Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Abiogenesis, no Evolution, then what?
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 138 of 173 (366823)
11-29-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Yaro
10-06-2005 11:33 AM


No abiogenesis, no evolution then what
You: 'show proof that God is the author of creation'
Me. I'll go by simple logical argument. Here it is:
Premise (P)1: All simple things like cameras, computers, have designer or maker
P2. If simple things have makers then complex things (like our eyes and brain) has a designer or maker.
P3. Every rule there is an exception.
Conclusion. If every thing--from the simple to the complex--has a maker or designer, and every rule there is an exception then it follows that the Grand designer /maker is the maker of makers and that he is the exception to the rule. That is He has no maker or designer. ( This is by process of elimination. In the Bible he is called God)
A friendly reminder about logic: A valid argument is one where the premises are true and the conclusion logically follows from these premises.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Yaro, posted 10-06-2005 11:33 AM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Chiroptera, posted 11-29-2006 1:34 PM NOT JULIUS has replied
 Message 142 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2006 2:21 PM NOT JULIUS has replied
 Message 151 by Chiroptera, posted 11-29-2006 6:52 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 143 of 173 (366857)
11-29-2006 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Chiroptera
11-29-2006 1:34 PM


Chiropetra's counter-argument
You: First, we do not know that P2 is true. In fact, that is exactly what we are trying to show. Since we cannot be certain all of your premises are true, then the argument is invalid.
Second, eyes and brains may be exceptions to the rule, consistent with P3.
My comment. Reasonable men would agree that the simple concrete blocks that make my house were made. And, therefore they wouldn't believe that my house just evolved or existed by itself.
You: Third, the demiurge of the Bible may not be the exception granted by P3; he may have been created by a higher deity, which then might be the exception to the rule.
Me: By process of elimination. If all makers were eliminated then the last one standing is the exception.
You: Each of these invalidates your argument
Me: I therefore disagree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Chiroptera, posted 11-29-2006 1:34 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Chiroptera, posted 11-29-2006 2:58 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 144 of 173 (366858)
11-29-2006 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Modulous
11-29-2006 2:21 PM


Rebuttal to Modulou's argument
You: Restating your position, with a different conclusion
P1: All designed things have a designer or maker.
Conclusion 1: Via induction we can say that complex things like life have a designer or a maker.
P2: Almost all simple rules have an exception which requires that the rule be modified to account for it.
Conclusion 2: The designer of complex life might be evolutionary processes. Evolutionary processes are not necessarily complex. Where they are complex, they may be the exception to the rule.
Me: I agree w/ your premise 1 and the induction. ( Although you should not call it a conclusion because it has only 1 premise. An argument needs at least 1 truthful premise)
Your conclusion that evolutionary process is the designer of complex life is invalid for 2 reasons:
1. It does not logically flow from the premises
2. The definition of "process" itself could not be the origin. Why so? Consider this simple fact or formula: Input + process = output. How can process be the input?
Edited by pilate_judas, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2006 2:21 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2006 2:57 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 147 of 173 (366864)
11-29-2006 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Modulous
11-29-2006 2:57 PM


Re: Rebuttal to Modulou's argument
You: "Your argument is not proof".
Me: There are different kinds of proof. One is "persuasive" which I believe mine is. Another is "conclusive" which is very hard. Do you suppose that evolutionary process is "conclusive" proof? If you do, can I be of liberty to give you scientists who wouldn't agree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2006 2:57 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2006 3:07 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 149 of 173 (366874)
11-29-2006 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Modulous
11-29-2006 3:07 PM


Re: Rebuttal to Modulou's argument
You: You mean you were using rhetoric and not logic?
Me: A rhetorical argument can also be logical and persuasive, can't it be?
You: Evolutionary processes are currently the most practical explanation for how populations change over time.
Me: Correction please. Change the words "practical explanation" to "popular and controversial explanation". I think everybody would agree on that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2006 3:07 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2006 3:30 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 152 of 173 (367092)
11-30-2006 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Chiroptera
11-29-2006 6:52 PM


