Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 526 of 638 (737101)
09-17-2014 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 523 by NoNukes
09-17-2014 2:18 AM


Re: why is the sky blue?
... Of course there are some non scientific question using the word why. ...
A good starting point: there are lots of questions science can't answer (where this discussion started) ... how can you characterize them?
If you ask why Picasso shaped a persons nose as he did, a perfectly good answer to that question would be wanted to provoke reaction X.
So why did he (hypothetically) want to provoke that reaction?
As for why sugar exists, who says there is a reason. Why is not "sugar exists because plants evolved to produce it as a means of storing energy" (accompanied by some biology re: evolution and natural selection) a suitable answer? ...
Because that is how it came to exist - you are answering a how question not the why question. You can see this if you say ...
... is not "sugar exists because plants evolved to produce it as a means of storing energy" (accompanied by some biology re: evolution and natural selection) ... a suitable answer to the question for how sugar exists?
If you replace why with how and your answer is the same then you have answered the how question and not the why one.
If you want to ask a question that science cannot answer, simply using a why does not cut it. You cannot demonstrate that one why question is not scientific by asking different ones as you do here.
Science explains how the universe works. It does not explain why it works.
Why is the sky blue?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2014 2:18 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 527 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2014 9:18 AM RAZD has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 527 of 638 (737104)
09-17-2014 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 526 by RAZD
09-17-2014 8:50 AM


Re: why is the sky blue?
So why did he (hypothetically) want to provoke that reaction?
You did not ask that question did you? And even that question might well be answerable by asking Picasso why he chose to do so. If instead you want to have a physics based answer based on stimulus, reaction of molecules, and brain chemistry, you are going to have to ask that question.
And even that answer could be accused of being merely how?
In the case of why sugar exists, the question may well have no answer other than the answer I gave.
Your classification of questions into how and why is nonsense. I suspect that all answers to why questions can be recast as mere hows to a different question.
Even if we could establish that God did it for reason X, that would just be a how answer to some other question.
Why is the sky blue?
Here is a why answer for you.
The sky on planets through ought the universe is of various color, but the particular molecules within our atmosphere refract light and produce a blue color. And you could only evolve on a planet with a similar atmosphere. So your sky is blue. Alien X's sky is purple.
Or another answer. The sky is not blue. In fact all of the major gasses in our atmosphere are transparent to light. What you see and call blue is scattered light, and is just an optical illusion.
Or why does atom #12323433 in a sample of U-238 decay at time t? There is no reason why it does that.
Here is the silly game you are playing:
"The sky is blue because God wanted it to match his living room?"
RAZD - No, that's a how answer. Why did God want to match his living room? That's what I really meant to ask.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by RAZD, posted 09-17-2014 8:50 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 612 by RAZD, posted 09-22-2014 9:04 AM NoNukes has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 528 of 638 (737105)
09-17-2014 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 524 by NoNukes
09-17-2014 2:47 AM


