Support NeoGAF

[Raist]

My one contribution on this topic is just to compare the scientific inferences made by both the ID crowd and evolutionists. Yes, they both use THE SAME scientific process of subjective inference to support their own hypothesis. Evolutionist cannot empirically test for common ancestry, so they make inferences (opinions) based on phylogeny, morphology, etc.

The ID crowd use our definition of information processing (a message and a receptor able to process that information) as it is used in man-made mechanical systems and engineering. The problem with IDers is that while from their own experience they can infer (opinion) that intelligence is required to develop a functioning system, they can only empirically test that functioning mechanical systems that process information don't arise by misguided natural processes (a.k.a evolution from common ancestor). However, it is clear that empirically testing against evolution, does not prove ID.

In simple terms, I have an example:

Imagine the word C A T,

a) each letter is a gene,
b) the word "CAT" is a word that has actual meaning (functioning organism) in our human dictionary (planet earth).

Evolutionists believe that:

With a) time, b) genetic mutations and c) natural selection, the 3-letter word CAT has yielded volumes and volumes of more complex, efficient, and awe-inspiring pieces of literature that even the brightest human minds can't even conceive. They see the word DOG and think not only is it also a 3 letter word, but they both mean small 4-legged animals, so they must be closely related. Same way CATASTROPHE is related because it has CAT in it, but it is more complex so it must be more recent.

IDers believe that:

Because there are volumes and volumes of more complex, efficient, and awe-inspiring pieces of literature that even the brightest human minds can't even conceive, they can only compare it with less efficient, intelligently designed systems. With comparing the two, they hypothesize that it comes from an intelligently guided process. This INFERENCE is from a priori knowledge of engineering/physics, systems, etc.

Both have problems:

Evolutionist cannot empirically test words like CAT becoming full fledged stories with many other words and meanings (well, they have tried). They work backwards through INFERENCE (opinion). They look at how a story like the fable of the Garden of Eden evolved. They go back in time, and find that words like APPLE, SNAKE, and MAN are found in lower taxa of the dictionary. This for them is proof that through natural mechanisms (given enough time and circumstances) the full story can evolve, including its moral teachings for us (like an organism being a part of an ecosystem). The problem that these opinions on how the story evolved are speculations, sometimes backed up by other observations, sometimes put in to question by other observations. In the end, the best subjective opinion WINS, so you have to question how much understanding do we really gain about life based on these educated guesses?

IDers can have all the comparable intelligently designed systems in the world as reference, but empirically, they can only test for the opposite. They can only test what the chances are for a functioning system to come about naturally. This is why the theory is mostly argued on the basis of evolution NOT working (genetic load, irreducible complexity, natural selection as an inadequate mechanism, etc). However, natural mechanisms not working does nothing to prove an intelligent designer. In a naturalistic world, this still leaves us with evolution as the only plausible unguided explanation.

I am all for debate, but some thinks they stand all high and mighty because normally "scientific" is associated with something empirically derived, and testable. Many common ancestry claims and "irrefutable evidence" for the evolution of a system simply subjective opinions based on a few observations that cannot be empirically tested (which is why many are shown to be wrong in light of new evidence).

ID doesn't use a scientific process. At all.

Now, of course you can't experimentally prove that a bird evolved from a dinosaur. The ToE is based on observations, and so far every single observation made regarding phylogeny etc hasn't gone against it. But, you can make predictions based on the ToE and experimentally test them. This has been done multiple times. Of course you can't expect a similar scale and such spectacular results, but it works.

 

[iapetus]

ID doesn't use a scientific process. At all.

Quoted for absolute truth. ID attempts to mask itself in science, but doesn't use the scientific method. Which kind of puts an end to that discussion.

 

[Stinkles]

It's incredible to me that laymen would argue science with scientists. I won't even mess with electrical wiring after a certain level of complexity, because I am hopelessly underqualified. Why anyone so intellectually bereft would try to argue at such an informational and logical disadvantage is literally baffling.

 

[Kinitari]

Quoted for absolute truth. ID attempts to mask itself in science, but doesn't use the scientific method. Which kind of puts an end to that discussion.

I'd honestly rather hear the occasional ID argument than nothing at all. If someone believes ID is a viable Scientific theory, and you have a good example of it being so, I wouldn't mind hearing it.

At the same time, almost all the reasonable arguments against Evolution theory are really just people finding outlying data or the occasional gap/unanswered question, and driving that point home. Which leads me to believe that it's not so much that they don't think the Theory of Evolution is substantiated and thorough, but that they don't want it to be.

Edit: Also, Evolution |OT| This is why we still got monkeys.

 

[crazy monkey]

I'd honestly rather hear the occasional ID argument than nothing at all. If someone believes ID is a viable Scientific theory, and you have a good example of it being so, I wouldn't mind hearing it.

At the same time, almost all the reasonable arguments against Evolution theory are really just people finding outlying data or the occasional gap/unanswered question, and driving that point home. Which leads me to believe that it's not so much that they don't think the Theory of Evolution is substantiated and thorough, but that they don't want it to be.