Re: a closer look at the argument
You:This is demonstrably false. Salt crystals, for example, are exceedingly simple, and we know they do not require a designer to form: we can observe them forming right before our eyes.
Me: I disagree. Here is my practical definition of what a maker/designer is. He is the one who manipulates, starts, acts on this important formula. INPUT + PROCESS = OUTPUT. That maker/ designer is important in order that the formula will work and the output will be. To illustrate. GM buys/manufactures all the materials ( Steel, rubber, engine) of a car. Then the materials goes to a process ( manufacturing ). Presto! You have a car.
This being said. salt crystals are not that simple. The inputs probably are NaCl+ impurities + process ( condensation ,evaporation,etc) = salt crystals. But, someone had in the first place put the inputs together and set the process (in automatic mode). Presto! You have salt crystals.
You: This may or may not be true. As far as we know, the rule that energy can neither be created nor destroyed has no exception. In fact, several important scientific discoveries were made when it appeared that this rule were violated.
Me. Wow! you accidentally hit something biblical. I think in Isaiah it is written: 'look at the stars, due to HIS dynamic ENERGY, not one of them is missing'. Please don't nitpick again that this is false. We know that some stars actually decay. But, the writer his was solely referring to stars visible in his human eyes.
This just prove my point. That for every rule there is exception. And, I apply it to the Supreme Maker. If all other "makers" are eliminated--He will be the only one standing. He is the exception!
Let me answer in advance your question. Why not make Evolution the exception? Because evolution is a PROCESS, in the same way that creation is a PROCESS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Chiroptera, posted 11-29-2006 6:52 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Modulous, posted 11-30-2006 12:24 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied
 Message 158 by Chiroptera, posted 11-30-2006 1:10 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 153 of 173 (367093)
11-30-2006 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Chiroptera
11-29-2006 6:52 PM


Re: a closer look at the argument
oops double post again.
Edited by pilate_judas, : Double post again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Chiroptera, posted 11-29-2006 6:52 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 155 of 173 (367097)
11-30-2006 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Modulous
11-29-2006 3:30 PM


Re: Rebuttal to Modulou's argument
You: But was yours logical? As a proof of God? All you proved was that there has to be a terminus point. That terminus point might be God, or it might the universe, or it might be the multiverse. No - it was rhetorical but not necessarily logical.
Me: Nope. I believe my argument is logical. Let me define an important term. MAKER is the one who stimulates, initiates, acts on this important formula. INPUT + PROCESS = OUTPUT. To illustrate. GM buys or manufactures car parts (inputs) ; then these things goes through a process (manufacturing. Presto. You have car.
If all makers--GM, etc--were eliminated there will be one left standing. He is the Supreme Maker of all. He is the exception.
You: (Previously) said. Maybe the universe is the exception. Universe is the OUTPUT. It can't be the exception. Evolution is a PROCESS, just like creation, therefore these could not be exceptions. By elimination, the "exception rule" would have to apply to the Maker.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2006 3:30 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Modulous, posted 11-30-2006 12:36 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 157 of 173 (367108)
11-30-2006 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Modulous
11-30-2006 12:36 PM


Re: Rebuttal to Modulou's argument
You:"Infinite regression! What if the universe was the Maker? What if M-Theory, which posits a sort of hyperuniverse, is the Maker? Why do you have to stop at God? Why not stop one step before God? There is no reason to posit that an intelligent being has to be the Maker.
All we can say, given that everything needs a cause, is that one thing didn't have a cause. We don't know what that is. Whatever it is, we get the same problem, what was 'it' doing before 'it' created the universe..."
Me: Hmmm, interesting observation and questions. You now agree that we have a finite mind? HE and not "it" is the great cause. Review again please my position. A formula. A Maker. You may have the formula but it won't work unless the Maker manipulates it. He is the Great Cause. Why he not it? By common human experience! We have the most creative mind on earth. So, He--the Great Cause--must have manipulated this formula. The formula was simple according to Genesis. Dust (input)+ life giving breath ( the process) = living human (output). Wanna prove this? Take the life of a man, he returns to dust.
Does that make sense to you?
Edited by pilate_judas, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Modulous, posted 11-30-2006 12:36 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Modulous, posted 11-30-2006 1:12 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 160 of 173 (367181)
11-30-2006 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Modulous
11-30-2006 1:12 PM


