Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
89 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 88 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,162 Year: 4,274/6,534 Month: 488/900 Week: 12/182 Day: 12/28 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is A Materialist View Less Parsimonious?
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 253 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1 of 42 (789022)
08-09-2016 7:55 AM


Obviously I can appreciate that, "supernature" is assumed, and has to be taken by faith, as it is implied by the natural creation. I admit that by faith we believe in God.

However the materialistic creation story of atheism, obviously doesn't need to assume a supernatural realm which might make it more parsimonious in that regard which I would concede. However, how many more assumptions/entities/variables, must be assumed in order to accept materialism?

For example, if we believe that the specified complexity, contingency planning, correct materials, in organisms, and so forth, are designed by a designer as is usually the case, into an induction of hundreds of millions of examples and no examples of random design without a designer, then obviously we don't need to assume that millions of transitional species once existed as part of our argument.

What am I saying? I am saying for one part of the materialistic explanation (life's diversity), we would have to invoke millions of transitionals but if an animal kind was created then as creationists we don't have to assume millions of ancestors, so there are far more assumptions to that one part of the story.

But what about the rest of the story? Obviously within the universe there are separate explanations for different things, but nevertheless this is all part of the same story that the universe created itself and then created everything in itself.

So then there are also many more assumptions for abiogenesis, such as a fictional primordial form of life, a common ancestor to all life, and abiogenesis itself must be assumed it seems, with a fictional primordial reduced atmosphere. But with creation, obviously all life is created by design, so again, less assumptions and we can just accept the real fact of an earth-planet without having to argue it used to not be like earth.

Then we have to consider the planets and stars and galaxies. If creation is true, God made the galaxies according to their factual nature, which is a completed state, and the factual nature of the planets is a completed state, but a materialistic explanation means we have to believe that once the earth was a primordial blob, and we have to believe accretion, that the planets made themselves and the stars and galaxies made themselves even though they are all now completed, according to the facts, like animals are completed, without transitionals, according to the facts.

So the picture I am painting is that the materialistic explanation seems to depend on two things;

1. Many, many more assumptions and separate explanations for different things within the universe.
2. The belief that nature and the reality of the universe has drastically changed, but just happens to never show any point of change unless you again make yet another assumption that the present state is also a state of change. (begging-the-question)

It seems that with a creation, all you have to do is go with the true facts of intelligibility and design in the universe, and accept the creation for what it clearly is. We don't need to pretend that a tornado in a junkyard can assemble a 747 jet, nor do we need to assume hundreds of thousands of transitional creatures, etc...we can explain the facts of design, by the simple and obvious truth that design is caused by a designer, which fits will all of the evidence. Each separate thing in the universe, being neatly explained by God's omniscient designer capabilities. This would certainly fit logically, given the field of biomimetics has us stealing those designs on a constant basis, because they are superior in their cleverness, than anything we can create.

An example of that is the aggregate eyeball, the design MATCHES the physics, showing that a neat explanation is that the designer of the eyeball also designed physics. The designer needed to know and understand Abbe's sine's law, the laws of bifringement in crystals, etc... I am rusty on that but another example is the archer fish, the designer has to know that a jet of water leaving water would create a parabolic trajectory. Again God has to know His own laws of physics, and has to give the fish the software to compensate for the change of the angle, it also has to have the ability of the use of kinematic gathering, so the correct force of water hits it's prey, again in accordance with the laws of physics. It makes sense therefore, that the designer both knew and created both the physics, as well as the fish, given He made it to obey those physics, and the fish is riddled with specified complexity, etc..neatly explaining both the fish and the phishics, without depending on a separate explanation for each like with materialism.

CONCLUSION: While we accept faith in God is not provable, the explanation that the universe is created by an intelligent agent, as an argument, seems much more parsimonious at the very least. I fail to see why anyone would pretend otherwise unless they simply didn't want to acknowledge that fact because they know it heavily favours theism.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 08-09-2016 2:54 PM mike the wiz has taken no action
 Message 4 by Stile, posted 08-09-2016 3:20 PM mike the wiz has taken no action
 Message 5 by Tanypteryx, posted 08-09-2016 3:47 PM mike the wiz has taken no action
 Message 9 by jar, posted 08-09-2016 5:05 PM mike the wiz has taken no action
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-09-2016 5:11 PM mike the wiz has taken no action
 Message 16 by Pressie, posted 08-10-2016 7:56 AM mike the wiz has taken no action
 Message 19 by Pressie, posted 08-10-2016 8:16 AM mike the wiz has taken no action
 Message 23 by Parasomnium, posted 08-10-2016 5:25 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 253 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 26 of 42 (789177)
08-11-2016 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Parasomnium
08-10-2016 5:25 PM


Re: Every atom an assumption
Good to hear from you again.

Point 1. Atoms aren't assumptions, they exist already. I don't see why the atoms need to be placed.