Edit: Also, Evolution |OT| This is why we still got crazy monkeys.

fixed.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

No one else has responded to me and two have quoted

Hint hint, because its fucking moronic.

None said my position was senseless and your use of "universally" is pretty pathetic.

See when I describe why what you are saying is stupid, and various people agree, they are agreeing you are stupid.

Again, not making sense.

That you are the embodiment of someone who lacks even a summary understanding of basic logic and science attempting to speak about them? Not only does it make sense, I can not think of a better way to demonstrate than reading your posts.

 

[KHarvey16]

Hint hint, because its fucking moronic.

Uh huh :lol.

See when I describe why what you are saying is stupid, and various people agree, they are agreeing you are stupid.

Even if that were true(I don't think you can assume it), it's only a maximum of two.

Congrats on the overwhelming support!

That you are the embodiment of someone who lacks even a summary understanding of basic logic and science attempting to speak about them? Not only does it make sense, I can not think of a better way to demonstrate than reading your posts.

Every response to my points from you has entirely missed the point, or betrayed a wild misunderstanding or even a complete lack of reading comprehension. My position is simple, logical and almost self evident. A god with a longer list of natural phenomenon that he does not adhere to is less probable than a god with a shorter list. This is true because we have never seen anything that can exempt itself from these things and we have no evidence anything can either.

I can't explain it any more clearly. I await your next disproportioned mix of incredulity and hostility. The voters might respond to it and win you the popularity contest you seem to find so important!

Good luck!

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Every response to my points from you has entirely missed the point, or betrayed a wild misunderstanding or even a complete lack of reading comprehension. My position is simple, logical and almost self evident. A god with a longer list of natural phenomenon that he does not adhere to is less probable than a god with a shorter list. This is true because we have never seen anything that can exempt itself from these things and we have no evidence anything can either.

Ok, for the third time I am going to explain this very very slowly. God as a function of pure deffinition does not adhere to natural phenomenon, that is in essence one of the defining characteristics and distinctions to the concept. There is not even the possibility of evidence for or against Gods adherence to any natural laws. Which was why I asked you to define what possible form evidence of that type would constitute of, you smartly ignored it.

And even if your argument was no destroyed just by that simple paragraph, IT STILL WOULD BE SENSELESS. Let me demonstarte the stupidity of your "logic":

Man was created in Gods image yeah? And Man farts, yeah? Therefore a God who farts is more probable than one who does not! And since some interpretations of some religions do not describe God as farting it is less likely to exist!

Or how about this: every example of sentient life we have evidence of is a mammal, therefore sentient alien life that is mammalian is more likely than sentient alien life that is not!

Do you now understand why what you are saying is stupid?

 

[KHarvey16]

Ok, for the third time I am going to explain this very very slowly. God as a function of pure deffinition does not adhere to natural phenomenon, that is in essence one of the defining characteristics and distinctions to the concept. There is not even the possibility of evidence for or against Gods adherence to any natural laws. Which was why I asked you to define what possible form evidence of that type would constitute of, you smartly ignored it.

I cannot understand why you STILL do not understand what I am saying. There is, honestly, something wrong with your ability to read and internalize information. It's like I'm not even speaking English.

Simply stating god is supernatural does not some how exempt it from the determination I am making. I can say the tree I made up is supernatural but that doesn't preclude someone from telling me that a tree with elephants for fruit is improbable. "But I said it wasn't natural, you can't do that!"

Bullshit.

Now, you say that the concept of god is inexorably linked with being supernatural. I'm sure there are concepts of god that are not, but we'll run with that if you wish. You then say that there is no evidence god is supernatural or possesses the ability to operate outside the bounds of nature. This very statement betrays the fact you haven't listened to a damn thing I've said. I am judging the relative probability of a god based on how it is described by its adherents. What the hell does it matter if it isn't proven if god exists as is imagined in that case, or proven that god possesses these abilities? It doesn't in this context. How does this escape you? How have I repeated this countless times only to have you still bleat this out like a child? Read, dammit.

I ignored your question about what would constitute evidence because it is irrelevant to this discussion.

And even if your argument was no destroyed just by that simple paragraph, IT STILL WOULD BE SENSELESS. Let me demonstarte the stupidity of your "logic":

Man was created in Gods image yeah? And Man farts, yeah? Therefore a God who farts is more probable than one who does not! And since some interpretations of some religions do not describe God as farting it is less likely to exist!

Childish. Hahahaha farts how dumb hahahahahaha.

This example is stupid. If "in god's image" were taken to mean what you assert here, a god who didn't fart would be a contradiction. I would say a god with a contradictory definition was less probable than one without, yes.

Or how about this: every example of sentient life we have evidence of is a mammal, therefore sentient alien life that is mammalian is more likely than sentient alien life that is not!

Another bad analogy. Sentience is rather vague and open to interpretation in many circles. Did you mean sapience? Either way the example is poor. What we understand of life and evolution doesn't cast doubt in any way on another species becoming sapient(or "sentient", however you wish to define it). If evolution allowed for life to opt out of the process and we understood that, this might be a good analogy. But it doesn't, so it isn't.

Do you now understand why what you are saying is stupid?