Re: The Tao
If the struture of the atom is not derived from design, then where did it derive? Random mutation? Natural selection? Show me some science that out of the big bang nature should chaotically settle on these beautiful things called atoms that (inert gases questioned) are a very slick building blocks toolkit for a lot of interesting stuff.
NoNukes writes:
Seriously bro.
Are we adopting a relaxed, friendly, conversational tone here? Great, that works better for me. Therefore bro:
NoNukes writes:
You are making a complete fool of yourself.
I respect your opinion if you will state it as such. You can even state it as a proposition. Your statement that I am making a fool of my self as fact seems to beg the scientific approach.
NoNukes writes:
Atoms are very simply put together.
I am listening.
NoNukes writes:
You would be utterly surprised at how little is required to specify completely the operation of an atom.
I am listening.
NoNukes writes:
What the heck is "inert gases questioned" supposed to mean anyway?
That is a reference to a previous conversation with Dr. Adequate wherein inert gases were questioned by Dr. Adequate as suitable "building blocks" in the periodic table of elements. It means nothing unless you chose to read my old posts and the responses to those posts. My comment here was included to communicate to Dr. Adequate the acknowledgement that the inert gases issue was not resolved with debate. I don't assume it has any meaning to anyone who has not followed the conversation.
NoNukes writes:
Inert gases do form compounds and some very important chemistry is built on that fact.
You should address your views to Dr. Adequate. I need no convincing.
NoNukes writes:
I'm not saying that you don't actually have a position that can be defended.
Well thank you. If you read all my posts, which you obviously haven't, you may even see that I have done so. The courage to admit it will be up to you.
NoNukes writes:
But when you post rot like this, you are not convincing anyone.
Please limit comments to opinion, hypothesis or statement of fact that is supported as fact. How do you presume to speak for everyone?
NoNukes writes:
Given the mere presence of quarks, electrons, and a low enough energy level, it turns out to be impossible that atoms do not exist.
Now we are getting somewhere. As I said, I am here to learn. I have a lay understanding of quarks, electrons and energy level. I will be interested to read where science has proven how atoms were formed. I will be looking for the proof that design was not necessary. I will even be interested to read how evolution has formed new, mutated atoms through time
NoNukes writes:
No designing necessary.
An ipso facto statement. It is not true just because you say it is true.
NoNukes writes:
Don't like that answer?
And yes I liked that answer, it was a great foundation for more discussion.
NoNukes writes:
Or more likely you've never even considered it.
And no, I don't recall even considering it in that way, but I am entirely opening to doing so. Your ideas are interesting so far.
NoNukes writes:
After the Big Bang, only the very simplest of nuclei existed. Those nuclei consisted of only three different elementary particles. Where is the complexity in that?
That seems a very brief view. I presume you have scientific proofs of what you say. And, cutting to the chase, assuming you have fact rather than assumption to support what you say, where did the natural laws upon which quarks, electrons, and low energy react come from? My hypothesis is that the natural laws ARE the design. If your position is that the natural laws....... well, just ARE, show me the science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2014 2:47 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 530 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2014 9:54 AM taiji2 has replied
 Message 532 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2014 10:13 AM taiji2 has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 529 of 638 (737106)
09-17-2014 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 525 by Percy
09-17-2014 7:26 AM


Re: The Tao
What we had here was a failure to communicate to use a line from Cool Hand Luke. If you don't disagree, I will stay here and continue the discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by Percy, posted 09-17-2014 7:26 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 530 of 638 (737107)
09-17-2014 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 528 by taiji2
09-17-2014 9:33 AM


Re: The Tao
Atoms are very simply put together.
I am listening.
A hydrogen atom is composed of a region of positive charge made up of a single proton, and a single lepton (electron). Its chemical properties can be easily predicted with a quantum physics statement that takes up one line of college ruled paper using very little additional information.
No other details about the structure of the charges are necessary to explain the chemistry of hydrogen or any of the other elements. In fact, the lepton has no structure. It has no physical size.
Do you want more details? Or is that enough to outline the folly of just marveling at beautiful atoms.
I don't assume it has any meaning to anyone who has not followed the conversation.
It is actually irrelevant to what you posted, Dr Adequate's questioning not withstanding. For one thing Krypton, for example is a building block of Krypton di-flouride. For another thing, it does not change the fact that nucleii do not "evolve" from other nucleii and that the process of forming larger atoms from smaller requires no intelligence whatsoever. The process happens when suns give off energy and when they explode. What intelligence are you supposing to happen in an explosion?
Protons in turn are formed of quarks. That and a few more lines of equations is enough to predict the nuclear behavior of atoms although the inferences are more difficult to draw. And we know the behavior of quarks well enough to describe the formation of protons and neutrons without requiring any intelligence. None is required.
If you want to make a "it's so complex it must be designed argument" you should best take it a level of above atoms and simple molecules at least. That's other voo-doo artists do. Maybe then it won't be seen through.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 528 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 9:33 AM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 535 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 11:33 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 531 of 638 (737108)
09-17-2014 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 522 by taiji2
09-17-2014 12:18 AM


Re: The Tao
If the struture of the atom is not derived from design, then where did it derive?
And what structure is that, then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 12:18 AM taiji2 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 532 of 638 (737110)
09-17-2014 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 528 by taiji2
09-17-2014 9:33 AM