Re: the maker
You: Are you assuming that 'manipulation' (by which you mean, 'causing' I assume) requires a He? Common human experience is woefully inadequate to answer these questions. I can't speak for you, though I can guess, but I have not ever experienced a reality coming into existence.
Me: I think I have made myself clear on what is "common human experience". A maker "manipulates", "Acts", "does something" with this formula: Input + process = output. To even make it simpler, take baking of bread. Flour (input)+ Process (baking)= Bread. Guess who gathered the flour and manipulated the oven? To me the reality that someone baked the bread is as clear as daylight. I don't know why you will disagree on this.
You: "Besides which - there are plenty of 'its' that create things on earth. In fact - mostly everything on earth (and the solar system, and indeed the universe) can be explained in terms of being created by an 'it'. When we look at it in perspective, we could say that everything we know of has not been created by the Maker, in our experience - therefore 'it' is more likely.
Me: Aha! I see where your problem lies. You are confusing the Process with the Maker (Manipulator). This, IMHO, is the root cause of the great debate ( Creation vs. Evolution). Both sides are confusing the issue of the Maker (Manipulator) with the processes (creation or evolution) he may have done to come up w/ the output ( universe for example).
In logic, it is almost a falsity to use the words "ALL", "Everything" , "Nothing". It is always safe to use the words "Some" or "Not all". What is the implication? The Maker (Manipulator)may have used direct creation in some, and allowed evolution in some.
You: "Your answer is very easy to arrive at. I challenge you to think outside of the box"
Me: Of course it is easy, it is clearly logical. My box is my finite mind. The process I use is logic and common observation. I come up w/ an ouput. That is my limit. I can't speak for everyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Modulous, posted 11-30-2006 1:12 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Modulous, posted 11-30-2006 8:42 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 161 of 173 (367186)
11-30-2006 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Chiroptera
11-30-2006 1:10 PM


Re: a closer look at the argument
Hi Chiroptera,
I think my message # 155 is clear enough. But, let me see if I could make it clearer by answering some of your questions:
You: I'm not sure what your point here is. If you can clarify this, then perhaps we can discuss it.
Me: A maker is one who "manipulates" "acts" on this formula.
Inputs + Process = Output. Without this manipulator (Maker) that
formula means nothing.
You: This doesn't help your overall argument. Either salt crystals are simple so they violate P1, or they aren't in which case they are a counterexample to P2.
Me: salt crystal is an output of this formula: NaCl + Process ( condensation, evaporation, etc pardon if not the exact on) = Salt Crystal (output). They are not simple as you would like it to appear. Where does the maker (manipulator) come in? Easy he set the process in "automatic mode" such as when the inputs and the right process is there you have output. It's like baking a "refrigirator cake". Put the ingredients in the ref w/ the right temperature and mixture. Presto you have a cake!
You: Why can't living things be the exception to that rule?
Me: Good question. Good answer: Because they are the "OUPUTS". The "exception rule" will not apply to the INPUTS, nor to the "PROCESSES". It has to apply to the Maker (Manipulator). I think you will know the answer by analyzing this.
You: At any rate, your premises are still flawed, and the conclusion to your argument does not follow from the premises.
Me: No they are perfectly logical. Further, the questions of Moduluo provided me an insight as to why this great debate ( Creation vs. Evolution ) wont stop. IMHO, both sides are confusing the process ( either evolution or creation) w/ the Manipulator (Maker). Please read my answers to Mudolou's questions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Chiroptera, posted 11-30-2006 1:10 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Chiroptera, posted 11-30-2006 8:36 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 164 of 173 (367269)
12-01-2006 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Chiroptera
11-30-2006 8:36 PM


Re: a closer look at the argument
YOU: No, one who manipulates a formula is a mathematician, not a maker. A formula is an abstract string of symbols that represent some real life phenomenon. You are confusing the abstract formula with the real life referent; you are confusing the map with the terrain.
ME: We are not just engaged in symantics. I thought my numerous illustrations of baker-->bread; GM-->cars,etc clearly conveyed the message.
YOU: 'Where does the maker (manipulator) come in? Easy he set the process in "automatic mode" such as when the inputs and the right process is there you have output.
Then you shouldn't have any trouble with the theory of evolution. The species that we see today and know of in the fossil record all evolved from earlier, usually simpler, species. All according to the laws of physics and chemistry. Where would a creator (if there was one) come in? When it set up the laws of nature, when it set the process in "automatic mode".
ME: I have no problem with this statement: A Maker "processed" SOME through evolution, and "processed" SOME through creation.
Where was he? To those whose only standard is physical, would readily conclude that He is non-existing. But, to those who go beyond physical He is real to them in the same way that they accept unseen forces ( gravity, radio waves, etc)as real.
According to one: 'the physical man does not perceive the spiritual things for these are foolishness to him. But, the spiritual man examines all physical and spiritual things and these make sense to him.'
YOU: The "exception rule" will not apply to the INPUTS, nor to the "PROCESSES".
You did not state this in the initial version of your premises. Now you are either changing your premises or adding new ones. Not that there is anything wrong with that; one should amend a flawed argument to make it stronger. But I am just pointing this out in case you think that the points you are trying to make are self-evident. They are not.[qs/]
ME: I believe I did not change the premise. I just elaborated on why the exception should apply to the Maker and not to any component of the "formula".
Edited by pilate_judas, : UNCLEAR QUOTES