I know you are but what am I?! Lolololololol farts

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

It's incredible to me that laymen would argue science with scientists. I won't even mess with electrical wiring after a certain level of complexity, because I am hopelessly underqualified. Why anyone so intellectually bereft would try to argue at such an informational and logical disadvantage is literally baffling.

Agreed.

It's kind of ridiculous to think that all the biologists in this world would overlook fundamental questions that people always seem to ask when trying to disprove evolution.

It makes sense, guys.

 

[Mgoblue201]

The irony is that some creationists will take research that they think supports their position as if it's orthodoxy. Just because it's published in a journal doesn't even mean that it's correct. What are its methodologies? How do we interpret its conclusions? JCRedeems doesn't address any of this. He just posts anything that he thinks fits into his worldview, which is the very thing that he seems to be blaming others for.

And often many creationists will go further and make their own conclusions based on the data and ignore the researcher's conclusions altogether, even though they are rarely equipped to do so. They trust scientists to faithfully carry out the research, but they don't trust scientists to make conclusions about its evolutionary significance? It's absurd.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

I just want to point out that you guys are still arguing with people who completely don't accept fucking facts. You are making an argument that has already won to people who will never believe it. No matter how bored you might be, this is borderline insane.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

It's like I'm not even speaking English.

Indeed.

Simply stating god is supernatural does not some how exempt it from the determination I am making.

Oh dear lord. Yes, simply stating a metaphysical topic does in fact exempt it from the same criteria and methodology used to examine "other" things. This is not intellectual dishonesty this is an intrinsic limitation of "objective" verification and the topics it can be applied to.

I have explained half a dozen times, everyone else understands it...why cant you?

Another bad analogy.

They are not analogies they are examples of your system of reasoning, see how stupid they are? Also, stop throwing around a the term "relative probability" its just pathetic. You do not understand probability and how it functions, you do not understand science, you do not understand logic.

You cannot create "probabilities" of UNIVERSALS on topics that by their deffinition supersede the mundane. Its like attempting to create the probability of life after death. Or whats the relative probability that I can fly in my dreams. Or whats the probability that we are all brains in a jar plugged into the matrix.

Your flailing attempts at employing pseudo-logic is just as embarrassing as the religious using pseudo-science to substantiate their beliefs. You are the same...

 

[Zaphod]

Hint hint, because its fucking moronic.

See when I describe why what you are saying is stupid, and various people agree, they are agreeing you are stupid.

That you are the embodiment of someone who lacks even a summary understanding of basic logic and science attempting to speak about them? Not only does it make sense, I can not think of a better way to demonstrate than reading your posts.

I hate to add to your tragic derail of what is a great thread here but I have to say that I have no idea what you are trying to argue. The nastiness of your tone, the bird flipping avatar combined with some bizarre idea that anyone else in this thread is even paying attention to your posts and rooting for you makes me think that if you said that water is wet I'd have to go check just to make sure it is true. Anyway, carry on but don't assume anyone is on your side.

 

[KHarvey16]

Indeed.



Oh dear lord. Yes, simply stating a metaphysical topic does in fact exempt it from the same criteria and methodology used to examine "other" things. This is not intellectual dishonesty this is an intrinsic limitation of "objective" verification and the topics it can be applied to.

I have explained half a dozen times, everyone else understands it...why cant you?

Unbelievable. Everyone else understands it? Your pathetic need to imagine support is as sad as it is revealing.

I notice you ignored my tree example. Interesting. Oh, should I make it about something you seem more interested in, like farts? Give me a minute if you think that's better suited to your intellectual abilities. I'll do my best.

Also, is there any precedent or even any known mechanism that allows for something to exist outside the bounds of nature? Your position is mind boggling at this point.

They are not analogies they are examples of your system of reasoning, see how stupid they are? Also, stop throwing around a the term "relative probability" its just pathetic. You do not understand probability and how it functions, you do not understand science, you do not understand logic.

Continually repeating it won't make it any more true.

I'll use relative probability because that's what I'm determining. I'm sorry you don't understand the term.

You cannot create "probabilities" of UNIVERSALS on topics that by their deffinition supersede the mundane. Its like attempting to create the probability of life after death. Or whats the relative probability that I can fly in my dreams. Or whats the probability that we are all brains in a jar plugged into the matrix.

Your flailing attempts at employing pseudo-logic is just as embarrassing as the religious using pseudo-science to substantiate their beliefs. You are the same...

You again demonstrate your complete lack of understanding. You aren't trying and you aren't interested.

 

[Zaphod]

I just want to point out that you guys are still arguing with people who completely don't accept fucking facts. You are making an argument that has already won to people who will never believe it. No matter how bored you might be, this is borderline insane.

Personally I enjoy the topic and it's fun to debate. I know that people like JC will likely never accept it but refining the arguments can help me understand evolution better. Who knows maybe we can come up with explanations for those that simply doubt evolution due to the poor job the US school system does in presenting evolution.

 

[jaxword]

I hate to add to your tragic derail of what is a great thread here but I have to say that I have no idea what you are trying to argue. The nastiness of your tone, the bird flipping avatar combined with some bizarre idea that anyone else in this thread is even paying attention to your posts and rooting for you makes me think that if you said that water is wet I'd have to go check just to make sure it is true. Anyway, carry on but don't assume anyone is on your side.