Re: The Tao
I will even be interested to read how evolution has formed new, mutated atoms through time
You don't know how this question would be answered? The phenomena of forming one atomic nuclei from another through both assembly and breaking apart is observed happening constantly. You aren't even trying. How much time should I spend with someone who wants to talk about atoms mutating through time. I would not even want to discuss biology with such a person, let alone physics.
where did the natural laws upon which quarks, electrons, and low energy react come from
Well, no. Your claim was that we could look at atoms and tell they had to be designed. I noted the goal post shifting.
Natural laws are not commands they are descriptions. They describe what happens when a given particle interacts with another particle or the results of the presence of a field. When you say that there are commands, then you are actually just asserting there is a designer (commander) rather than logically demonstrating that one must exist.
And of course your ultimate claim is that you came by your position logically. So far, you cannot demonstrate that. You are just waving your hands. The root of your argument is complexity, but you are using it in a situation where very little complexity exists.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 528 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 9:33 AM taiji2 has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 533 of 638 (737111)
09-17-2014 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 515 by taiji2
09-16-2014 4:59 PM


Re: Logic and reason
Hi taiji2, I hope you are enjoying your stay at EvC. There is a lot to discuss and see here, I hope you stick around.
I have read some of your posts in this thread and I've decided not to reply to any specifically, but just to make a general reply to you and say some things and see if they strike a chord with you or not. Feel free to ignore me if I'm just completely wrong or boring. I like to ramble
First, a bit of background the way I see things:
-Humans have always wondered 'why are we here,' and they still do.
-Religions sometimes attempt to answer that question, and others.
-Science was later developed... but not to specifically address a 'why are we here' question, more to specifically address 'what can we know for sure' questions.
Science tends to probe for truth, to see what we are able to learn and to expand our knowledge.
Science doesn't ever get to "the truth," but that's not it's goal. It's goal is to learn what we can and be as confident as we can be in our knowledge.
Science doesn't care if the knowledge it uncovers leads us to a God or not, or if it is compatible with this religion or that one... the same as it doesn't care whether or not I personally approve that mammals do not lay eggs. Science wants to uncover the facts, all of them, as much as possible. Wherever that leads is where Science wants to go.
I agree that your idea of ID (that things were started by a God/Designer) is not-contradictory with the facts that Science has uncovered so far.
In that sense, I think your beliefs are very healthy and if you find benefits within them (comfort, peace, strength...) then you should continue your path.
For the question on whether or not there is a legitimate argument for design, I need to explain what I feel the word 'legitimate' means in this context.
To me, a legitimate argument is one that identifies itself as a valid possibility based on some factual data. For example, let's say I've lost my keys and want to know why.
There are many possible arguments, here are a few:
-someone stole them without my knowledge
-I dropped them
-I misplaced them
-they vanished into another dimension
Now, which are legitimate? There is an obvious progression with the first 3 being more likely than the 4th. But does that make the first 3 legitimate?
With the information we currently have, I would say none of them are actually legitimate.
If I add the information that I have a hole in my pocket, then I would say "I dropped them" becomes a legitimate argument. The other 3 remain 'possible arguments' but not 'legitimate' as there is no facts to identify them as anything more than 'possible.'
Notice how we actually have 3 layers of argument:
Top layer = "I dropped them" because there is a fact that uniquely identifies this argument against the others (the hole in my pocket).
Middle layers = "stolen" and "misplaced" because they happen in other circumstances and do not contradict any information we currently have.
Bottom layer = "other dimension" because it adds a concept we have no factual evidence for (that keys can go to alternative dimensions), it is simply an argument that does not contracdict the information we currently have.
It doesn't really matter which ones you want to call "legitimate" or not... it is obvious that the top layer is much-preferred over the middle layer which in turn is much-preferred over the bottom layer.
We should also note that just because I have a hole in my pocket doesn't mean my keys actually fell through the hole. Maybe I have shabby pants but also left my keys in a drawer at work. Maybe a pick-pocket craftily undid the stiching in my pocket and stole my keys anyway. The legitimacy of the argument doesn't actually turn the arguement into "the truth." It simply moves our confidence up a notch, that's all.
So, onto the legitimacy of the design argument, then.
I agree with you that it does not contradict any information we currently have about the reality we exist in. Therefore, it becomes a "possibility" and is not immediately discarded.
The next question becomes "is there any facts that uniquely identify design as a good argument?" So far, we only seem to be able to say that design does not contradict what we scientifically know. There doesn't seem to be any facts that actually point towards design and also point away from non-design at the same time. Unless you can offer some? Until such facts come to light, we cannot place the design argument in the "top-layer."
Now, we should mention that design also seems to imply that some sort of "God" or "Designer" exists and injected this design into our reality. However, this seems to be an additional concept for which there is no factual evidence. This would indicate that the design argument actually drops from the middle-layer into the bottom-layer. Unless, again, you can offer some sort of factual evidence that a Designer does, indeed, specifically exist?
I agree that if this reality was designed, then there would have to be a Designer. Just as if keys could vanish into other dimensions.. then there would have to be another dimension. However, without any facts actually pointing towards the existence of other dimensions or Designers... we seem to be in similar territory with the two arguments.
Therefore, to me, since the design argument falls into the bottom-layer of preferred arguments for explaining our reality... I am forced to conclude there is no legitimate argument for design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 4:59 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 537 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 11:54 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 534 of 638 (737112)
09-17-2014 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 518 by RAZD
09-16-2014 5:49 PM


