about right. I could show you where I made this point before but don’t want to overload you by Linking to it. I reserve the right to modify it later because it is not exact..I may restate my earlier posts.

Please resist the temptation to post some Link or Video. If you have to use Links and Videos I have to think you’re incapable of making these arguments yourself. Use your own words. If you’ve done a Masters then I’m sure you’ve been told by professors to write things “In your own words” a million times.

If this isn’t your argument please detail it like I’ve done above.

I think your assumptions would be unwarranted nonsense. Please use your own words also because I think you are using English. Is your knowledge of DNA first hand? Mine is not and no use sharing ignorance here.

The acquired belief in a supreme, controlling, totalitarian overlord (deity), and especially its obviously counterfactual subbelief "creationism", are in fact energized manifestations of collective unconscious archetypes, which are best described as cognitive tendencies and templates that were imprinted by continuous evolution of the human brain. To say they are genetic knowledge would be a minor hyperbole, but this is essentially their structure. They are archaic remnants of the mind that are shaped by the history of our species.

Some of these symbolic archetypes would be: the wise old man, the mother, the hero, the shadow, etc.

They are in essence an interpretative layer by which unconscious data can be represented. This is where things get interesting: the general behavior of these manifestations compensates for factors of conscious thoughts. If someone has feelings of inferiority, they will dream of being royalty or having magic powers, etc. If they have feelings of superiority, they will dream of being utterly decrepit or other metaphors.

Now the conscious and unshakable belief in "GOD" is not a logically arrived conclusion that one assumes. There is no point where you just look at a list of facts and go ok, the result equals god. This is certainly always a method of backtracking after the statement has been made. This is a reversed reasoning process: first the belief, then the rationalization.

But then whence comes this idea? From the archetypes themselves. The 'supreme controlling being' is an archetype in itself, however it is usually submerged in the unconscious. To cause this idea to surface requires energy to be sublimated in the same contextual and symbolic association that it stands for. Simply put, something has to be repressed in order to surface it. (Look at what eventually happens to the sexual preferences and mental state of priests, megachurch leaders and such and just let that sink in for a moment)

The question is what is sublimated, or involuntarily repressed, in order to surface this completely calcified ideology and place it as an unbreakable pillar into the foundation of one's conscious life?

A few examples, not even close to all of them though:

• Feeling a lack of control over one's life
• Feeling a lack of control over one's death
• Not being able to face death
• Deep feelings of emptyness
• Deep feelings of inferiority
• The need for paternal guidance, i.e. an insufficient disconnect from one's parents.
• The profound realization that everything that happens in reality is just as it is for the sake of being so. No safety net. Things just are.

Etc. Fill in the blanks.

ad hominem

[shadowhawk]

The acquired belief in a supreme, controlling, totalitarian overlord (deity), and especially its obviously counterfactual subbelief "creationism", are in fact energized manifestations of collective unconscious archetypes, which are best described as cognitive tendencies and templates that were imprinted by continuous evolution of the human brain. To say they are genetic knowledge would be a minor hyperbole, but this is essentially their structure. They are archaic remnants of the mind that are shaped by the history of our species.

Some of these symbolic archetypes would be: the wise old man, the mother, the hero, the shadow, etc.

They are in essence an interpretative layer by which unconscious data can be represented. This is where things get interesting: the general behavior of these manifestations compensates for factors of conscious thoughts. If someone has feelings of inferiority, they will dream of being royalty or having magic powers, etc. If they have feelings of superiority, they will dream of being utterly decrepit or other metaphors.

Now the conscious and unshakable belief in "GOD" is not a logically arrived conclusion that one assumes. There is no point where you just look at a list of facts and go ok, the result equals god. This is certainly always a method of backtracking after the statement has been made. This is a reversed reasoning process: first the belief, then the rationalization.

