"Darwin Day" Topic

Why is this thread full of cosmology: it has nothing to do with evolution? Ditto the creation of life.

Evolution deals only with the change of organisms via reproduction. If you want to know why it is known to be true there are plenty of good books out there- Jerry Coyne's "Why evolution is true" and Richard Dawkins' "The greatest show on Earth; the evidence for evolution" are both accessible.

Because, as usual, we are led where the IDiots want to take us. Wait 'till TJ shows up and it's down the rabbit hole again.

BTW, here is a good link showing TJ's argument that scientists are abandoning Darwinism as never before. Oh-oh that rabbit hole is plugged.

YouTube link

Ralph

Oh dear…

TJ, evolution is only false if the IDers have their assumptions and sums correct. These IDers produce their facts through a combination of observer bias, false assumption, unproven premis and then inductive reasoning. When the facts on the ground do not fit the paradigm, it is dismissed.

And as I have said many times now, that is exactly what evolutionists do… every time.

TJ, let me see if I have your logic down. We do not fully understand the Big Bang. Therefore, everything we see around us (the stars, the planets, life, evolution, etc.) is ultimately the result of a poorly understood phenomenon. So why study or learn about anything? Surely there is no point in learning anything if, through an infinite regression of events, all things point back to the Big Bang.

No; what was said was this:

1) Problems with the Big Bang Theory (or rather, the Big Bang theories).
(The reply)
Nothing to do with Evolution.

I note that you at least agree with me in saying the Big Bang has problems: "We do not fully understand the Big Bang". That was just one of my points. If one is brutally honest, you can say "Evolutionists do not fully understand…" You fill in the blank – abiogenesis for example.

Oh, and for your own interest: The theory of Evolution has been questioned by thinkers even before Charles Darwin's time, and continues all the way to the present. A bit of reading on the history of scientific thought will disabuse you of any notion to the contrary.

Nor have I ever said otherwise Ralph. Always putting words into people's mouths (eh Doug?). I thoroughly question it; have been for some time now through this thread, and all of a sudden this comes as a great surprise to you? Dear oh dear. Trouble is; you have never questioned it; you don't want to; you lap it up because it pushes God out of your personal belief system and all that implies for you personally… true?

Why is this thread full of cosmology: it has nothing to do with evolution? Ditto the creation of life. Evolution deals only with the change of organisms via reproduction. If you want to know why it is known to be true there are plenty of good books out there – Jerry Coyne's "Why evolution is true" [LOL] and Richard Dawkins' "The greatest show on Earth; the evidence for evolution" [LOVL] are both accessible.

Full of cosmology? That's somewhat of an exaggeration. Was not the Big Bang followed by the "evolution" of matter followed by stellar/cosmic "evolution" followed by planetary "evolution" followed by abiogenesis followed by biological "evolution"? The theory of "Evolution" covers the lot; the theory is all encompassing… unless you wish to concede that God had a hand in all the rest…? No, I didn't think so.

And we are referenced yet again to that pinnacle of truth, facts and honesty: "You Tube"… dear oh dear.

Ok… what do we believe?

Does anyone here believe it is right to murder?

Premise: There is no "god"; no "supernatural"

Let's explore this.

If there is no god, no supernatural, then the only other reasonable explanation would be that which we call "evolution"; that the origins of everything can be explained by natural processes (even if we don't have definitive answers on any areas just yet).

That being the case, then Darwin was a great visionary and would be mostly correct. His principle of "survival of the fittest" would govern all life – in times past, now and into the future.

Now if there is no "god" then clearly all of those "religious" people out there believing that "god" really exists are totally deluded; one may well say that they are insane.

Surely then, if evolution is true, and the principle of "survival of the fittest" is universally paramount, then the existence of such a large portion of the population deemed to be insane is clearly a heavy burden on the small portion of the population that are sane.

Surely then, if one is sane and one is aware of this problem and if one adheres to his beliefs and one adheres to the universal principle of "survival of the fittest" then surely one is duty bound to "eliminate" any such aberration from the population to support the survival of the fittest of the species before the whole species goes completely insane .

Of course, one would have to start with those who vehemently attack the truth – the likes of me; the most deluded of all – the creationists. Then of course there's the mentally insane – clearly a burden – oops, me again; then there's the physically disabled – clearly a burden – oops, could be me again; then anyone else that is deemed a burden to the survival of our species until only those deemed to be "fit" remain.

Now where have we heard this line of thinking and reasoning before…? Where have we seen this line of thought used to justify genocides before…?

It's only wrong to murder if an absolute God exists and that God has deemed it wrong to murder. Otherwise, we establish the morality that we desire and can simply deem murder as morally acceptable by standing on the principle of "survival of the fittest".

So, how does an evolutionist say murder is "wrong"? No it's not. It's merely "survival of the fittest".

So, how does an evolutionist say theft is "wrong"? No it's not. It's merely "survival of the fittest".

Evolutionists are forced to "borrow" their morality from the deists simply because their belief system is morally bankrupt.