Re: why is the sky blue?
Gravity is how things are attracted, but why is there gravity?
Because mass bends spacetime.
That is how they are attracted. Why does mass bend spacetime?
Sugar is how candy tastes sweet, but why is there sugar?
Carbohydrates perfrom all kinds of functions for living organisms.
That explains how sugars are used, it doesn't explain why they are sweet.
Strained muscles and nerve impulses are how your back aches, but why do they exist?
That a long and complicated answer, but muscles and nerve impulses evolved from ecological advantages.
That is how they came to be, it doesn't explain why they did.
Why is subjective, how is objective.
Not necessarily. Many times, the answer to "why" is just a question of "how".
Then you are confusing the terms or committing an equivocation fallacy
Why is the sky blue?
Because the atmosphere refracts all the wavelengths of light outside of the blue spectrum.
That explains how the sky is blue but not why it is blue.
You've misunderstood.
I didn't disagree with this from you:
quote:
Science explains how, not why the two year old in the back seat keeps asking why questions.
I disagree with this:
quote:
Why is subjective, how is objective.
In fact, why can be subjective, but it doesn't have to be.
Many times the answer to the question of "why", is an explanation of "how".
The fact that the atmosphere refracts all the wavelengths of light outside of the blue spectrum IS, actually, and answer for why the sky is blue. Granted, it does not answer the question of what purpose is there for the sky being blue. (and that's because there is no purpose)
Poisoning the well is a preemptive attempt to rule out an argument that is valid, and here would be claiming that I can't use the definition of why when the difference between why and how clearly lies in the proper use of the words with the definitions of their use.
quote:
Why
adverb
1. for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?:
Why did you behave so badly?
No, I'm not saying that you cannot use that definition of "why". I am saying that the question of why is not limited to the definition you are using.
Even in your dictionary there is the definition of why that includes "for what cause". And if I apply that to your question, then its very easy to answer:
For what cause is the sky blue?
The cause is that the atmosphere refracts all the wavelengths of light outside of the blue spectrum.
Using words properly helps assure good communication.
Of course. So when you say that "Science cannot answer why questions", you are wrong.
Science can, in fact, answer why questions.
What it cannot do is answer the question of purpose. But that's just Begging the Question. Stop acting like a two year old.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by RAZD, posted 09-16-2014 5:49 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 535 of 638 (737113)
09-17-2014 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 530 by NoNukes
09-17-2014 9:54 AM