Yeah, I have no idea what HeadlessRoland is even talking about anymore. I don't even know what "pseudo logic" is but it doesn't sound like it's a real, defined word.

KHarvey16's tone is at least a bit more mature and restrained.

 

[Youta Mottenai]

I just want to point out that you guys are still arguing with people who completely don't accept fucking facts. You are making an argument that has already won to people who will never believe it. No matter how bored you might be, this is borderline insane.

I agree with you, it gets really frustrating after some time (this same stance also happens with pseudo-sciences, conspiracies theories, etc.). No ammount of facts and evidence will change their minds, but there's a lot of people "on the fence" and they should be the focus.

Personally I enjoy the topic and it's fun to debate. I know that people like JC will likely never accept it but refining the arguments can help me understand evolution better. Who knows maybe we can come up with explanations for those that simply doubt evolution due to the poor job the US school system does in presenting evolution.

Bold text is the points we should pursue. Worst case scenario you honed your debate skills and learned more about a topic.

 

[Lesath]

I just want to point out that you guys are still arguing with people who completely don't accept fucking facts. You are making an argument that has already won to people who will never believe it. No matter how bored you might be, this is borderline insane.

I think we all, in some way, appreciate an intellectual punching bag. I mean, even when most of the time, we are arguing against excerpts from websites a creationist is drawing his quotes from, it helps refine our own understanding.

 

[iapetus]

I notice you ignored my tree example.

Because the tree example isn't a very good one? You're talking about something which clearly would be part of the physical, scientific world.

Because the counter to HeadlessRoland's point is that if you accept that the metaphysical is exempt from scientific examination, you also have to accept the reverse; that science can't be affected by your proposed metaphysical topics. The extent to which it impacts on scientific reality is the extent to which it can and should be addressed by science.

Which is why science can have little useful to say about certain types of remote, non-interventionist deities - because they don't impose themselves on the world as testable hypotheses. But it can address specific claims for specific cases (such as YEC and ID) which do impinge upon our reality in such a way that we can make predictions from them and test against those predictions.

The sort of metaphysical proposition that science can't address should be of no interest to science, because by its very nature it can't be operated on by the scientific method because it provides no useful testable hypotheses.

Yeah, I have no idea what HeadlessRoland is even talking about anymore. I don't even know what "pseudo logic" is but it doesn't sound like it's a real, defined word.

http://tinyurl.com/3829mru

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I hate to add to your tragic derail of what is a great thread here but I have to say that I have no idea what you are trying to argue.

Don't take this the wrong way but I was unaware you were a member of the conversation, sorry.

I notice you ignored my tree example. Interesting.

Your tree example? Its fucking random jibberish, how can it be "addressed"?

Simply stating god is supernatural does not some how exempt it from the determination I am making. I can say the tree I made up is supernatural but that doesn't preclude someone from telling me that a tree with elephants for fruit is improbable.

So lets see what is wrong with this example.

1. You are equating the terms supernatural and metaphysical. They are not the same thing.

2. God is a metaphysical thing due to what a God is, not by describing it as supernatural. Its inherent to the concept itself, in fact it being so is a prerequisite for it to be a metaphysical concept in the first place. The existence of God doesn't even play a role in it being a metaphysical concept, even if we assume God exists it would STILL be a metaphysical concept.

3. A tree is not a metaphysical thing, therefore your example is gibberish. Now if you said an invisible and intangible tree that would be equivalent. But mathematical probability has nothing to do with being skeptical of its existence. A lack of evidence to support it is, not probability.

4. You keep using "probability" as in there is an objective criteria you are using to determine chance. When in fact you are just endlessly spewing a tautological argument that makes no sense. See this is the method of your "reasoning".

I have 10 red apples, these are the only apples I have ever seen or am aware of. I can conclude the relative probability of all apples being red is 100%

Relative probability strikes again!

Or how about this:

All life known exists on Earth. So the relative probability of all life existing on Earth is 100%

Understand why this is stupid?

Also, is there any precedent or even any known mechanism that allows for something to exist outside the bounds of nature? Your position is mind boggling at this point.

Now whats stupid about this statement:

1) This is also a senseless tautology. Using an inane term like "outside the bounds of nature". What does that even mean? You really need google the term and avoid using it as a basis of argument.

2) Any known mechanism? You mean like every abstract and metaphysical concept known to man? You mean subjects like ontology or the concepts of space, time,existence or mathematics? Yep no known precedent for concepts that exist "beyond the bounds of nature".

This is like kicking kittens.

 

[danwarb]

Because the tree example isn't a very good one? You're talking about something which clearly would be part of the physical, scientific world.

Because the counter to HeadlessRoland's point is that if you accept that the metaphysical is exempt from scientific examination, you also have to accept the reverse; that science can't be affected by your proposed metaphysical topics. The extent to which it impacts on scientific reality is the extent to which it can and should be addressed by science.