Was not the Big Bang followed by the "evolution" of matter followed by stellar/cosmic "evolution" followed by planetary "evolution" followed by abiogenesis followed by biological "evolution"? The theory of "Evolution" covers the lot

You are quite right TJ, evolution does cover the lot…and doesn't that go to show just what an amazing theory Darwin published. Something that we envisioned just applied to species actually encompasses the totality of existence, from the beginning of anything to the end of everything (and perhaps the start of something else afterwards, who knows?)

Pretty neat huh?

Pete

It's only wrong to murder if an absolute God exists and that God has deemed it wrong to murder. Otherwise, we establish the morality that we desire and can simply deem murder as morally acceptable by standing on the principle of "survival of the fittest".

So, how does an evolutionist say murder is "wrong"? No it's not. It's merely "survival of the fittest".

So, how does an evolutionist say theft is "wrong"? No it's not. It's merely "survival of the fittest".

Evolutionists are forced to "borrow" their morality from the deists simply because their belief system is morally bankrupt.

Tj, you are confusing the natural sciences with philosophy. One does not necessarily extrapolate to the other. It really is bad form to try to do so.

Pete

So, how does an evolutionist say murder is "wrong"? No it's not. It's merely "survival of the fittest".

So, how does an evolutionist say theft is "wrong"? No it's not. It's merely "survival of the fittest".

From wikki:

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase which is commonly used in contexts other than intended by its first two proponents – British polymath philosopher Herbert Spencer (who coined the term) and Charles Darwin.

Herbert Spencer first used the phrase – after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species – in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones, writing "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."

Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection" in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869. Darwin meant it is a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape" . Hence, it is not a scientific description, and is both incomplete and misleading.

for more information on this phrase, and how TJ is using it out of context follow the link:

link

Pete

Also from Wiki:

Conflation of "Survival of the fittest" and morality

Critics of evolution have argued that "survival of the fittest" provides a justification for behaviour that undermines moral standards by letting the strong set standards of justice to the detriment of the weak.[13] However, any use of evolutionary descriptions to set moral standards would be a naturalistic fallacy (or more specifically the is-ought problem), as prescriptive moral statements cannot be derived from purely descriptive premises. Describing how things are does not imply that things ought to be that way. It is also simplistic to suggest that "survival of the fittest" implies treating the weak badly, as good social behaviour – cooperating with others and treating them well – improves evolutionary fitness.[14][15]

It has also been claimed that "the survival of the fittest" theory in biology was interpreted by late 1800's capitalists as "an ethical precept that sanctioned cut-throat economic competition" and led to "social Darwinism" which allegedly glorified laissez-faire economics, war and racism[16]. However these ideas predate and commonly contradict Darwin's ideas, and indeed their proponents rarely invoked Darwin in support, while commonly claiming justification from religion and Horatio Alger mythology. The term "social Darwinism" referring to capitalist ideologies was introduced as a term of abuse by Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought published in 1944.[15][17]

Using the phrase "survival of the fittest" as a criticism of Darwin's theory of evolution is an example of the appeal to consequences fallacy: use of the concept of survival of the fittest as a justification for violence in human society has no effect on the truth of 'the theory of evolution by natural selection' in the natural biological world.

Honestly TJ, a simple search on Google (other search engines are available!) is all I made. How hard have you actually researched your own arguments…or are you being fed them and don't actually understand what they mean?

Pete

My previous post made me think TJ.

Have you actually read "On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life"?.

If not go here:

link

You don't even have to pay, all you need to invest is some time and a little thought.

Pete

hen there's the physically disabled – clearly a burden – oops, could be me again; then anyone else that is deemed a burden to the survival of our species until only those deemed to be "fit" remain.

I am registered blind TJ (a genetic, hereditary disease) and have too admit that I an unsure if I find your lack of understanding of Darwin either frightening or childish on this point. I am not sure whether you are being wilfully ignorant or just plain naive.

What you are talking about here is "Eugenics" not "Darwinism", the two are not the same. I suggest that you Google "Eugenics" and find out why it is so distasteful to me.

Pete

Darwin would equate to me thus:

I would not be killed purposely by my species because I am blind and not fit to survive (This is Eugenics), I am however more likely to be run over by a car because I might not see it. My descendants (two lovely girls) are also more likely to be run over by a car than people who can see cars. In the long term it is more likely that people who can see cars will propagate whilst those that cannot will get run over.

This is natural selection at its most basic level.

Pete

TJ continiue to just barf up the same old kreationist lies.

TJ, Just stop and think, why don't you kill your neighbor when his dog s on the lawn?

Do you not do it simply so god won't punish you when you die? if so then you have no morals, you just don't do it to not get punished, like a cat not ing on the couch becasue it dosn't want to get squirted in the face.

I don't murder my neighbors becasue I don't want to cause other pain and anguish, and it simply is wrong in my mind.
This is not becasue of a god threateing to burn me when I die, it's becasue I have been programed that way by the sociaty I live in.