Re: The Tao
Atoms are very simply put together.
I am listening.
NoNukes writes:
A hydrogen atom is composed of a region of positive charge made up of a single proton, and a single lepton (electron).
Very interesting. This conforms to what I remember from my high school physics class (perhaps chemistry, I really don't recall which). You failed to mention the negative charge of the lepton, but that is ok, I got it. You might be interested to know that this conforms very neatly to the Taoist idea of initial duality........ look up readings on the taijitu if you are interested. I throw this out because we are on a forum whose site banner says "Creation versus Evolution", therefore I make the presumption creation ideas are appropriate in the discussion.
NoNukes writes:
Its chemical properties can be easily predicted with a quantum physics statement that takes up one line of college ruled paper using very little additional information.
I agree. Although I admit that I would probably not be able to read that one line of college ruled paper with any great understanding, I do not dispute its profundity. In fact, I think the mathematics man has derived to express behavior of the natural laws is perhaps the greatest evidence of design. There is no mutation. There is no randomness. There is no natural selection. Mathematics reveals the inviolable aspects of the design. It is, in my opinion, the prime language of creation.
NoNukes writes:
No other details about the structure of the charges are necessary to explain the chemistry of hydrogen or any of the other elements.
Perhaps, perhaps not, I will leave that to greater minds. I will, however ask HOW protons, leptons and energy for that matter came to be. But, even assuming you can answer that question, RAZD has asked the very pertinent question of WHY which I will hijack for this discussion. Why protons, leptons and energy? Why natural laws upon which these components could react? You never responded to my question of whether you believe the natural laws "just are". I really would like an answer.
NoNukes writes:
In fact, the lepton has no structure. It has no physical size.
How can that be? Why would it be so? Details please.
NoNukes writes:
Do you want more details?
Of course I would like more details. First, your details are interesting and educational. Second, I would like to compare your details to my cosmological model to decide if anything fails. Failure of my cosmological model is what is necessary (to me) for abandoning my position.
NoNukes writes:
Or is that enough to outline the folly of just marveling at beautiful atoms.
Please insert opinion, hypothesis or fact where appropriate. (In my opinion) the way you communicate is not clear and precise.
I don't assume it has any meaning to anyone who has not followed the conversation.
NoNukes writes:
It is actually irrelevant to what you posted, Dr Adequate's questioning not withstanding. For one thing Krypton, for example is a building block of Krypton di-flouride. For another thing, it does not change the fact that nucleii do not "evolve" from other nucleii
Thank you. I had the sneaking suspicion all along that nucleii did not evolve (hence creation rather than evolution). It was very kind of you to confirm this.
NoNukes writes:
and that the process of forming larger atoms from smaller requires no intelligence whatsoever.
Agreed, but that reasoning does not invalidate the idea of creation. It is just a logical extension of the idea that the design works. When I turn the key on my car, the engine starts. It does not take intelligence to keep the motor running. The car was designed to do this without intervention.
NoNukes writes:
The process happens when suns give off energy and when they explode. What intelligence are you supposing to happen in an explosion?
Well, perhaps the why of the explosion if you really think you have the how nailed down.
NoNukes writes:
Protons in turn are formed of quarks. That and a few more lines of equations is enough to predict the nuclear behavior of atoms although the inferences are more difficult to draw. And we know the behavior of quarks well enough to describe the formation of protons and neutrons without requiring any intelligence. None is required.
I think we are returning to concepts already discussed. In the interest of avoiding circularity I will not respond unless you tell me it is necessary to the discussion.
NoNukes writes:
If you want to make a "it's so complex it must be designed argument" you should best take it a level of above atoms and simple molecules at least.
No, I want to make the natural laws is design argument. After that, complexity argues for itself.
Is arguing at the level of atoms and simple molecules uncomfortable for you? My cosmological view assumes everything that is comes from nothing through design. That very clearly includes atoms and simple molecules. Are you saying we should confine the debate of creation versus evolution only to the debate of life?
NoNukes writes:
That's other voo-doo artists do. Maybe then it won't be seen through.
sorry, i don't feel a need to respond to this

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2014 9:54 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 543 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2014 1:57 PM taiji2 has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 536 of 638 (737115)
09-17-2014 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 509 by taiji2
09-16-2014 3:17 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:
I know a little about evolution as science views it even though I admit my scientific knowledge on the subject is limited.
The question is: Do you doubt evolution because of what you know about it or because of what you don't know?
For example, it makes sense to doubt that there are any Volswagens on the moon because we hava a pretty good idea of what human constructions are on the moon. However, it would be foolish to doubt that there are any Volkswagens in Bolivia unless you had some pretty concrete information about it.
So what do you know about evolution that causes your doubts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 3:17 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 12:14 PM ringo has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 537 of 638 (737116)
09-17-2014 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 533 by Stile
09-17-2014 10:57 AM