Which is why science can have little useful to say about certain types of remote, non-interventionist deities - because they don't impose themselves on the world as testable hypotheses. But it can address specific claims for specific cases (such as YEC and ID) which do impinge upon our reality in such a way that we can make predictions from them and test against those predictions.

The sort of metaphysical proposition that science can't address should be of no interest to science, because by its very nature it can't be operated on by the scientific nature because it provides no useful testable hypotheses.



http://tinyurl.com/3829mru

Well then, I think it's safe to attribute the supernatural to the physical, scientific world, in which everything we're aware of might be accounted for; even our own thoughts on the supernatural.

At least until we come across evidence that suggests otherwise, which is apparently impossible.

 

[iapetus]

Well then, I think it's safe to attribute the supernatural to the physical, scientific world, in which everything we're aware of might be accounted for; even our own thoughts on the supernatural.

We're not talking about 'the supernatural' - we're talking about things that inherently don't lend themselves to analysis in that way.

 

[Slightly Live]

Don't take this the wrong way but I was unaware you were a member of the conversation, sorry.

Like it or not dude this "conversation" is open to everyone, if you want something more private feel free to take it to PM's or something.

Speaking of which, I think you're approach severe meltdown levels here. Kicking kittens? I'm not the only one that hasn't got a clue whatever the heck your posts are on about at this stage, but you're obvious quite angry and mad about something.

I was enjoying reading the back and forth here but what the heck has happened since the ID folks stopped posting?

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Like it or not dude this "conversation" is open to everyone, if you want something more private feel free to take it to PM's or something.

Yes, the conversation is open to everyone. Sadly the twat I was responding to admitted he had no idea what was being discussed yet insisted on responding.

I'm not the only one that hasn't got a clue whatever the heck your posts are on about at this stage, but you're obvious quite angry and mad about something.

If you cant be bothered to understand what is being discussed why the fuck do you even post? And yeah "IR mad" trashing inane arguments fills me with rage! The sad thing is nothing I have said is controversial or a matter of opinion, its simple facts. So yes after I see people arguing in the name of science and logic, who are seriously incapable of understanding blatantly obvious and self evident facts I tend to stop being polite.

Because the counter to HeadlessRoland's point is that if you accept that the metaphysical is exempt from scientific examination, you also have to accept the reverse; that science can't be affected by your proposed metaphysical topics.

Metaphysics should and does not have any bearing on science. My problem is this deeply ingrained ignorance that anything that simply cannot be addressed by objective science is inherently untrue and false. Its so very ignorant and stupid.

Especially when the fucks decrying it do not even understand the science and logic they are championing.

 

[Zaphod]

Don't take this the wrong way but I was unaware you were a member of the conversation, sorry.

Hey, don't sweat it. I was just trying to help by pointing out that your rather aggressive style filled with insults makes it a bit hard to figure out what you are going on about.

 

[Dead Man]

Yes, the conversation is open to everyone. Sadly the twat I was responding to admitted he had no idea what was being discussed yet insisted on responding.



If you cant be bothered to understand what is being discussed why the fuck do you even post? And yeah "IR mad" trashing inane arguments fills me with rage! The sad thing is nothing I have said is controversial or a matter of opinion, its simple facts. So yes after I see people arguing in the name of science and logic, who are seriously incapable of understanding blatantly obvious and self evident facts I tend to stop being polite.



Metaphysics should and does not have any bearing on science. My problem is this deeply ingrained ignorance that anything that simply cannot be addressed by objective science is inherently untrue and false. Its so very ignorant and stupid.

Especially when the fucks decrying it do not even understand the science and logic they are championing.

You really know how to make friends, huh? I think a lot of people who were following this thread don't have much idea what you are on about, sorry. Further insulting them does not help your cause.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

You really know how to make friends, huh? I think a lot of people who were following this threaddon't have much idea what you are on about, sorry.

I know they don't, which is the point. It is actually rather sad.

 

[iapetus]

So yes after I see people arguing in the name of science and logic, who are seriously incapable of understanding blatantly obvious and self evident facts I tend to stop being polite.

Maybe you should continue being polite, as that way people are less likely to respond aggressively to you, and are more likely to engage in intelligent debate? It's my experience that the more worked up both sides of a discussion get, the less likely they are to realise where the actual areas of disagreement are and address them.

Also, if the discussion reaches the point where mods/admins step in, a Junior member is always going to come off worse.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Also, if the discussion reaches the point where mods/admins step in, a Junior member is always going to come off worse.

Alrighty:>

 

[iapetus]

Alrighty:>

Just to clarify - not a threat, and not aimed at this particular case, just general good advice on topics that get heated.

 

[Nocebo]

...

Maybe it's just me but I thought this analogy was horrible.
Further more I don't see how cat and catastrophe are not related. Since they partly contain the same letters and produce a similar sound, one could deduce they belong to the same language. Also maybe I'm dumb but I was under the impression that language doesn't evolve under the guidance of a (single?) intelligent agent but more as meta process...

Where ID would say that every piece of complex literature we have now was there since the beginning of human existence. Evolution would say the first forms of communication were very basic and got more complex over time.

Spoiler

While some stayed simplistic and ape-like ie neogaf

 

[Zaphod]

Yes, the conversation is open to everyone. Sadly the twat I was responding to admitted he had no idea what was being discussed yet insisted on responding.