Take a look at this video.
It showes that god has nothing to do with violence but the level of violence declines as the living standards go up.
link

Scarlet, just because some disagree with the "fallacy" doesn't mean that they are mistaken. That's the "joy" of philosophy: there isn't any wrong answer. The debate goes on forever.

What TJ observes is true: those who believe in the fittest being worthy to survive, lacking any moral imperative ("there is no God"), are free to take matters into their own hands and mould the world in their image of "fitness." If evolution is THE ONLY source of Existence in the first place, then "God" is dispensed with and we, the only sapient species in the world, are empowered to mould the world as we see fit. Then it becomes a war between idealogies of what "fit" means. How you can separate this from "survival of the fittest" is beyond me. It (ideology) is our species equivalent of rival lion prides vying for limited food and water in the same hunting ground: eventually one will win out, but will it be strong enough after it wins to continue on? Mindless evolution does not decide; because the survival of lions is not important to the continuation of evolution: evolution cannot be erradicated by the loss of any number of species; no, not even the entire loss of this world or this galaxy. Evolution does not "care."

We really need to keep the philosophy in its place; and admit that both sides of any argument always support a philosophical stance. As TJ clearly pointed out (again): Ralph (and I presume yourself) approachs this "Existence thing" from a desire to rub "God" out of his life. You want nothing to do with having to answer to a higher authority than your own intellect. When enough people believe the same way, we will have the flourishing plant of the next pogroms and genocides….

We really need to keep the philosophy in its place; and admit that both sides of any arguement always support a philosophical stance. As TJ clearly pointed out (again): Ralph, and I presume yourself, approach this "Existence thing" from a desire to rub "God" out of your life. You want nothing to do with having to answer to a higher authority than your own intellect. When enough people believe the same way, we will have the flourishing plant of the next pogroms and genocides….

You make this assumption based on what evidence? At what point have I ever said that I wish to "rub God out of my life"? Simply because I argue logically in favour for Evolution how do you extrapolate from that your presumption?

TJ's current argument is based on the term "survival of the fittest", this term is not relevant to Darwin or Evolution and hence is irrelevant to the discussion and makes a fallacy of the points that he makes. I pointed this out to him.

How exactly does this make me want to "rub God out of my life"?

I thot about it a bit longer and like this sillygism:

Major premise: animated cell matter of itself is not intelligent.

Minor premise: the brain is composed of animated cell matter.

Conclusion: the brain is not intelligent.

Did I get that right, Ralph?…

Doug, I will again state that Darwinian Evolution is a natural science and not a philosophy. Wanting to make it one doesn't mean it actually is.

Pete

Simply because I argue logically in favour for Evolution how do you extrapolate from that your presumption?

There is some ongoing difficulty in keeping participants on this thread distinct when all we have to go on is previous text. I gather, then, without going back over the whole thing, that you object to being "classed" with Ralph, the atheist?

TJ's current argument is based on the term "survival of the fittest", this term is not relevant to Darwin or Evolution and hence is irrelevant to the discussion and makes a fallacy of the points that he makes. I pointed this out to him.

And I responded to that; we argue philosophical pairings, some agree that the two phrases apply exactly to Darwin and his theory; you, apparently, take exception to that. I don't see anything absolute in your reasoning: personally, "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" as applied directly to our species does take into account our ideological differences: these are integral to our motivation; and it is our motivation which drives us to violence as a solution to our own survival needs.

To remove "God" from all consideration of "Existence in the first place" is the danger: because morality then becomes utterly relative and not an imperative instituted by a higher authority than our species….

Pete: the natural sciences are followed by human beings. We are never separated from our philosophical moorings, be they founded upon a "God-fearing" morality, or morally bankrupt. Two proponents of these two philosophical extremes, both believing in biological evolution, will implement conclusions from the natural science entirely differently….

I gather, then, without going back over the whole thing, that you object to being "classed" with Ralph, the atheist?

I have reservations about putting anybody in a "class", but no, I have no objections with Ralph. He brings a logical argument to the table that I find refreshing. Oh, and he tends to use facts which I always like because you can check them.

And I responded to that; we argue philosophical pairings, some agree that the two phrases apply exactly to Darwin and his theory; you, apparently, take exception to that. I don't see anything absolute in your reasoning: personally, "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" as applied directly to our species does take into account our ideological differences: these are integral to our motivation; and it is our motivation which drives us to violence as a solution to our own survival needs.

The definition and implications of the terms are imperative to correctly understanding what Darwin intended. Clarity is so important when discussing science. If you are not clear then errors can be made and people end up making rash statements similar to those made by TJ.

Again, natural selection is not by definition the same as survival of the fittest.

To remove "God" from all consideration of "Existence in the first place" is the danger: because morality then becomes utterly relative and not an imperative instituted by a higher authority than our species….

I am not really sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that unless there is a God with a big stick you would be out killing and robbing?

Pete

The definition and implications of the terms are imperative to correctly understanding what Darwin intended. Clarity is so important when discussing science. If you are not clear then errors can be made and people end up making rash statements similar to those made by TJ.

As I said earlier…Google "Eugenics" if you wish to find out more about incorrectly interpreting Darwin and that inaccurate term "survival of the fittest".

