Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-24-2017 10:51 PM
326 online now:
Coyote, LamarkNewAge, Meddle, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (4 members, 322 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,959 Year: 27,565/21,208 Month: 1,478/1,714 Week: 321/365 Day: 48/42 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
13Next
Author Topic:   the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1760
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 106 of 187 (811430)
06-07-2017 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Taq
06-07-2017 1:37 PM


Ultimately, the argument we are using is that if the evidence is consistent with natural processes, then we conclude that natural processes did it...

Now, you could argue that some tricksy deity just made everything look like it occurred through natural processes, but what would be the point?

I don't understand this point at all. How else could it possibly look? If you design a universe and it has processes in it then those processes will, no doubt, look natural. I mean what else would a designer use if not natural processes? Or put another way, whatever a designer might use would become a defacto natural process.

As to the question of why is the hypothetical designer is not immediately apparent I don't know but I don't think deception is the only option. Being a wee little human in a 14.5 billion yr old universe with a wee little brain might be another possibility.

As soon as the physical evidence doesn't matter, then the conversation is over.

No one is saying that the evidence doesn't matter. I am just taking exception to what is being inferred from the evidence and trying to be rigorous with the logic.

Is it possible to identify ourselves as being part of a designed system from the inside of that system?

Actually, the whole point is for ID/creationists to once again demonstrate that ID/creationism is a dogmatic religious belief that can never be falsified by any evidence, no matter what that evidence is.

Better check with jar on that but yeah. My objective is to examine my own belief on the subject.

The claims that we can't "judge design" just further support that conclusion.

I am just saying that any apparent localized disorder in the goings on of the universe isn't a very robust argument against the existence of a designer.

edit

but apparently we are not talking about that

Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 1:37 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Taq, posted 06-08-2017 10:58 AM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11816
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 107 of 187 (811431)
06-07-2017 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by ProtoTypical
06-07-2017 7:29 PM


Sure it is there too but I think there is evidence that it existed in many cultures long before the Christians wrote it down. A designer or god is a posited answer for the so far unanswerable question of origin and that question has been around for about as long as we have been asking questions.

I just mean that if the Christian narrative is inconsistent with what nature reveals that doesn't detract from the idea of a creator that is perhaps different from what is described in the bible.

Right on, you're right.

I think my misunderstanding stemmed from a divergence between the slight contextual difference, and the big conceptual difference, from there is a designer and there could be a designer. But I could be wrong about that too

Cheers!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-07-2017 7:29 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-07-2017 7:56 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1760
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 108 of 187 (811432)
06-07-2017 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by New Cat's Eye
06-07-2017 7:40 PM


...from there is a designer and there could be a designer.

This is a critical distinction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-07-2017 7:40 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6030
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 109 of 187 (811436)
06-07-2017 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Phat
06-07-2017 2:08 PM


Re: Any designer is irrelevant.
The whole concept of God is falsifiable.

How?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Phat, posted 06-07-2017 2:08 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-09-2017 12:19 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply
 Message 116 by Phat, posted 10-21-2017 1:35 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 110 of 187 (811456)
06-08-2017 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by ProtoTypical
06-07-2017 7:36 PM


ProtoTypical writes:

I don't understand this point at all. How else could it possibly look? If you design a universe and it has processes in it then those processes will, no doubt, look natural.

If species were separately designed then we wouldn't expect to see a nested hierarchy since there is no reason that a designer would force its designs into a nested hierarchy. The only reason we would expect to see a nested hierarchy is if species evolved from a common ancestor.

Is it possible to identify ourselves as being part of a designed system from the inside of that system?

As described above, yes. If we suddenly saw nearly all species suddenly appear in the fossil record just 10,000 years ago, then I think we could conclude that there is a high probability that we are in a designed system of life.

My objective is to examine my own belief on the subject.

If I may make a suggestion, your first step should be to ask yourself what it would take to prove ID/creationism wrong. That is what any good scientist would do. What would it take to disprove ID/creationism when it comes to the question of the origin of species?

From what I have seen so far, you seem to have taken the position that a designer can do anything and produce every possible observation. If that is the case, then I don't see how your belief can be examined.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-07-2017 7:36 PM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1760
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 111 of 187 (811521)
06-09-2017 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Coyote
06-07-2017 10:26 PM


Re: Any designer is irrelevant.
Coyote writes:

Phat writes:

The whole concept of God is falsifiable.


how?

