But as one of the very few women posters here why do you think it is that women don't post on this subject much? I'd love a female perspective on this.
or instead of hijacking this thread, you could just go to the thread designed for it:
Creationism - is purely a myth that is untestable - maybe not!
by Qcmbr 43 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
tetrapod.sapien
-
funkyderek
bebu:
funky... That is a 'beautiful explanation'??? It explained nothing to me--it actually caused further problems.
The explanation wasn't in what I posted. It would take more than a few paragraphs to provide an adequate explanation for the origin and variety of life we see. For me "God must have done it" is worse than no explanation, as not only does it explain nothing, but it precludes any possibility of an explanation.
Why is life self-organizing? How does a (at some point) non-existent concept overcome the 'fact' of its own non-existence in order to then organize (cut its own cell to size and place them in a meaningful position) and live/reproduce/evolve/survive? Life just "happened" to spring into existence? In a 'non-existent vacuum', no less?? Spontaneous animation, except impossibly more impossible?
The discussion was really about evolution, rather than abiogenesis but I have no problem proclaiming my completely materialist view of the universe. I believe at some point, out of all the random stuff in the universe a self-replicating molecule happened to form. Once it did, it made copies which necessarily evolved and eventually led to the incredible variety of life we see today.
I cannot accept what it all keeps boiling down to, which is (it certainly appears) a sleight of hand: sneak 'something' into that absolute 'nothing', and have it scientifically hatch...
There's no sleight of hand involved. If you're talking about something coming from nothing, you've gone completely out of the realm of biology and are now back to the beginning of the universe.
There is overwhelming evidence for natural selection, and while we don't know the specific details of how life began, it seems obvious that somehow it did. I do not see the need to postulate an omnipotent invisible person who arrived fully formed and unexplained to begin this process. Such a being causes more questions than it answers.
But his views here are certainly not limited to the LDS. Eg., Antony Flew is no Christian, so how would one argue with Antony? I'm sure he (Antony) already knows the arguments you'd use (as he probably wrote many of them)
As I said, I prefer to argue on the basis of reason. Qcmbr's arguments were flawed. If Antony Flew (whoever he is) uses the same arguments, then his are flawed in the same way. However, if someone holds an irrational opinion and is a member of a cult, it's not entirely unfair to suggest that the two are related.
I think it all simply boils down to one making a personal interpretation/decision about what one sees--whether one perceives a cause and effect or not.
It shouldn't. Reality is not personal. We are free to interpret it whatever way we like, but we are not free to be correct if we do so. A rational examination of the evidence is necessary to come to any sort of accurate conclusion.
(But I guess that there are lots of theists/creationists/? who do, so I think that's where a lot of animosity here is coming from...?)
I have no animosity towards theists or creationists. I argue with them because, in the case of the theists, I think they are wrong, and in the case of the Creationists, I know they are.
I still think the world (universe) and stonehenge had a mind/designer.
Whence came the designer?
Anyway... As the vast majority of people in the world acknowlege that there is a designer here, in some shape or form, I think the LDS argument is still a red herring.
As is your argument from popularity. The vast majority may believe something. That does not make them correct, especially when there is a direct correlation between levels of education and belief in evolution.
-
Qcmbr
To avoid this thread degenerating into a religious discussion about my lds beliefs (which I expressely suggested it shouldn't! - if you want to discuss those you are welcome to start another thread :) Just a reminder that I was looking for what creationists would expect to see - in fact only Old Soul has tried this while it seems to me that some people took it as an attack on evolution. Its not.
-
Qcmbr
Creationists would expect to find that:
1/. Within the boundaries of a lifeform there should be sufficient genetic material to cope with changes to its environment. It shouldn't need to adapt a new mutation to cope with things around it. If the environment is sufficiently stressful either the organism will move, die or use some current genetic ability. Staying put and becoming a new species should be unseen. However, there should be tremendous variety within a species as their should be lots of different uses of the same pool of genetic material (ie lots of different variations on a theme but no new theme emerging.)
2/ Using simple breeding (ie not getting deep and dirty with genetic material) should produce many breeds but no new species. It must be shown to be impossible to breed a new species (ie creation expects deck shuffling but not the appearance of new cards in the deck.) As a side note these bred animals should revert back to the original stock they were derived from if left alone in the wild with access to other variations.
3/ Current genetic propagation mechanism would be expected to be the least efficient means to propagate mutations. Creation would expect to find that mutation is not a viable means of expressing change and would study the following to see evidence of design:
a) Mutations occuring in one single organism must be passed on - clearly this is very likely in single celled creatures / species that can propgate without interaction but highly unlikely in complex animals especially those that use an admixture of genetic material.
b) They would expect to see large scale efforts by organisms to repair mutation damage or to destroy such mutations. They would expect to see garbage cleaning on a genetic level to reduce and eradicate genetic mutations.
c) They would expect to see proteins that are radically different between species with no viable transitional stages. Changes at the genetic level should render the use of available proteins impossible or extremely injurious. Protein reliant cellular activity would be expected to be limited in its ability to mutate by requiring mutated proteins to be available that can immediately be used.
d) Cellular mutations would be expected to be eradicated rapidly by cell renewal and where a single cell were able to replicate itself beyond the lifecycle of other cells it should be found to normally destroy the whole organism rather than inducing a positive benefit.