But then whence comes this idea? From the archetypes themselves. The 'supreme controlling being' is an archetype in itself, however it is usually submerged in the unconscious. To cause this idea to surface requires energy to be sublimated in the same contextual and symbolic association that it stands for. Simply put, something has to be repressed in order to surface it. (Look at what eventually happens to the sexual preferences and mental state of priests, megachurch leaders and such and just let that sink in for a moment)

The question is what is sublimated, or involuntarily repressed, in order to surface this completely calcified ideology and place it as an unbreakable pillar into the foundation of one's conscious life?

A few examples, not even close to all of them though:

• Feeling a lack of control over one's life
• Feeling a lack of control over one's death
• Not being able to face death
• Deep feelings of emptyness
• Deep feelings of inferiority
• The need for paternal guidance, i.e. an insufficient disconnect from one's parents.
• The profound realization that everything that happens in reality is just as it is for the sake of being so. No safety net. Things just are.

Etc. Fill in the blanks.

ad hominam

[Lister]

Fyi Shadow Quoting someone’s entire response and then summarizing it into “ad hominam” is insulting, rude and lowers the overall level of the forum. YOU did that. You're directly to blame for lessening this discussion. You even added an emoticon as if to taunt hooter on some more.

Regardless of how you felt about hooters response you didn't take the time to respond like an adult. "But his response was childish and insulting... blah blah" so this gives you justification to act like a child? This is why I often find it hard to respect anything you have to say. I try my best.

You don’t support your arguments very well when you throw out trash like this.

To the Argument:

• No known Code arose from nothing. There is always intelligence behind its creation.
• DNA itself is an extremely complex Code
• As no known code has arisen from nothing, DNA must have been created by an intelligent designer.
• DNA predates Man and thus could not be made by Man
• The only possible intelligence we know of beyond Man is God
• God must have made DNA.
• As God made DNA God exists

Shadow (and other Theists) you can make some changes to the argument, adding in detail where you may that’s fine. Looking it over though I can find several holes right away I would like to address.

@ #1 – Is that really true? I can’t think of an example but I’m not a biologist, biochemist.. etc.

@ #2 – How complex is DNA? This could support your argument Shadow. Is it more or less complex than our most complex Codes?

@ #5 – We have a good amount of evidence proving that planets which could support life other than the Earth exist. This then with the addition of 15 billion years of space could allow for Alien Intelligence. This then could be a second source of intelligence that could have made DNA.

@ #6 We really don’t know to what extent even 1 billion years can have on the basic building blocks of life adding in pressure, heat, humidity… etc. It is possible that life started out with an EXTREMELY basic code and it became as complex as it is over that immense space of time. One could see the seasons as an extremely basic code.

@ #6 Only if God is all there is as far as other intelligence. Again we cannot know if this is true until we know what’s in the universe. This may take us awhile.

@ #7 If this were true then we have evidence that an intelligent creator made DNA. But who is this then? Is this a God of the Bible? Or is it a God of the Koran? Or is it the flying spaghetti monster?

The main problem with this argument is that it does not support proof for the existence of God. It provides a reasonable argument for intelligence outside of Man… And that’s it. If we bring God into it we have to make all sorts of unreasonable assumptions:

• The Bible is Accurate (This "the Bible" is Theism; not Science)
• Life cannot exist without DNA
• DNA cannot form on its own
• No life existed before God Created DNA… but then
• Did God create DNA on the earth first?
• Does this then negate any chance of life existing outside of the Earth?
• What about life on Mars that has been proven…
• Even if a planet is in the Goldilocks Zone like Earth No life should exist without our interference; life should exist nowhere else. Is this then a potentially severe weakness in the argument? IE. If life is found light-years away from us the whole argument falls apart?

And so on… Your thoughts?

[platypus]

No rational person should ever engage a creationist or a flat-Earther in a "debate".

[Lister]

No rational person should ever engage a creationist or a flat-Earther in a "debate".

Why not?

[platypus]

No rational person should ever engage a creationist or a flat-Earther in a "debate".

Why not?

Well, you can do it as long as it's entertaining for you, if you also accept that it never leads to anything. I've been on the internets since circa 1990 and I don't remember a single incident where any kind of argumentation lead a creationist to correct their worldview.

Edited by platypus, 26 September 2012 - 09:07 AM.