Pete

Off down another rabbit hole – an IDiot lead us to Eugenics. Sigh.

"I like the Walrus best," said Alice, "because you see he was a little sorry for the poor oysters."

TJ

You state on Sept 24:

As usual; simply dismiss any and all problems as irrelevant. The "how's" of evolution are (sometimes) negotiable but of evolution itself… one must never ever question it; ABSOLUTELY NEVER!

I counter that it is not true. People have been questioning evolution since before the time of Charles Darwin all the way to the present. Questioning is part of science.

To which you respond with:

Nor have I ever said otherwise Ralph. Always putting words into people's mouths (eh Doug?)

Really.

As for the Big Bang question, you clearly did not understand my point. You seem to treat problems with the Big Bang and problems with natural abiogenesis as some sort of proof that evolution doesn't exist.

Let me frame it in another way: How does our limited understanding of the Big Bang hamper the validity of the Theory of Evolution, but seemingly does NOT hamper the validity of the Theory of Gravity?

And we are referenced yet again to that pinnacle of truth, facts and honesty: "You Tube"… dear oh dear.

Don't act so smug…..you can ill afford to, given some of the asinine and scientifically ignorant comments you have made on this thread. Do I have to dreg them up again?

You mentioned:

21) The loss of faith in "evolutionism" among scientists and researchers into evolution.

What I found was that those experts that really know and understand their fields are questioning and abandoning the theory in ever increasing numbers, hence the rise of the Intelligent Design movement.

The YouTube clip showed a scientist excoriate your premise. Had you taken the time to watch it you would know that the Discovery Institutes "petition of 101" scientists is clearly bogus. You would also have learned that the poster boy of the ID movement, Dr Michael Behe actually believes in evolution. However, he doesn't think natural selection is the correct mechanism that describes how evolution works.

Your loss.

Ralph

Did I get that right, Ralph?…

No.

Neither is this one.

A girl is Human
Doug is Human
Doug is a girl

Syllogisms are more than playing word games, I don't know what "sillygisms" are.

Ralph

TJ,

While you are not watching Youtube videos, here is another one to ignore. It is also by DonExodus 2, the same author as my previous link, which you didn't watch.

YouTube link

DonExodus 2 is a professor of evolution at the UNC at Chapel Hill. His short video is a series of questions to ask a doubter of evolution. Care to try any of them? Oh ya, DonExodus 2 asks you to reference your answers properly too.

I'm not holding my breath on any of this either.

Ralph

To remove "God" from all consideration of "Existence in the first place" is the danger: because morality then becomes utterly relative and not an imperative instituted by a higher authority than our species….

I am not really sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that unless there is a God with a big stick you would be out killing and robbing?

Pete

I don't believe in "a God with a big stick". I'm not sure that I ever seriously even entertained such a dogmatic concept. (memory tells me that I have always been repelled by it)

What is implied by recognizing a Necessary Cause for Existence in the first place, is our morality being founded in intelligence and not some serendipitous accident. It goes along with the concept of our intelligence also not being some accident of complexity born out of simplicity (leaving all other life forms bereft of it: yet another way our species is unique; the "animal kingdom" has no moral bedrock; it is all survival by instinct only)….

Syllogisms are more than playing word games, I don't know what "sillygisms" are.

Uhuh. And comparing the whole universe to a rock wasn't a sillygism (false syllogism) and blatant playing with words….

Major premise: animated cell matter of itself is not intelligent.

Minor premise: the brain is composed of animated cell matter.

Conclusion: the brain is not intelligent.

Did I get that right, Ralph?…

No.

So the major premise is flawed? How so? (we are verging on Animism now) I maintain that raw matter is NOT intelligent. Our brains are made of raw matter, ergo our brains are not intelligent! How can you argue against this?…

Hi

Because the point being missed, doug, is that a syllogism is a tool in reasoning, but not all such reasoning produces a valuable result.

Lets look at TJ's reasoning on how big bang leads to matter evolving, and the matter, bigger, evolving and on and on. Just using the word "evolution" to describe changing events doesn't mean all terms called "evolution" is evolution as disputed by the IDers like TJ.

The reverse can be proved. The perception of god evolved in various cultures to mean different beings, and with those religions that resulted, each of them had evolving thought on what sort of God they believed in. As those concepts evolved when in contact with each other, then as IDers have demonstrated that evolution is false with this long string of connections, they have proved God doesn't exist!

And Imputing motives to why, say,Ralph is arguing this way is either an indication of psychic ability or based on a false premise.

Oh, as an aside, a friend linked me to a mini series the Museum we have discussed has on line with hours and hours of such conjecture, false premise used to "prove" evolution is wrong. And while TJ loves to accuse the people supporting evolution with "the same old thing", denying evolution this way is "the same old thing, everyone is wrong all change is "god did it". See, we have viruses, bugs, small animals with demonstrated evolution just since WW2 (otherwise known on why you need new shots for old diseases, the bacteria or virus evolved!)