Re: Logic and reason
Stile,
That was superbly stated. Your ideas and statements absolutely do strike a chord with me. I will not parse and question anything in it except to say that the sort of concessions to the possibility of creation that you make are not evident elsewhere in the posts I have seen on this forum. I see instead flat statements to the effect that anything outside of science is fanciful imagination. That is ignorant in my view.
I respect logic, reason, and the power of deduction. I reject the notions of many positing the science position that anything outside of science is illogical, unreasonable, and lacking deductive reasoning in arriving at a conclusion.
I respect the last line of your statement. If your personal conclusion is that there is no legitimate argument for design, then that is your conclusion. That conclusion simply doesn't work for me.
Thank you for your insightful post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 533 by Stile, posted 09-17-2014 10:57 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 538 of 638 (737118)
09-17-2014 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 536 by ringo
09-17-2014 11:51 AM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:
I know a little about evolution as science views it even though I admit my scientific knowledge on the subject is limited.
ringo writes:
The question is: Do you doubt evolution because of what you know about it or because of what you don't know?
Ringo,
Thanks for the response. It gives me the opportunity to clarify what I may not have said clearly before. I do not doubt evolution. That said, I do not concede that the current model of evolution of life for instance is infallible.
Evolution sits quite comfortably within my belief system, even blind evolution if that is what evolution turns out to be. In my belief system, however, accepting evolution does not reject creation. It is the notion that evolution explains all and everything else is fanciful imagination that I object to. I have offered more explicit ideas on this notion in other messages. If you want to pick one and have me clarify, I would be happy to.
By the way, thank you for encouraging me to stay on the forum at an early stage. Your comment is what kept me here.
ringo writes:
For example, it makes sense to doubt that there are any Volswagens on the moon because we hava a pretty good idea of what human constructions are on the moon. However, it would be foolish to doubt that there are any Volkswagens in Bolivia unless you had some pretty concrete information about it.
So what do you know about evolution that causes your doubts?
I believe I have answered this above. If not I say again, nothing about evolution of life causes me serious doubts. I accept evolution within my model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 536 by ringo, posted 09-17-2014 11:51 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 539 by ringo, posted 09-17-2014 12:25 PM taiji2 has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 539 of 638 (737119)
09-17-2014 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 538 by taiji2
09-17-2014 12:14 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:
I do not doubt evolution. That said, I do not concede that the current model of evolution of life for instance is infallible.
Nobody does. Science, by its very nature is "adjustable". Everybody who accepts science expects the theory of evolution to be modified on an ongoing basis.
However, we expect the modifications to be relatively small. By analogy, we might expect to see some different ideas arise about the history of France between the World Wars. However, we would not expect to see the history of France beginning with some woo-woo "design".
taiji2 writes:
It is the notion that evolution explains all and everything else is fanciful imagination that I object to.
Any idea that is not supported by evidence is fanciful by definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 12:14 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by taiji2, posted 09-17-2014 1:19 PM ringo has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 3452 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 540 of 638 (737121)
09-17-2014 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 539 by ringo
09-17-2014 12:25 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:
I do not doubt evolution. That said, I do not concede that the current model of evolution of life for instance is infallible.
ringo writes:
Nobody does. Science, by its very nature is "adjustable". Everybody who accepts science expects the theory of evolution to be modified on an ongoing basis.
Ok, I will take your word. I am pretty sure I have seen statements here that violate that, but I will accept what you say is true and that others might have misspoke.
ringo writes:
However, we expect the modifications to be relatively small.
Would the discovery that DNA is frontloaded and the 92% of unused human DNA represents potential as well as evolution be considered relatively small? If the percentage is wrong, correct me and I will use the corrected number.
caveat before you jump with both feet. This is a pet theory, not a real theory. I am satisfied with it as that for me. Perhaps science will prove or disprove the notion in the future.
But, just for arguments sake, assume it might be true. Would that be considered relatively insignificant?
ringo writes:
By analogy, we might expect to see some different ideas arise about the history of France between the World Wars. However, we would not expect to see the history of France beginning with some woo-woo "design".
I think the analogy is weak, but that is just my opinion. Why does everyone say "woo-woo" or some other equally derogatory term when mentioning design? If design is there it is simply design. If design is not there it is simply not there.
I would never make the proposition that god said "let there be France"
taiji2 writes:
It is the notion that evolution explains all and everything else is fanciful imagination that I object to.
ringp writes:
Any idea that is not supported by evidence is fanciful by definition.
I have consulted Merriam-Webster and did not see evidence mentioned. Where should I look.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by ringo, posted 09-17-2014 12:25 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 541 by ringo, posted 09-17-2014 1:44 PM taiji2 has not replied
 Message 542 by Percy, posted 09-17-2014 1:53 PM taiji2 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024