If you cant be bothered to understand what is being discussed why the fuck do you even post?

Friendly fire, friendly fire!

Ok, I made a smart ass response about the level of insults in your posts and I got an aggressive response back. I can accept that and I've been called things way worse.

I personally think that your basic arguments are sound but a little irrelevant to the evolution discussion. The think the tone though really does make it harder for you to get your point across. How does adding insults at the end of each point help?

I hope that when you get to member status you can make a thread about the philosophical and scientific arguments against god. I bet that if you keep the tone civil and engage everyone in the debate it will be an interesting thread.

 

[Kinitari]

How about this.

Ignoring an undefined Deity (which, in my opinion, is essentially immune to not only all criticisms, but shouldn't even be discussed because of the frivolity of it all) - let's just talk about strictly defined Deity.

For the sake of the argument, let's specify, the Abrahamic Gods. Now, understanding that the only real 'evidence' for their existence, are books in which historical events are narrated and the natural world is explained, we see immediately that they already exist on relatively shaky ground.

Now if we have new information that essentially falsifies many of the claims in these books, regarding the natural world, we remove some of the 'evidence' associated with this deities existence. Now, of course this deities existence is not based on any sort of science, nor does it really -need- this book to be accurate for it to actually exist whatsoever - but at the same time, the one avenue in which we have to discuss and consider it's existence (it's connection to the natural world) has been called into question, thus making it more difficult for us to 'believe' in it's existence. So maybe it has just as much of a chance to exist, regardless of the accuracy of the claims in the book, but

A) Discussing or Considering a Metaphysical Being that delivers contradictory statements in it's gospel, and has no other methods of interacting with humanity in any way shape or form, is less than frivolous. And

B) Those who have or would believe in this Deity because of this supposed gospel that explains this natural world, would have less of a reason of doing so - it no longer answers the questions they have, and instead, becomes indistinguishable from a made up imaginary friend.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm on my phone so forgive the lack of quoting.  

Iapetus, remote and non-interventionist deities that not only posess metaphysical attributes but are themselves entirely metaphysical would sit apart from the deities I'm speaking of.  I'm not even sure how worthy of the title deity such a concept would be but, regardless, gods defined this way are special in more ways than being excluded from consideration in the context of my position.  In practical terms I don't think such a concept accounts for many believer's personal defintions of a god(or gods).  Claims that a god or gods exists and takes human form, or posseses intelligence, or procreates, or communicates with mortals, or occupies a space in heaven or can one day be met by his or her true believers all represent claims that can be examined in the way I am arguing.  Our knowledge and experiences give us no ability to substantiate any origin for these attributes or abilities outside the natural process of evolution.  There is no precedent.  Therefore with no additional evidence presented by those who define him, I can logically conclude that a god who is described to posess, for instance, some form of intelligence and also defined to have no creator is relatively less probable than a god who, all other things being equal, is not described as posessing both of these things.

I make no claims to defining an absolute probability, so the straw man posted above about "100% probability" is not something I can actually claim(and I've never attempted to).  This probability, as all probabilities are, is based on the current understanding of the system it attempts to describe.  If tomorrow we discover that intelligence can exist unevolved and uncreated by those that did evolve(as opposed to, say, AI), the negative net effect to the relative probability mentioned above is nullified.  It's no longer valid.

Roland, define your use of metaphysical.  I disagree that god is inherently and entirely a metaphysical concept using the general form of the word.  Yours apparently is special, so please define it.

Also, as I pointed out above, your arguments against my use of relative probability consists of a strawman.  You are either not reading or not understanding.

"Outside the bounds of nature" means precisely what it looks like it means - supernatural.  My use of "something" was perhaps too vague.  By "thing" in this context I mean a god defined as more than simply a metaphysical concept like "nature" or physical laws or something as discussed above.  

Lastly I'm not sure where your undeserved sense of superiority comes from.  You approach the discussion as if I suggested the moon didn't exist.  Your position is indisputable fact and any suggestion to the contrary can only be the product of a mind that is entirely beneath you.  This combined with your earlier obsession concerning who you felt was on your side and what it meant for your argument is interesting, to say the least.  I don't think your interest in this discussion is the discussion, but disagreeing with me for some reason(and being needlessly aggresive about it).

 

[Count Dookkake]

Oh, man. I was really looking forward to the meltdown.

 

[genjiZERO]

Hey really nice OP - but it looks really in depth. I've been avoiding this tread because I think evolution threads go nowhere, and I think participation is a huge waste of time... anyway nice job.

My two cents though is that I'd get rid of the Richard Dawkins recommendations. I think he's way too controversial. For one thing he's off-putting for almost anyone who isn't an Atheist and a biologist (I mean I'm an atheist and a biologist and I find him off-putting). You've got such a nice textbook introduction to evolution, but then it's tainted by someone who is known more for proselytizing Atheism and philosophizing biology than actually doing research... it's too much of a non-scientific flavour to what's very neutral and scientific.