Now, I know some religious people who refuse any medicine not mentioned in the bible, but I ain't gonna.

When you speculate without demonstrable proof, like before big bang, God, or similar…it is not philosophy. I am not that guy.

God made me a mechanic. I deal with things that bolt together. Evolution is a tool, origins are not.

Oh, and another TJ type syllogism. If doug is right, and you require god for morality, just why is there no agreement on morality. THAT is a problem. Why, for instance, with some believers is Murder OK if it involves non believers?

Rocky

"Syllogism is a tool". Exactly the point I was making with mine. When we're talking about the origin of intelligence, it is silly to claim things we don't have any way of knowing. I used the brain and body analogy to show how illogical it is to claim that the universe isn't intelligent, when we are part of it.

I'm not suggesting a "what" for the origin of Existence in the first place: I simply insist that such a Necessary Cause is implicit: things don't spring out of nothing; traits don't arise out of "soup" with no ingredients to produce those traits, etc. Science has to pursue origins, even when we currently lack the means: the desire to know has to be there. Ralph seems to have no desire to believe there is a NC.

"God" being the origin of morality: it doesn't follow that there is one immutable morality for the multiverse. Rather, a person is beholden to his conscience: and that evolves throughout a lifetime. The admition that "God" is the higher power we answer to is sufficient to hold men back from deciding for themselves what is expedient: justice must serve as the end of all decisions. And we humans are a lot less divided in what justice is than individual morality. "Was that act justified?" There are justified murders. Cultures define them differently. In the end we all die and have to answer for our acts. I'm convinced that a person who is committed to not lying to himself is justified far more, from a morality standpoint, than another who says, "I knew it was wrong, but I was just following orders", etc….

Just because you can use the word evolution on other stuff then biological evolution, dosn't mean they have much if any thing to do with eachother.
Evolution just means change over time

Just becasue you say stellar evolution, dosn't mean it is governed by the same things as biological evolution.

While biological evolution is driven by mutation and natural selection, this has nothing to do with stellar evolution.

Just try to look at stellar evolition with natural selection in mind, just dosn't work as what drives it is not natural selection but Accretion, gravity and fusion.

Now Accretion has nothing to do with Bio evolution, and gravity has only a small small effect on development of biological material.

Så you can't just brush everyhing under the word evolution and say it's the same thing

Doug says,

…….traits don't arise out of "soup" with no ingredients to produce those traits, etc. Science has to pursue origins, even when we currently lack the means: the desire to know has to be there. Ralph seems to have no desire to believe there is a NC.

Wrong, as usual, again. Traits do arise out of a soup. They have done so all the time without some conscious "need" to do so. Stellar systems came together out of the post big bang soup because matter wasn't spread out uniformly, rather in clumps. (More of a chunky soup rather than a broth, to beat that analogy to death). These clumps came together thru the weak gravitational forces. As the density increased the matter condensed into proto-stars. There was no "star making trait", special "star essence" or ingredients lying dormant as the big bang started up. Had the speed of inflation been slightly greater or the force of gravitation slightly less, no real chemical compounds could have formed and we would be in a starless universe (actually then we would not be here to notice). Since you make this claim please find these traits, essences, qualities or ingredients. Surely they have been discovered by now. Or it this just idle speculation masquerading as "fact".

In the end we all die and have to answer for our acts.

So we do have to answer to the Necessary Cause after our deaths? So whatever caused the big bang is also an arbiter and judge of morality? I thought we were talking physics here.

I used the brain and body analogy to show how illogical it is to claim that the universe isn't intelligent, when we are part of it.

Sorry, Doug I don't see what is illogical about my view, and I don't see the "logic" of your statement. Your arguments certainly are not convincing. The universe behaves according to the laws of science. The laws are logical and people of intelligence can discover and understand the logic of these laws. If I drop a marble onto the floor the marble behaves in a logical way according to the laws of gravitation, the laws of acceleration, etc. The marble is not "logical" or "intelligent". It simply reacts according to these logical laws. Same with the Universe. It follows the same logical laws as the dumb marble. The only thing intelligent is US, for observing and noting these laws and patterns of behavior. Complexity always arises out of simpler components without any demonstrable "need" to do so and it's all based on simple rudimentary laws. Maybe we should drop it and focus on the evolution topic at hand.

Ralph

Traits do arise out of a soup. They have done so all the time without some conscious "need" to do so.

And WHAT/WHO caused the "soup" to be as it is? You don't, ever, so far, look back far enough when you counter what I am saying. The "conscious need" originates with the NC, not the "soup" itself. (the very idea)

Stellar systems came together out of the post big bang soup because matter wasn't spread out uniformly, rather in clumps.

"God" is not the BB, or pushing stellar clumps around (the very idea).

There was no "star making trait", special "star essence" or ingredients lying dormant as the big bang started up.

Of course, the entire process is self-actuating; it "works" because there is energy and everything present to cause the universe to expand and begin evolving. And this all got started, how, do you suppose?

Since you make this claim please find these traits, essences, qualities or ingredients. Surely they have been discovered by now. Or it this just idle speculation masquerading as "fact".