Off topic but on point, this is the question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Coyote, posted 06-07-2017 10:26 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 632
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 112 of 187 (822197)
10-20-2017 9:22 PM


How did placental mammals manage to evolve from an egg-laying reptile? In order for this to happen, a line of reptiles would have had to have evolved a complete placental reproductive system while still being egg-layers.

My fragile, egg-shell mind has a lot of trouble understanding this idea. Help needed.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 10-20-2017 9:43 PM Dredge has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29628
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 113 of 187 (822200)
10-20-2017 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Dredge
10-20-2017 9:22 PM


Too funny.

Or placental mammals did not evolve directly from reptiles but rather other forms of mammals such as marsupials. Remember the big difference is really pretty minor across several boundaries, and there are also reptiles that give live birth as well as species of reptiles that have a structure similar to a mammalian placenta such as skinks.

Egg production happens even in the Great Apes like humans.

The variety and evolution of reproduction methods is amazing.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Dredge, posted 10-20-2017 9:22 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Dredge, posted 10-20-2017 9:56 PM jar has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 632
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 114 of 187 (822204)
10-20-2017 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by jar
10-20-2017 9:43 PM


How did a line of reptiles evolve the system of milk production and mammary glands of mammals?

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 10-20-2017 9:43 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by granpa, posted 10-20-2017 11:05 PM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 117 by jar, posted 10-21-2017 7:01 AM Dredge has responded

    
granpa
Member
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


(1)
Message 115 of 187 (822211)
10-20-2017 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dredge
10-20-2017 9:56 PM


Look at monotremes and marsupials

Why BELIEVE that it will rain today when you can KNOW that it might rain today. Belief is unnecessary and illogical.

A moral person is a person that understands that the universe does not revolve around their ego.

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dredge, posted 10-20-2017 9:56 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10087
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 116 of 187 (822217)
10-21-2017 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Coyote
06-07-2017 10:26 PM


Re: Any designer is irrelevant.
Maybe I'm wrong. The concept is unprovable yet I suppose it is also unfalsifiable.

I think that jars point about designers being irrelevant is a bit pompous on our part, however.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Coyote, posted 06-07-2017 10:26 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29628
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 117 of 187 (822222)
10-21-2017 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dredge
10-20-2017 9:56 PM


Slowly and over long periods of time. Lots of animals secrete juices from their skin including many reptiles. The mammary system is simply a continuation of that.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dredge, posted 10-20-2017 9:56 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 7:46 PM jar has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 632
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 118 of 187 (822243)
10-21-2017 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by jar
10-21-2017 7:01 AM


quote:
Slowly and over long periods of time. Lots of animals secrete juices from their skin including many reptiles. The mammary system is simply a continuation of that.

Sorry, "Slowly over long periods of time" doesn't explain anything. This is the Darwinist's equivalent of the Creationists' "God did it." Any mammary system is very complex, but you seem happy to believe that such a system evolved by sheer luck. This is akin to believing a mammary system could evolve in a human male. Fantasy and rank speculation masquerading as science.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by jar, posted 10-21-2017 7:01 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 10-21-2017 7:54 PM Dredge has responded
 Message 159 by dwise1, posted 10-28-2017 2:30 PM Dredge has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29628
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 119 of 187 (822245)
10-21-2017 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Dredge
10-21-2017 7:46 PM


silly child writes:

Any mammary system is very complex, but you seem happy to believe that such a system evolved by sheer luck.

Silly Rabbi, Kicks are for Trids.

How silly can you get Dredge? No luck involved; instead there are changes that get filtered by natural selection. You really need to go back and learn some of the very basic basics.

There was never a goal to "Develop a mammary system" or any other system. Anyone beyond elementary school should understand that.

Evolution is not goal oriented or even directional.

Go back and try to learn the basics before trying to sound like you know squat.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 7:46 PM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Dredge, posted 10-21-2017 7:59 PM jar has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 632
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 120 of 187 (822246)
10-21-2017 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by jar
10-21-2017 7:54 PM


quote:
How silly can you get Dredge? No luck involved; instead there are changes that get filtered by natural selection.

Really. How does 0.05% of a mammary system confer a survival advantage?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 10-21-2017 7:54 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by jar, posted 10-21-2017 8:12 PM Dredge has responded
 Message 130 by ringo, posted 10-22-2017 3:02 PM Dredge has responded
 Message 132 by dwise1, posted 10-22-2017 11:35 PM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017