 

[Zaphod]

I can't remember if this has been posted in the thread before but I think this is a great illustration of epic scale of the evolution of life on earth. The amount of time that the only life was single celled organisms is truly staggering.

http://andabien.com/html/evolution-timeline.htm?=9738234

 

[Mgoblue201]

I can't remember if this has been posted in the thread before but I think this is a great illustration of epic scale of the evolution of life on earth. The amount of time that the only life was single celled organisms is truly staggering.

http://andabien.com/html/evolution-timeline.htm?=9738234

I think that on an intuitive level it makes sense. The basic cell, which the ID crowd says is too complicated to have evolved, required a lot of time to evolve its various metabolic and biochemical processes. Scientists are finding now that much of our "complexity" is derived from changes to pre-existing genes. For example, genes that encode for neurons are believed to be present in single-celled organisms that definitely don't have any neurons. And things like the creation of RNA and DNA, the incorporation of mitochondria and plastids into the cell (known as the endosymbiotic theory), the release of oxygen into the atmosphere, the evolution of multi-cellular life, etc. took up much of the history of life on the Earth. Compared to the 700 million or so years that complex life has arisen, it isn't even close.

 

[Stellares]

No one is going to change their views in a debate. A person will always see the other side as the enemy, and will always try to discredit or work their way around the evidence the other side presents.
However, the seed of doubt can be planted. One day they probably will seriously examine their own views, see they have been ignorant and perhaps drop their ignorant beliefs. Threads like this help in that path, as most people who disagree with evolution have no idea what evolution even is.

 

[Dead Man]

I can't remember if this has been posted in the thread before but I think this is a great illustration of epic scale of the evolution of life on earth. The amount of time that the only life was single celled organisms is truly staggering.

http://andabien.com/html/evolution-timeline.htm?=9738234

That's pretty cool. I always like Attenboroughs metaphor of the life year. If all the history of life was compressed to one year, multi celled organisms only showed up in September, or something. I can't remember exactly, been a while since I watched it.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I personally think that your basic arguments are sound but a little irrelevant to the evolution discussion.

It has little to do with the evolution discussion, which is so fucking stupid its not even worth discussing. Who wants to argue with people who REFUSE to accept the validity of a scientific theory that has a metric fuck ton of corroborative evidence? You are not going to be able to convince them, anymore than I am going to be able to convince one dude about the nature of metaphysics. Granted my derail is essentially the same thing, me repeating non arbitrary facts and the utter refusal of others to comprehend and accept them so I cant judge too harshly.

I just noticed people arguing with the ID/creationist crowd, but strangely using invalid and nonsensical arguments. The sad part is that type of argumentation is standard. Its because regardless of "allegiance" to science or religion people do not know how to "think". They adopt beliefs for the same reasons with a complete lack of understanding of the "whys" behind them. The raw hypocrisy and hubris is almost as bad as the fundamentalist crowd.

Guaranteed if I attempted to question random people who "believe" in evolution on the street about the particulars of evolutionary theory they would be unable to have a cogent discussion. Just as if I attempt to question some religious person about theology they will likewise have no fucking idea what I am talking bout.

Its the false dichotomy of science and religion/philosophy/spirituality put fourth by the pig ignorant (religious or not) that is nauseating. The "counter" to a metaphysical claim is not "probability" because its impossible to create a probability of something utterly alien and unknown. You cant use lack of physical evidence because it is IMPOSSIBLE for such evidence to exist, even if God DID exist it would not be possible to substantiate with science. How can you scientifically verify an omniscient/omnipotent being? You cant, the closest science could get would be "Its really fucking powerful", which is a far cry from substantiating a universe creating God. So demanding such substantiation, when such a thing is impossible demonstrates you do not have the knowledge to talk about it.

The counter is claiming any number of things are possible, there could be invisible dragons, demons and Gods everywhere. But until some evidence (not all evidence is objective mind you) presents itself you have no reason to take note or place credence in any of them. Something needs to be substantiated before you place any credence in it. Thats it, you don't create illusionary "probability" that you pull from your ass in an attempt to sound "logical".

People need to recognize not all evidence is going to be assessable by science, and things beyond the scope of science are not inherently false. If you do not then you do not understand science and just as ignorant as the "God did it" crowd.

 

[SuperBonk]

I always look at evolution by looking at the trees instead of the forest. We have an amazing understanding of how DNA/genes work just from pure biochemistry. We have also studied how the effects of implanting genes in bacteria, as well as documented short term changes in allele frequencies.

This information alone is enough to allow us to extrapolate and hypothesize how speciation occurred. Things like fossils and vestigial organs only confirm the hypothesis and the fact that nothing else can so perfectly describe how life came her makes the theory of evolution insurmountable.

 

[Dead Man]

Oh, man. I was really looking forward to the meltdown.

I'm melting!

There you go

 

[Mgoblue201]

It has little to do with the evolution discussion, which is so fucking stupid its not even worth discussing. Who wants to argue with people who REFUSE to accept the validity of a scientific theory that has a metric fuck ton of corroborative evidence? You are not going to be able to convince them, anymore than I am going to be able to convince one dude about the nature of metaphysics. Granted my derail is essentially the same thing, me repeating non arbitrary facts and the utter refusal of others to comprehend and accept them so I cant judge too harshly.