The answer is in the origin of Existence in the first place. As I have said, empirical cannot detect metaphysical: the empirical is the metaphysical manifesting. "God" is not within the world; the world is "God" manifesting. Part of "the perfect joke" must be the enjoyment of listening to little (intelligent) minds denying the source (NC) of their own intelligence.

You still haven't said how it is possible for our physical brains to be intelligent, when everything material in our bodies and world is NOT intelligent; and on a larger scale, how the universe isn't intelligent, yet we, arising from the universe through evolution are intelligent, yet the universe remains unintelligent.

In the end we all die and have to answer for our acts.

So we do have to answer to the Necessary Cause after our deaths? So whatever caused the big bang is also an arbiter and judge of morality? I thought we were talking physics here.

Physics has a source that preempts the BB. That automatically brings in the metaphysical possibilities.

Imho, you must answer only to yourself for the acts you commit. Lying to yourself is the most effective short circuit to finding Joy. I don't believe in a "Great Judge" in the sky. If I am right, then "God" manifests as each one of us (for reasons I won't go into here, besides it is always conjecture), which means you must always answer to yourself for failures to be joyful. And to slap this back onto Darwin: JOY is the preeminent motivation toward survival.

The only thing intelligent is US, for observing and noting these laws and patterns of behavior. Complexity always arises out of simpler components without any demonstrable "need" to do so and it's all based on simple rudimentary laws.

And WE are separate from the rest of the universe, how, exactly?

The whole universe is entropy increasing somewhere so that energy can be used somewhere else to "work", i.e. produce complexity. And this is perfectly balanced to happen, how, exactly? An inconceivably remote chance that it will occur sometime if given enough time? So how many BBs are there? And THIS ONE worked while countless numbers of other BBs failed to produce even star clusters, much less biological abiogenesis? And what is causing these countless BBs to occur randomly until ONE of them "works?"

You may believe that your head is filled with marbles that owe nothing to the universe. I do not….

And to slap this back onto Darwin: JOY is the preeminent motivation toward survival.

Are we finally coming close to a theory to counter Darwin? We've been waiting for TJ's opposing Theory since 19th Feb.

Pete

Physics has a source that preempts the BB. That automatically brings in the metaphysical possibilities.

Why? Simply because we do not know the answers now does not mean that the scientific world will not be able to answer difficult questions in the future. Why is it that time and again (and throughout history) people who question the scientific method refuse to accept that knowledge advances and automatically introduce "A.N.OTHER".

An inconceivably remote chance that it will occur sometime if given enough time?

Refer to my posts on "Hoyle's fallacy" and randomness. It doesn't matter how remote the chance was, it has occured.

Pete

Hi

Doug:"God" is not the BB, or pushing stellar clumps around (the very idea).

Why not. Define your terms. If you postulate a god outside of creation, then you need to recognize that this is just an assertion, not proof and not a statement.

Doug:As I have said, empirical cannot detect metaphysical: the empirical is the metaphysical manifesting.

Again, you aren't really doing anything but making assertians. If we,for the sake of argument, define GOD as "that which is outside creation, cannot be detected" again, this is an assertion for the sake of discussion. But his no other "proof" than itself.

Doug:And WE are separate from the rest of the universe, how, exactly?

Which no one has said. Where you are going is an odd bit of reasoning. 1)YOU are intelligent therefore such complexity isn't natural, there must be an intelligent universe with an intellidgent god. In fact none of these points are on offer.

It would be like saying that there is nothing in nature suggesting a claw, my cat has claws, therefore the universe is clawed. You see an aspect that was evolved to meet certain conditions. Every living thing evolves in its environment(a part of nature) and some of those tools it develops don't work, and that specific approach dies out, but other decendands of the common ancestor develop traits that work better. We did a "toofer" efficient bi-pedal locomotion and intelligence. Or "cousins" several million years ago went for arboral efficiency which needed some brain power involving that mode of living, succeeded and didn't develop big brains. As it turned out, with shrinking big jungle, they isolated an become less successful and might die out.

Not unlike Koala "bears" developing for a situation with a common tree with a specific leaf and start dying out when that tree fail to adapt to changing weather patterns.

If we nuke ourselves out, it would be argued our big brain turned out to be not so great an idea.

Rocky

And to slap this back onto Darwin: JOY is the preeminent motivation toward survival.

Are we finally coming close to a theory to counter Darwin? We've been waiting for TJ's opposing Theory since 19th Feb.

We can argue about what the prime motivator of homo sapiens is, but imho it has to be what makes us want to act more than any other thing, and that is simply Joy. I don't know anyone joyful who is interested in dying. The opposite is true for depressed people.

I am not out to replace evolution, because I trust that biological evolution of life forms on this planet can be shown as occurring even within our own lifetime.

There isn't a need to believe in Creationism, a la the Genesis story. Having it all metaphorical and typological shouldn't shatter anyone's faith: modify a perspective or two, yes: but why should looking at the Genesis story as a Bronze Age "working hypothesis" bother anyone in the 21st century CE?