[Lister]

No rational person should ever engage a creationist or a flat-Earther in a "debate".

Why not?

Well, you can do it as long as it's entertaining for you, if you also accept that it never leads to anything. I've been on the internets since circa 1990 and I don't remember a single incident where any kind of argumentation lead a creationist to correct their worldview.

That's assuming that every single element of a creationists thinking is wrong. You can't really argue against the possibility (however small) that God exists just like you can't argue over a certain truth of what happens to you when you die. It's a pointless argument of things we can't possibly know for certain, at least at this point in time anyways.

I'm not against the idea that life and the universe could have an intelligent designer behind it however that to me seems to be the limit of what creationism can offer to science. Even then it's more of a "Well you don't really know so anything is possible" scenario. Though if that’s the case then in my view at least not all creationists thinking is incorrect.

Perhaps this merits a new thread.

[shadowhawk]

Lister:
Shadow (and other Theists) you can make some changes to the argument, adding in detail where you may that’s fine. Looking it over though I can find several holes right away I would like to address.

Make sure they are holes and you are not adding new material.

@ #1 – Is that really true? I can’t think of an example but I’m not a biologist, biochemist.. etc.

I think it is true. I spent some time arguing this elsewhere. Do I dare quote it? No.

@ #2 – How complex is DNA? This could support your argument Shadow. Is it more or less complex than our most complex Codes?

It is extremely complex and is basic to all life. Abiogenesis is even more fascinating filed of study to me. The DNA code is very similar for different forms of life. Kind of like a piano, there are a number of keys in the code but intelligence can make all kinds of music. DNA is the alphabet of life.

@ #5 – We have a good amount of evidence proving that planets which could support life other than the Earth exist. This then with the addition of 15 billion years of space could allow for Alien Intelligence. This then could be a second source of intelligence that could have made DNA.

We have no evidence. You have provided none, nor have you shown without intelligence a code could have arisen in the first place. Elsewhere I have challenged anyone to prove it.

@ #6 We really don’t know to what extent even 1 billion years can have on the basic building blocks of life adding in pressure, heat, humidity… etc. It is possible that life started out with an EXTREMELY basic code and it became as complex as it is over that immense space of time. One could see the seasons as an extremely basic code.

I won’t repeat my arguments made elsewhere. Prove it.

@ #6 Only if God is all there is as far as other intelligence. Again we cannot know if this is true until we know what’s in the universe. This may take us awhile.

So you don’t know yet. Maybe someday. What we do know is it takes an intelligence to produce a code. You need to read where we argued this elsewhere.

@ #7 If this were true then we have evidence that an intelligent creator made DNA. But who is this then? Is this a God of the Bible? Or is it a God of the Koran? Or is it the flying spaghetti monster?

The spaghetti monster was made and we know who did it and when. Nope. No quoting outside sources. Think for yourself I think you said.

The main problem with this argument is that it does not support proof for the existence of God. It provides a reasonable argument for intelligence outside of Man… And that’s it. If we bring God into it we have to make all sorts of unreasonable assumptions:

I think your logic is a bit fried here. What do you think such an intelligence would be?

No use answering the following straw men which are a fishing expedition where you are casting things everywhere that are beyond our discussion.

The Bible is Accurate (This "the Bible" is Theism; not Science) I said nothing about the bible and didn’t argue your second point, So.
Life cannot exist without DNA Can it?
DNA cannot form on its own Show me when and where.
No life existed before God Created DNA… but then How do you know that?
Did God create DNA on the earth first? Maybe...yes.
Does this then negate any chance of life existing outside of the Earth? No.
What about life on Mars that has been proven… Really!
Even if a planet is in the Goldilocks Zone like Earth No life should exist without our interference; life should exist nowhere else. Is this then a potentially severe weakness in the argument? IE. If life is found light-years away from us the whole argument falls apart? Not at all. These are your straw men not mine.

Stick to the points. Do you wonder why I cite sources?

[shadowhawk]

No rational person should ever engage a creationist or a flat-Earther in a "debate".

You arn't rational with your ad hominem attacks and name calling so this must not be you.