Point 2. "- indeed very many - transitionals have been found"

This is a weak point because it is slothful induction fallacy. Need I show you on a chart of species, the missing transitionals for each lineage on the branches? The missing transitionals outnumber the "found" ones by what, a thousand to one? I think I am being generous.

Then there is the issue of what a transitional actually is. Technically speaking, there is no way to actually know if it was a transitional or simply a creature that had some homoplasies. For example there are some lizards with the plastron which seems to be hero-in-a-half-shell for evo, but then, platypi have beaks!

When you look at the total evidence, the more parsimonious explanation seem to be that the relatively few "transitionals", or things you call, "transitionals" are actually examples of chimeras, which I define as species that had SOME shared characteristics, but are an example of tremendous diversity, not evolution.

These features are usually shared because they are the best design for the job. Take bats, oil birds and whales, they all have echolocation. It's simply the best design.

Now think of the transitionals missing, have you ever sat down and just asked yourself what would have to be missing? Start with trees, then ask yourself, generally speaking, are there transitionals for the cambrian critters?

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Parasomnium, posted 08-10-2016 5:25 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-11-2016 2:39 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 42 by Parasomnium, posted 08-12-2016 4:02 AM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 253 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 27 of 42 (789179)
08-11-2016 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
08-10-2016 6:48 PM


Re: Mind Over Matter
Here's a photograph of dirt.

Now can you just show us how that dirt could create itself into a sand castle on it's own? Oh I forget, a sand-castle is the very lowest rung of intelligent design, YET IT NEEDS A DESIGNER.

Good luck finding critters make themselves from that dirt. And by the way, your claim is primordial sludge not dirt, so please show me some primordial sludge that came from earth, with the fictional abiogenesised sci-fi animals being put together by the mud over millions of fictional evo-years.

Until then, go and get a photograph of your own dirt, instead of using God's.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2016 6:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-11-2016 2:40 PM mike the wiz has taken no action
 Message 32 by ringo, posted 08-11-2016 2:57 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 253 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 30 of 42 (789183)
08-11-2016 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Pressie
08-10-2016 9:17 AM


Re: Mind Over Matter
Yep, I'm, a very stupid person, which is why I have the all time high score on this logic-game, since I am as thick as cold custard. (the original score is a hacked one, meaning I am top of the tree, which means I must have trouble figuring out logic, I guess, and am prone to fallacies.
.
http://www.mindgames.com/game/Zoobiedoku

Then when you've finished showing how stupid I am, you can check my score on this mathematics game, which I guess is proof I can't add 2 and 2, being a creationist called Bubba, y'all.

http://www.mindgames.com/game/Chalkboard+Sums

OR, shall we just agree that a bare-assertion that I am stupid, is actually and ironically, a sign you can't provide an argument to defeat me, and is one of the fallacies of diversion called argumentum ad hominem.

"Khan, I'm LAUGHING at the superior intellect." - Captain Kirk, - The wrath of Khan.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Pressie, posted 08-10-2016 9:17 AM Pressie has taken no action

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 253 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 31 of 42 (789185)
08-11-2016 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Adequate
08-11-2016 2:39 PM


Re: Every atom an assumption
Perhaps we could discuss your gross ignorance of evolution, anatomy, and the difference between homology and analogy on another thread.
All that aside, we can observe lots of intermediate forms, whereas we have never observed God make an organism by magic, or indeed anyone doing anything by magic. Creationists imagine a whole class of events of which we have never observed a single instance, having a cause of a kind which we have never ever seen operate. And this, according to you, is parsimonious?

1. You have to SHOW my ignorance, by providing reasoning, or it is an ad-hominem attack that diverts attention on to the arguer instead of my arguments.

2. The term, "magic" here is used as a question-begging-epithet, meaning you are simply calling something miraculous, "magic". I could use the same word for abiogenesis or the "magic" brains evolution must have to come up with all of the brilliant intelligent design in life.

In other words, your post was hot-air. You called me ignorant and called creation, "magic".

"ALL too easy" - Darth Vader.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-11-2016 2:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-11-2016 3:05 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 253 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 34 of 42 (789193)
08-11-2016 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ringo
08-11-2016 2:57 PM


Re: Mind Over Matter
Ringo writes:

We can see how sand is sculpted into dunes by the wind. We can see how stone is sculpted into arches, etc. by the wind. The wind is a known entity.
You are proposing an additional entity, an unknown and unevidenced entity - a designer or "god". Hence, your scenario is inerently less parsimonious

You haven't understood parsimony. It is the great number of assumptions that is the most unparsimonious. Even if I assume God, there are still millions more assumptions for materialism.

Besides you won't let evidence of an intelligent designer, be intelligent design. (which breaks the law of non-contradiction, for it is the only evidence that we could expect, otherwise you are arguing that "NOT intelligent design" would be evidence of an intelligent designer.)