Physics has a source that preempts the BB. That automatically brings in the metaphysical possibilities.

Why? Simply because we do not know the answers now does not mean that the scientific world will not be able to answer difficult questions in the future.

I am sure that science will get around to the question of pre-BB someday: and I am confident science will always run into a "wall" trying to say what caused Existence in the first place.

Why is it that time and again (and throughout history) people who question the scientific method refuse to accept that knowledge advances and automatically introduce "A.N.OTHER".

I don't even see TJ doing that. Rather, the question of how Existence in the first place is even possible begs the question of whether empirical science -- on this side of the BB only -- can even "go there".

To leap from that shortcoming to the Judeo-Christian God is the excess many religious people are prone to do. That IS introducing "Another" in the anthropomorphic sense as Necessary Cause. But a "Pagan" won't go there either. I guess I am more of a "Pagan" than not: I know that there is a Necessary Cause behind all of THIS: to claim otherwise is not even being faithful to the scientific method. One should never dismiss a concept out of hand that cannot be disproved, that is NECESSARY. And a NC for Existence is obvious.

You can hold out for the scientfic method to discover that answer someday, proving that there is no NC, i.e. no "God" by any possible use of the term.

And I will hold forth that the Necessary Cause IS "God" in every essential understanding of that term.

The difference between you and I is only our predetermined expectations: evidently, non believers on this thread prefer (or even demand) that no "God" be waiting around the corner for them: so they go looking for evidence to support the notion that everything occurs without intelligence: but we ipso facto prove that the universe IS intelligent.

For sure, it is hubris to hold to the notion that WE on this planet are the most advanced intelligence in the universe. And if we are not the most advanced, then where in the ranking of rude sentience to "ascended beings" are we?

Refer to my posts on "Hoyle's fallacy" and randomness. It doesn't matter how remote the chance was, it has occured.

I'm not talking about this planet, or even this universe. If there was ONE BB, there are just as likely countless BBs forever. What is behind that?….

Why is it that time and again (and throughout history) people who question the scientific method refuse to accept that knowledge advances and automatically introduce "A.N.OTHER".

I don't even see TJ doing that.

Go back and revisit TJ's posts…that is exactly what he has been doing.

The difference between you and I is only our predetermined expectations: evidently, non believers on this thread prefer (or even demand) that no "God" be waiting around the corner for them: so they go looking for evidence to support the notion that everything occurs without intelligence: but we ipso facto prove that the universe IS intelligent.

No Doug, that is not what I am doing and I certainly do not have any "predetermined expectations". I have been looking at evidence for and against Evolution by Natural Selection using the scientific method. TJ has continually criticised the "Theory" (appearing to support the premise of Intellegent Design) and I (and others) have argued that many of his comments and statements are scientifically incorrect. I (and others) have asked TJ to provide an alternate Theory supporting his criticism of Darwin which he has continually failed to do. As it stands I support Evolution by Natural Selection because I have yet to see a piece of evidence brought to the table that refutes it. If you can bring a supportable theory that refutes Evolution by Natural Selection then I would love to see it, as would the scientific world as a whole.

Doug, I am looking at this purely from a scientific standpoint. My own religious leanings are immaterial. However it is not scientifically acceptable to say "if it is not A then it must be God!"

Pete

You can hold out for the scientfic method to discover that answer someday, proving that there is no NC, i.e. no "God" by any possible use of the term.

Science is not a conspiracy, proving the existence of a NC would be the biggest scientific coup of all time. Pure science is not about politics, it is about knowledge.

Pete

If you can bring a supportable theory that refutes Evolution by Natural Selection then I would love to see it, as would the scientific world as a whole.

I have no desire to do that, since I accept biological, and cosmic evolution are approaching the existence of this universe from the right direction (allowing that we know precious little so far of what there is likely out there to know; and even here we have barely formed a beginning to explaining how life got started).

Science is not a conspiracy, proving the existence of a NC would be the biggest scientific coup of all time. Pure science is not about politics, it is about knowledge.

I have never looked on science as any conspiracy; individuals within religion and science conspire all the time to "win" against the other: I feel only disdain for those who engage without truth and know that they distort what the other side says only to discredit them.

Imho, the Existence of the Necessary Cause isn't arguable, since we in fact exist and the WHOLE process by which that occurred needs explaining.

But science will never (I expect) ID what the NC is. I don't think it is a "who" in any totality sense.

Or maybe the NC is the only Who, and all the rest of Existence is the "what". If the various bits of the "what" are given free will and "set loose" to discover what Existence is all about; then maybe my anthropomorphic perspective gives a reason why the Who would do this: Who would rather have beings that voluntarily seek a connection/relationship, than sit in the Void in the darkness with nothing….

Rocky: If you postulate a god outside of creation, then you need to recognize that this is just an assertion, not proof and not a statement.