I just noticed people arguing with the ID/creationist crowd, but strangely using invalid and nonsensical arguments. The sad part is that type of argumentation is standard. Its because regardless of "allegiance" to science or religion people do not know how to "think". They adopt beliefs for the same reasons with a complete lack of understanding of the "whys" behind them. The raw hypocrisy and hubris is almost as bad as the fundamentalist crowd.

Guaranteed if I attempted to question random people who "believe" in evolution on the street about the particulars of evolutionary theory they would be unable to have a cogent discussion. Just as if I attempt to question some religious person about theology they will likewise have no fucking idea what I am talking bout.

Its the false dichotomy of science and religion/philosophy/spirituality put fourth by the pig ignorant (religious or not) that is nauseating. The "counter" to a metaphysical claim is not "probability" because its impossible to create a probability of something utterly alien and unknown. You cant use lack of physical evidence because it is IMPOSSIBLE for such evidence to exist, even if God DID exist it would not be possible to substantiate with science. How can you scientifically verify an omniscient/omnipotent being? You cant, the closest science could get would be "Its really fucking powerful", which is a far cry from substantiating a universe creating God. So demanding such substantiation, when such a thing is impossible demonstrates you do not have the knowledge to talk about it.

The counter is claiming any number of things are possible, there could be invisible dragons, demons and Gods everywhere. But until some evidence (not all evidence is objective mind you) presents itself you have no reason to take note or place credence in any of them. Something needs to be substantiated before you place any credence in it. Thats it, you don't create illusionary "probability" that you pull from your ass in an attempt to sound "logical".

People need to recognize not all evidence is going to be assessable by science, and things beyond the scope of science are not inherently false. If you do not then you do not understand science and just as ignorant as the "God did it" crowd.

I have not been following this discussion, but this seems in general like an incoherent rambling that touches on many disparate subjects, attempting to conflate people who don't understand evolution with people who don't understand god. I don't know what htey have to do with each other. However, I'll address a few subjects separately.

1. Much of this thread has little to do with creationism. It's mostly been an actual discussion on evolution. If one cannot find the value there and/or would rather talk about theological issues, then one should probably find a different thread or start a new one.

2. Who are you to say why we should argue about different things? I contest the idea that minds cannot be changed. There are plenty of people who were once creationists but now accept the validity of evolution as an explanation for the diversity and breadth of life on Earth. And there are many other reasons to argue. Maybe we want to ameliorate our own understanding of evolution. Maybe we get a kind of voyeuristic thrill out of intellectually embarrassing creationists. Either way, one who has not contributed anything to the discussion of evolution should not dictate terms here.

3. If we're defining god as something unknown and beyond the purview of human understanding, then that is at an explicit contradiction with the idea of god put forth by religion and spirituality, which contends that god is not only known but understandable to a certain degree and wants people to know of its existence. And the moment that god begins to interact with the world, this being is immediately subject to human reason and logic. Therefore, dispelling the existence of a god who interacts with the world is, at least, possible, depending upon which god is posited. The god of Christianity, for example, is easily provable or disprovable, because that religion makes claims that can be evaluated, such as the bible is the word of god. And though I wouldn't explicitly call this way of thinking "science" per se, I would say that we're using basic scientific principles of testing and devising theories.

Sure, a god that is beyond all evaluations and tests is certainly beyond our ability to prove or disprove. But then, I doubt that most atheists would have a problem with people who made possible room for the existence of a rather benign god who demands nothing from humanity. Many atheists may even admit that such a god could be possible. But I don't think it's correct to say, "Such a god could be possible, therefore we must admit that such a god is always possible." It could also be that the entire concept of god is impossible. It's one of those known unknowns. So I think that the entire discussion is rather pointless.

I hope I just saved us several more days of bickering. This will be the first and last time I address the subject of theology and god here, so if you want to continue talking about it, then you can PM me.

 

[TacticalFox88]

How does evolution, "recognize" the fact that an organism "needs" to evolve? I don't think it's in the OP.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Dr Jeff Steinberg on genetically modified babies: "I'm not sure [if it's a good idea]"


http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=423745

 

[Dead Man]

How does evolution, "recognize" the fact that an organism "needs" to evolve? I don't think it's in the OP.

It doesn't? It's just that those that are less fit for their environment die. Or have I misunderstood your question?

 

[Mgoblue201]

Natural selection is an outcome. It is not an explicit mechanism. There is no active selection and therefore no need for recognition of any kind, even if you were using the words as loosely as possible. The entire name is a misnomer. I think that the OP does a good job of explaining how natural selection works.

 

[Kinitari]

How does evolution, "recognize" the fact that an organism "needs" to evolve? I don't think it's in the OP.

Not sure exactly what you mean, so I am going to just throw out a guess.

I think you mean, how does an organism realize when it needs to evolve to survive? If that's it, then it doesn't. It either evolves and survives (by chance mostly) or it dies.

I guess an example would be like saying, how does the lottery know when a guy really needs to win it? And it doesn't, if the guy wins the lottery, he makes it - if he doesn't, well he's fucked.