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Chiroptera, posted 11-30-2006 8:36 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Chiroptera, posted 12-01-2006 2:50 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 166 of 173 (367300)
12-01-2006 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Modulous
11-30-2006 8:42 PM


Re: the maker
You say that common human experience is that things are created by a maker. I argue that the opposite is true. Most things we can describe we can only see as being the product of some process. The only 'maker' therefore, that we have ever been able to conclude is 'processes'. As for the ultimate cause, the ultimate maker? We have no common experience to conclude anything. Could be God is the unmoved mover, the unmade maker. Or it could be that reality itself is the uncaused causer. Who can say? Your logic unfortunately gets us no further to penetrating this mystery than we began with.
Of course some other entity may have been involved in life, but I'm not going to conclude that until there is actual evidence that is the case.
Me: Can you clarify please? You kept mentioning, and from what I understand, is that you accept that there is an Ultimate Cause. Only that you are not prepared to ascribe this Ultimate Cause as God? What is your belief re. this ultimate cause? Is he/it intelligent, or non-intelligent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Modulous, posted 11-30-2006 8:42 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Modulous, posted 12-01-2006 3:06 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 168 of 173 (367311)
12-01-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Chiroptera
12-01-2006 2:50 PM


Re: a closer look at the argument
Maybe you could rewrite your argument again, taking into account the criticisms of your original post. Then we can see where we stand.
At your request. Here goes.
P1: A maker is one who gathers/create the inputs, sets in motion, or manipulates the necessary process into motion, so that the desired outputs come into being. By simplicity this is illustrated as follows Maker--> inputs + process = output. (PI defines a maker and how an output would come to be.)
P2. Simple things ( Camera, computers) as well as complex things (human eyes, universe) are “outputs” . As an example, the human eye. Inputs ( cornea, blood vessels, etc) + Process ( assembly of different parts, including complex reflexes) = human eye. (P2 asserts that the things around us are "outputs" that have resulted from inputs + process, initiated by Maker.)
P3. Every rule there is an exception. Further, if we apply the exception rule to the inputs, (that is eliminate or set aside the inputs) there will be no output, if we apply the rule to process”that is eliminate or set aside the process-- there will be no output, if we apply the rule to output it would result to nothing. That only leaves us one thing”the exception rule has to apply to the maker. (P3 asserts that there is an exception to every rule and that by elimination, this rule applies to the maker)
P4. Every maker is actually an output of another maker ( for example a robot is made by man, and that robot could actually make things given the inputs and process). Further, all these makers can be eliminated ( that is set aside) until we reach the Ultimate maker. (P4 asserts that every maker is an output of another maker and that these can all be eliminated--that is set aside-- until only one is left standing.)
Conclusion. Therefore, the Ultimate Maker ( w/c some call God), is the exception to the rule. That is, the Ultimate Maker can not be eliminated or set aside.
Note: in the scheme of things creation or evolution are processes.
Edited by pilate_judas, : for further clarity.
Edited by pilate_judas, : grammar & clarity
Edited by pilate_judas, : clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Chiroptera, posted 12-01-2006 2:50 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by mick, posted 12-01-2006 8:43 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 169 of 173 (367328)
12-01-2006 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Modulous
12-01-2006 3:06 PM


Re: the maker
There is no evidence to make any solid determination at this point. I would say it is more likely to be non-intelligent for all the reasons Dawkins points out in his recent new book. Everything we know about intelligence indicates it is the end product of a process. The first entity is not the end product of a process. As such, the first entity is unlikely to be intelligent.
However, I have no actual 'belief' in the matter. I prefer to say 'I don't know, but here's my thoughts on the topic'
Thank you so much. I think I know now the difference in our thinking process. You are --if we could typify humans--from the "from-known-to known" type. I am of the "known-to unknown type". Really, from your point of view a big leap of faith. There are many scientists who are of the same type as you are; and those of my type. (Actually, I like your post re. Newton, etc. That was informative)
I enjoyed so much our exchange of ideas. And, this just support my opinion that both creation and evolution be taught. You know, the "teach the controversy" approach. This type of exchanges forces one to really think deep.
But, could you forgive Gov. Pilate? In Judea, we enjoy controversies. It just so happened that one Guy got to be a victim because another sold him for 30 pcs of silver. Ha ha ha! =)=)
Just one last dig--not at you--but at Dawkins. He said: "Everything we know about intelligence indicates it is the end product of a process." In short intelligence is output. Wow! just to gather the inputs and get right the right process would require intelligence. Just my thought. And, wasn't he the one who coined the word "creationoid" or something.
Edited by pilate_judas, : grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Modulous, posted 12-01-2006 3:06 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024