As nothing within the universe is "on offer" as a suitable explanation for the universe existing in the first place, "God" cannot be IN the universe. That's why I say that I don't expect science (empirical OR metaphysical, should such be allowed as "science" one day) to ever "discover God": a Necessary Cause which is quite possibly the only "Who" in Existence would be as discernable by us as a painting is of the artist. Very unsatisfying, I know, but that's what is probably occurring.

If we,for the sake of argument, define GOD as "that which is outside creation, cannot be detected" again, this is an assertion for the sake of discussion. But his no other "proof" than itself.

I do not assert Existence, and I know it has a Necessary Cause. Existence is proof enough of a Necessary Cause; and evidently that NC is outside of our purview, i.e. Existence transcending space-time.

Where you are going is an odd bit of reasoning. 1)YOU are intelligent therefore such complexity isn't natural, there must be an intelligent universe with an intellidgent god. In fact none of these points are on offer.

It would be like saying that there is nothing in nature suggesting a claw, my cat has claws, therefore the universe is clawed.

Aren't you guilty of using an argument that leads to a fallacy? The universe-ENTIRE came from a singularity, yet the universe is NOT that singularity. It is just like in Genesis, "Let there be light". The BB was just like that, and everything comes from that singularity. So pointing to claws and teeth and mammals and whathaveyou and saying, "See, nothing in nature suggests this or that," is begging the question of what in nature is natural or "patterned", i.e. ordained. Obviously everything we can itemize in nature is part of that ordained process we call cosmic and biological evolution: including our intelligence. Something ordained cannot exist accidentally or come into being without a Necessary Cause: and that NC cannot ordain something that transcends itself: Existence of our intelligence is proof of intelligence in the NC….

Existence of our intelligence is proof of intelligence in the NC….

If you chant this mantra long enough will you think it becomes a "fact"? Do you honestly think your speculations represent reality?

I like Rocky's criticism of Doug's pet theory. We are humans with some intelligence. When we contemplate the universe, we anthropomorphize it and see it as intelligent. An alien race of cats would see it as something that has claws, enjoys cream and likes to lick it's fur. A alien race of crickets would see the universe as something that makes cool sounds when it rubs it's legs together. An alien race of toads would think the universe croaks. And on and on.

I can see it now. An alien Toad may be saying at this very moment, "Existence of our croaking is proof of croaking in the NC…". Brilliant!

Ralph

You've got in down exactly. Why do you think, that I think, that human intelligence would be THE intelligence of the NC? EVERYTHING manifesting in this universe originates from the NC; "it" is all of those things and infinitely more….

I wasn't serious, Doug.

I can tell you were being ironic. But the point you were making is a valid consideration: ANY manifestation in nature has to originate from the NC. Otherwise you are saying that a trait has transcended what caused it, ex nihilo….

Hi

Actually, doug, some of your points have and ar postulated by real scientists involved in studdying BB and other things.

Here is the deal. If you have an idea on what might have happened in BB and that logically leads to a "if then, then" you can test the second part that suggests the first.

You may remember someone at an M&M game who was a fluid dynamics engineer, but not an aircraft guy. Because he had the background, I could in a few words explain the math behind the aircraft and where the game departs from reality due to problems with actually having a game someone besides me and my buddy the aerodynamicist at GD understands. On the other hand, historian, soft science and other friends have no idea what this is all about.

Some people involved in high energy physics are doing the work to explore what happens in the first few microseconds of BB. Above my pay grade. But people I know in the field "get" the math and sometimes explain it to me.

No one has come up with a way to test for before BB, or outside of the universe or similar. And until they do, it is something I cannot discuss or defend.

You "know" things in your post that I cannot put my hands on and test. No one can. Which leaves us with not evolution in a discussion but "which definition of God is it that we don't believe in". Again, I cannot discuss.

I kind of liked the Hindu viewpoint. As mere mortals all we can do is see aspects of the greater, thus we have Kali and Vishneu, and so on to isolate the aspects of god in a manageable form. YOU and TJ, I expect, want to draw us into a discussion where I cannot bolt it together or do the math and, therefore, it becomes "your guess is as good as mine, probably better".

In the above case, I have no idea why you think that intelligence is transcending the cause. And why, like a Kazin, you don't see god as a giant cat with steel like claws as a great aspect trancending..

There is the old saw that if you have enough monkeys pounding on enough typewriters, eventually one of them will produce a readable novel.

rocky

…I have no idea why you think that intelligence is transcending the cause.

Intelligence is NOT transcending the Necessary Cause; but it would be transcending a NC that wasn't intelligent: intelligence would BE a thing that the NC was not, unless the NC is also intelligent….

intelligence would BE a thing that the NC was not, unless the NC is also intelligent….

?

Pete

Read the whole response in a single "run". Don't leave anything out: repeat as required….

Hi

So, the thing is "we are intelligent, we cannot be more intelligent than the necessary cause, therefore the necessary cause is intelligent"?

In order for US to be intelligent, the creator of the universe must be more intelligent?

This is an assumption without actual evidence.

Rocky

I'm having the same problem Rocky…metaphysics is not a science, it is, to quote Wiki:

"philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence."

I like facts you can check, interpret and argue about.

Pete