What I meant with the sand castle is that you would not believe a sand castle could be created by a random process but a sand castle is a relatively simple design, it has specified complexity and the goal is to mimic a castle. It has no contingency planning in case the tide comes in, it is made of the wrong material and is loose and can be damaged easily. A real castle would require more intelligence put in, meaning the cause of more intelligent designs is an increase in intelligence, not a decrease.

The empirical evidence shows this progression is real because as we progress, it can be shown more and more intelligence is required for the progression.

Example;

1. To get a simple shape from doh, you need perhaps a baby to make them.
2. To get more complex shapes, that look like people, the child needs to grow more.
3. To make a realistic shape that looks like a person, you again need more intelligence, and the previous two stages are logically insufficient.
4. To get a toy, that is fairly complex, you need more intelligence.
5. To get a very clever invention you need an adult with a high IQ. Will a child now suffice at this level 5?

So then, at every level, the previous ability in the preceding level, is logically insufficient. What is this obvious truth? It is a progression that empirical evidence shows is true.

What then do you do, when the level of design is beyond our best designers? You look to nature (biomimetics), you steal the superior designs from nature. Indeed, all of the best designs we had great help with.

So then, as the progression increases, more and more and more intelligence, is demonstrably needed. but evolution has none, so it would be like saying, "for the best possible design, the requirement is the stage before the baby".

LOL!

God is an additional entity, which I admitted in message one, but a whole series of transitionals for seahorses, is a series of additional entities. Same for pine trees, same for jellyfish, snails, turtles, dugongs, Ichthyosaurs, bats, pterodactyls, pterosaurs.

Be honest, it would take a few days to name all of the missing transitionals I must assume existed based only on a hand full of highly dubious and questionable, "lineages" which can actually be explained away fairly easily, as an insatiable designer's wish to have abundant and teeming life. If these transitions are such proof, why do evolutionary scientists occasionally abandon them? Gingerich abandoned rhodocetus for example, but some evolutionists will still argue it had a tail fluke when he admits on video that he only made that as a suggestion, but lots of evolutionists just ran with it.

If you hold up transitionals that are accepted now, the handful that there are comparatively, you have to acknowledge that those transitionals can later be abandoned, and later be argued to, "be on a side branching off, perhaps not as close a relative as we once thought"

EXACTLY! If you can abandon transitionals, then that 100% logically proves they don't have to be transitionals, it is only tenuous conjecture, that that is what they really were. Later on, those transitionals are usually rejected because of discontinuities and inconsistencies.

Transitionals, for this reason and many more, only count as tenuous, circumstantial evidence. They can be abandoned at any time, and evolutionists dispute with each other, whether they were transitionals on a particular lineage.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ringo, posted 08-11-2016 2:57 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-11-2016 4:27 PM mike the wiz has taken no action
 Message 37 by ringo, posted 08-11-2016 4:29 PM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 253 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 35 of 42 (789196)
08-11-2016 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Adequate
08-11-2016 3:05 PM


Re: Every atom an assumption
Dr a writes:

I fear that this would be off-topic; but surely you must be aware, without my proving it, that you have spent little or no time studying the topics of which you discourse so glibly.

Put up or shut up. If I have misunderstood a topic, prove your claim or STAND DOWN from the ad-hominem, diversionary tactic. Mike the wiz is not on trial here, and as soon as you make the topic about mike the wiz, is as soon as you have lost the debate.

DrA writes:

I don't know what you mean by "question-begging", but yes, magical and miraculous do seem to be pretty much synonyms. A miracle is either God doing magic on his own account or it's magic done by someone to whom he has deputed his magical powers.

But that can be regarded logically, simply as a statement of ignorance. I can simply argue that the development of the embryo in the womb is no less miraculous in it's wonder, just because it is natural.

Therefore your argument depends on a false premise that "miracle = supernatural". In fact I would argue that the construction of an eyeball, though miraculous, is not supernatural because we can examine it, but abiogenesis really is fictional magic, given the hundreds of experiments since Urey and Miller, have no yielded life. Nor are there any rational reasons to believe any physical process would lead to the construction of a cell any more than we would expect bricks to create themselves into cathedrals, if we left them standing in a yard.

DrA writes:

You could; and you would be lying.

Now, instead of whining about my choice of words, how about you respond to the substance of my post? I notice that you were unable to do that.

Not lying no, believing life can create itself from a primordial swamp, is definitely magic. What has, "lying" got to do with it. Am I lying by arguing that I know of no examples in reality, of a tornado blasting through a junkyard and assembling a 747 jet?

Even if I was somehow wrong, there would be no, "lie", so again, it is an attempt at a personal slur.

As for the substance of your post, what was it? A repeat of an ad hominem statement coupled with a defence of a question-begging-epithet? Don't you realise that that is all you ever do at this forum? Make personal attacks.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-11-2016 3:05 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-11-2016 4:31 PM mike the wiz has taken no action
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-11-2016 4:48 PM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022