Why naturalism is irrational (page 5)

hooberus

i originally asked you for evolutionary biologists that said this. you psted a bio-chemist, and then removed it only to say: "(other evolutionists since then can also be cited)." and my curiosity remains: i would like to know who and why.

I posted a direct statement from prominent evolutionist Simpson including the origin of life in evolution (this I feel is sufficient to demonstrate that it can be included). I have also posted a statement from Mayr on macroevolution and the origin of life (as well as other points).

well, that's a nice explanation by Mayr of how he sees things going. this does not mean that he considers origins part of the theory of evolution.

He seemed to in this statement anyway: "In spite of its gradualness, macroevolution is characterized by numerous major inventions, which many authors consider to represent decisive steps in the advance of the living world. It begins with the inferred transitions involved in the origin of life and the development of the Prokaryotes. . . . "

was this sentence part of his definition of evolution?

The sentence in his section on macroevolution, not in his glossary (see my previous comments).

does he present evidence to back up his version of abiogenesis? no, he doesn't.

The "evidence" for abiogenesis that he briefly presents is given in his book on pages 40-43 (however I don't see what this directly has to do with the issue of it being included in evolution).

he is explaining things speculatively.

He never says that he was merely "explaining things speculatively."

don't misquote him.

I did no such thing. "don't" falsely accuse me.

he's done more for the betterment of humanity than you have.

And I can list others who have done more than he has (but I won't since its irrevelant to this discussion).

yes. evolutionary biologists, and other types of scientists ARE interested in origins. probably more than you guys. it doesn't mean that they include such a concept in their theories for bio-diversity.

My point thusfar is simply that it can be included in evolution (see for example Simpson).

hypothetical speculation in a book is one thing. appplied, peer-reviewed theory is another.

I'm sure that you fellow evolutionary dogmatist Mayr would disagree with the statements in his book being labeled as merely "hypothetical speculation."

Evolution can deal with more than "bio-diversity" (it includes things such as the origin of eyes doesn't it?).

don't confuse the subject. of course it deals with the "origins" of of different things, it's called evolution by cumulative selection. this is different than what we have been talking about, and i am surprised that you would so blatantly try to change the subject and confuse the readers.

My point was that evolution can deal with more than merley "bio-diversity" (my use of origin of eyes was simply an example of this). Your accusation that this was an attempt to "blatantly try to change the subject" and "confuse the readers" is preposterous.

What rafter?
that's a facetious answer. you know exactly what i mean.

for all your work into debunking the theory of evolution by natural selection, and learning about scientific method, surely you have noted that creationists and ID-ots HAVE NO TESTABLE HYPOTHESES OR SCIENTIFIC REPLACEMENT THEORIES.
that is your rafter. you know? a la jesus?

The statement that "creationists and ID-ots HAVE NO TESTABLE HYPOTHESES OR SCIENTIFIC REPLACEMENT THEORIES." is not only insulting (see posting guideline 1.) but is also an outright falsehood. Numerous creationist and ID publications and acticles contain these very things (see for example "The Biotic Message", by ReMine, the creaton model and predictions in "Evolution the Fossils Still Say No" by Gish, the similar chapter by Gish in the Ruse's book: "But is it Science" peer-reviewed journals such as the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Technical Journal, etc,etc.

i find myself incredulous that this is lost on people like you and rex. you work so hard to tear science apart in the minds of the general public, and have NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING of technically viable substance to offer them in return. take the freaking rafter out of your own eye before approaching the theory of evolution. how about that? get it?

TS

Perhaps you need to "get" some more knowledge on the subject (and a different attitude) before you generate anymore false accusations. Until then I see no need to dialogue with you.

tetrapod.sapien

peer-reviewed journals such as the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Technical Journal, etc,etc.

publishing a book is not science, and it certainly is not a theory. can any "god did" it theories help with any sort of paleontological or biological or anthropological predictions? no they can't. the very fact that you say god did it, makes it impossible to predict what may be found in future research. why? because god = capricious tricked out ad hoc magic. there is no predictablity or falsifiablity in that.

and it's not a peer reviewed journal of rupute if it only submits papers to people who already agree with the paper. that is NOT scientific rigor.

so, again, i say to you:

RAFTER.

I posted a direct statement from prominent evolutionist Simpson including the origin of life in evolution (this I feel is sufficient to demonstrate that it can be included).

if it's unfalsifiable, and does not aid in prediction, then it is not part of the theory. it makes for interesting reading, but you will not find any scientists making vaccines based on it.

I did no such thing. "don't" falsely accuse me.

if you say that his description of abiogenesis should be included in the actual theory of evolution, then yes, it is a misquote. a misapplication of his words for the purpose of solidifying your motives.