4/ Creationists would expect to see many traits that do not enhance viability or propagation of genetic material (altruism, protection of the weak, fidelity, consciousness, play, spirituality, will, artistic ability and appreciation etc..)
5/ A very elegant, simple code to life that could express extremelly complex ideas very simply but very precisely (any mistakes should destroy that code.) This code would bear the marks of intelligence (structure order, purpose, grammar, syntax) and should be readable as any other language. It should show the same traits as a language - gibberish if not compiled along strict rules and yet within the boundaries of those rules should be capable of expressing vast amounts of information.
Side point - shared evidences between competing theories are sometimes expected because they are trying to explain the same observed information. Creation / Evolution / ID do not sit demarked by lines on every single point. Its perfectly acceptable to use the same information in multiple arguements.
PS for anyone wishing their sports enjoyment spoiled by outrageous posters - sorry I haven't been watching any sport:) Sorry 'bout last night! - right I'm off to bed before the eggs start flying! -
Pole
bebu wrote:
Life just "happened" to spring into existence? In a 'non-existent vacuum', no less?? Spontaneous animation, except impossibly more impossible? I cannot accept what it all keeps boiling down to, which is (it certainly appears) a sleight of hand: sneak 'something' into that absolute 'nothing', and have it scientifically hatch...
funkyderek wrote:
I have no problem proclaiming my completely materialist view of the universe. I believe at some point, out of all the random stuff in the universe a self-replicating molecule happened to form. Once it did, it made copies which necessarily evolved and eventually led to the incredible variety of life we see today.
(...)
There's no sleight of hand involved. If you're talking about something coming from nothing, you've gone completely out of the realm of biology and are now back to the beginning of the universe.
The last paragraph points out an important misconception that tends to crop up in debates on evolution. A lot of people who think evolution was impossible, use the "absolute randomness" argument. I think we need to understand that in the material world, entropy (the level of randomness) in local environments is severly limited. There are always factors which help to produce certain outcomes. The universe seems to be at least partly deterministic.
Having said that, I would say even the most tentative "original soup" models (sorry if this is out-of-date) show some respect for this basic observation. You can argue about how probable it was for a self-replicating molecule to form in such and such environment. You can even quantify it and compare the "original soup" to a pile of beans (LOL - I guess one of the WT books had it). That's fair and debatable.
On the other, most creationist arguments pretend to stem from the deterministic principle ("there must have been an intelligent designer"), while having nothing to do with the factors that determine outcomes in the material world. In other words, something can be 0% probable in any observable or measurable material environment we can imagine, but the creationst still has the right to take it for granted. Something may have never been observed, but it is still accepted as a premise. God may move in at any stage with his magic and (sic) "sleight of hand". 0.00000000000001% probability is no longer sleight of hand. As opposed to 0% probability.
Creationists seem to glorify cause-effect reasoning at the metaphysical level, while sweeping it under carpet at the physical/material level. Whenever suitable, of course.
Pole
-
Pole
Qcmbr,
5/ A very elegant, simple code to life that could express extremelly complex ideas very simply but very precisely (any mistakes should destroy that code.) This code would bear the marks of intelligence (structure order, purpose, grammar, syntax) and should be readable as any other language. It should show the same traits as a language - gibberish if not compiled along strict rules and yet within the boundaries of those rules should be capable of expressing vast amounts of information.
I think this juxtaposition best illustatrates the problem you may have with interpreting material evidence. If you think you need metaphysics to understand the world, a material theory will never be enough for you. The idea of human languages being made of little bits of meaning formulated according to a set of strict rules passed from one speaker to another in a self evident-fashion is an utter misconception. I suggest coming up with a different analogy.
Cheers,
Pole
-
Qcmbr
You mean we don't use letters and words to convey meaning -- ahhh no wonder its so hard to communicate :)
No the analogy stands. Its perfectly good. I can use computing language if its easier - I do that all day at work:(
really Right to am off bed I -
EvilForce
or instead of hijacking this thread, you could just go to the thread designed for it:
Or instead I'll let you kids play on your own have fun. -
Pole
You mean we don't use letters and words to convey meaning -- ahhh no wonder its so hard to communicate :)
Oh, yeah, we use letters to "convey meaning". That's write. Urm, I mean, that's, rite, urrm, right. ( hope you'll get it. Sorry - but you wrote a rather dismissing post first.)
No the analogy stands. Its perfectly good. I can use computing language if its easier - I do that all day at work:(
Computing language is not "any language" (your original term). Unlike natural languages, computing languages can be exhaustively defined.
Assertion for assertion: The analogy is hopeless. BTW, there are no "perfectly good" analogies - by definition. Once again you prove to be a victim of metaphysics.
G'nite, I mean, good night.
Pole
-
Abaddon
Qcmbr
I did not approach your post as an attack on evolution - indeed, I point out several times the things you were listing as things a creationist would expect to see, that are not in fact seen, serve as a falsification of creationism.
However, I'd like it if you'd actually respond to my post, for example, on point 1, are you now clear on evolution as a fact (fossil record) and evolution as a theory (Darwinism) being analogous to G at sea level (a fact) and Newton's Law Fg= G m1m2/r squared (a theory)?
For this to be a worthwhile discussion, you need to respond to the faults people point out in your list of expected observations of you theory of creation.