My point was that evolution can deal with more than merley "bio-diversity" (my use of origin of eyes was simply an example of this). Your accusation that this was an attempt to "blatantly try to change the subject" and "confuse the readers" is preposterous.

you should know better hooberus. the origin of an eye in a human or an octopus (different ancestors), is not "origins" per se, but rather natural selection in action. THAT is part of the theory of evolution. do not confuse the subject by insinuating that they are the same thing technically merely because they you used the same word: origin.

ts

Robert K Stock

OldSoul:

You cannot have me in a room with one set of instructions and another person with a different set of instructions. We all have to agree on what criteria we are using before we start.

Your explanation is nonsense. Reality exists independent of ourselves and is not formed by imagination.

My original question remains unanswered,

What evidence proves a "SOUL" exists?

zen nudist

I dont see how postulating a god gives any better explanation than naturalism.... it just makes things more impossible... there is no answer to how this god knew how to make anything when he had no one to learn from and nothing to teach himself with.... did he one day just decide to start breaking off pieces of himself? what made him do that, and how could he think when there was nothing to think about but him? how could thought even get started in such a being, isolated and alone and without anything?

fantasy beings can be made to be anything you can imagine them to be since they dont suffer the need to exist in reality...

as to how things come to be, spontenious order is found all over the place, no god[s] required...check out snow flakes, crystals, water, carbon atoms, etc.... even Amino acids have been found to sponteniously generate in deep space. recently RNA has shown itself to be far more durable than previously believed and the origins of life from spontenious order seem even closer to being observed.

Caedes

shining one said

The 'act' was His coming to me in ways that assured my faith and in the realization that He is God. I intially discovered the deity of Christ when I was trying to disprove it. All prayers have been answered very clearly: yes, no or not now. It is not 'blind faith' and has never been. Reasoning has always been involved.

Rex

balderdash

Midget-Sasquatch

I'm for all intents and purposes a naturalist. But OldSoul's allegory does have a useful point. I believe that there's an external objective reality. (Although quantum mechanical weirdness does complicate things for me)

Sometimes within science itself, there are a great deal of collected observations that are difficult to bring together and draw new information out. That is, until there is a new way of looking at it, a new paradigm that does just that. The reality hasn't changed, but science can now advance without that former limitation.

Maybe those who have mystical experiences are genuinely able to interact with the reality in a way that others haven't. Or maybe its just all in their heads. Even for us non mystics, "reality" translates to the neurochemical impulses in our brains. I personally think there are prosaic causes for the events happening in their brains but how do you convince them that one set of neurochemical impulses reflect a genuine reality and others don't? Like OS wisely said, they also shouldn't expect us to be convinced either, unless we've had the experience ourselves.

OldSoul

(deleted)

OldSoul

Ah, heck. I'll just go ahead and solve it, I guess. It is a simple exercise.

Per the method he is restricted to using, Robert K. Stock can only examine ceiling and floor, both of which are black.

Per the method the "other" is given, he is not restricted in his examination of anything in the room.

When asked, "What color are the walls?":

Robert K. Stock would have to logically answer, "What walls?" per the constraints of his method.

The "other" can honestly answer, "White."

Both examiners had a requirement that the experience be filtered through the method used. Both answers are honest. Both answers are true to the method being used. Midget-Sasquatch got the point immediately. I suspect he was not alone.

That is the essence of what I mean when I say that to even attempt to use the Scientific Method to prove the existence of God is an exercise in futility, as the spiritual realm exists outside the confines currently explorable through the Scientific Method.

Like OS wisely said, they also shouldn't expect us to be convinced either, unless we've had the experience ourselves.

I would go further. In my opinion, the chief cause of strife through religion is the insistence that others must experience exactly what the causer of strife has experienced to be worth anything. While it seems to me that it is impossible for someone to experience another's reality.

Not only do I not expect anyone to be convinced there is a God unless they have had the experience themselves, I would say it is impossible for them to be convinced there is a God without experiencing it themselves.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, claiming that naturalism is irrational is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. It at least ties with the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

Shining One

Balderdash?

That was a personal testimony, nitwit.
Rex

Shining One

Robert,
How do you logically describe the process of reasoning itself? How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them?

First you answer the above then deal with this one:
1. Things exist.
2. It is possible for those things to not exist.
3. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
1. Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence which is illogical.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
1. Because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
2. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause.
5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
6. The uncaused cause must be God.
Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) had a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Argument from Motion. He stated that things in motion could not have brought themselves into motion but must be caused to move. There cannot be an infinite regression of movers. Therefore, there must be an Unmoved Mover. This Unmoved Mover is God. Also, by definition, God is uncaused. To assume otherwise is to introduce a paradox.

Rex

Why naturalism is irrational

Share this