Objections to Evolution...

[Malachii]

What logical objections can be made about the theory of evolution? Can anyone make a logical case for why creationism is more probable than evolution, or have Christians basically conceded the point?

My apologies if this has been covered before by Sklansky or someone else. I had a lecture on it today in my philosophy class and was just wondering what some of the intellectuals on this board had to say on the matter.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
1)What logical objections can be made about the theory of evolution? 2)Can anyone make a logical case for why creationism is more probable than evolution, or 3) have Christians basically conceded the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

1 - Don’t know enough about it to give an opinion. It does seem it is such a relatively new theory that no one should rely totally on it, yet. But I might feel that way because I “don’t know enough about it”. I can’t see any logical objections to it. I can say it does not give the answer to what started the whole shebang (if I am wrong then it is because “I don’t know enough about it”.)

2) No and the reverse is no too I think. Since evolution gives no (and attempts to give no) answer to what started the whole shebang I don’t think a case can be made regarding probability of either. Unless of course one uses Sklansky’s - Since more geniuses think it so, they are probably correct (I mean, of course, the reverse point of view here) rationale.

3) Two answers a) No. b) The two aren’t mutually exclusive (some creationist theories that is).

[RJT]

Oops, sorry didn’t read this part: “… just wondering what some of the intellectuals on this board had to say on the matter.” Too late to delete. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What logical objections can be made about the theory of evolution?


[/ QUOTE ]

I make no claim to intellectual but there is a major logical objection to evolution by chance, which is basically the objection to atheism.

What did the prof say in your philosophy class?

edited for spelling oops

[ QUOTE ]
I make no claim to intellectual but there is a major logical objection to evolution by chance, which is basically the objection to atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does that mean? And, I don't consider "natural selection" and "chance" to be synonomous.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What does that mean?


[/ QUOTE ]

Much the same as this:

This is fine as long as they also teach that if evolution by chance is true it's ok to murder people.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
This is fine as long as they also teach that if evolution by chance is true it's ok to murder people.

[/ QUOTE ] This only makes sense if you have no ability to reason. You are begining to remove all doubt that you have said ability. It is a shame really.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This only makes sense if you have no ability to reason. You are begining to remove all doubt that you have said ability.


[/ QUOTE ]

And you're so effective at demonstrating it.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is fine as long as they also teach that if evolution by chance is true it's ok to murder people.

[/ QUOTE ] This only makes sense if you have no ability to reason. You are begining to remove all doubt that you have said ability. It is a shame really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you say it makes no sense, Doug? Please explain.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is fine as long as they also teach that if evolution by chance is true it's ok to murder people.

[/ QUOTE ] This only makes sense if you have no ability to reason. You are begining to remove all doubt that you have said ability. It is a shame really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you say it makes no sense, Doug? Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

he seems to be saying that there is a major logical objection to evolution by chance (which is basically the objection to atheism), and that this logical objection is that then you would have to teach in school that its ok to murder people.

So far from logic, its not even wrong.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

its not even wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This only makes sense if you have no ability to reason. You are begining to remove all doubt that you have said ability.


[/ QUOTE ]

And you're so effective at demonstrating it.

[/ QUOTE ] I try, sometimes I get lucky and make a valid point.

[RJT]

I understand what NotReady was saying. I wanted Doug to explain why what NotReady said makes no sense. If evolution was started by chance (not God) then why is it not ok to murder - theoretically speaking, of course, not relative to ones chosen social order?

[Greg J]

The main logical objection I could come up with as a scientific theory of the origin of species is that it is not empirically verifiable/falsifiable, in that we cannot practically observe the process by which it suddenly came about. What we can do is more anthropological in nature, by tracing fossils and such, and by emprically observing the act of gentic mutation. This puts two and two together.

That being said, it's still the only game in town as far as a scientific theory goes. Don't flame me as a creationist nut (I am certainly not!). Plus, there might be research on the change of species in a lab that I'm not aware of (as a layperson) -- maybe someone made a new species of insect to adapt to new conditions created in a laboratory. (That would be cool!) This would weaken the above statement. But I'm pretty sure no one has reacreated the "primordial soup" that led to spontaneous "creation" of a one-celled organism that eventually led to more complex creatures. (That would be ever cooler, but would probably take a loooooooooooooong time.)

EDIT: Also, I have trouble coming up with the conditions by which one could RULE OUT the theory. What could happen to overturn it? What study or experiment could do that?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is fine as long as they also teach that if evolution by chance is true it's ok to murder people.

[/ QUOTE ] This only makes sense if you have no ability to reason. You are begining to remove all doubt that you have said ability. It is a shame really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you say it makes no sense, Doug? Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, he is saying that we should teach children that it is ok to murder. This is a reasonable position?

And even if we can get through the "fact" that it is ok to murder. Why is science the best place to teach that?


If one believes they have a right live. By reason they can apply those same principles to other human beings. And so murder is not "OK" because of chance evolution. Reason makes murder incorrect not some god.

[RJT]

Practically speaking of course you are right. NotReady’s point is theoretical. If all by chance then so what (in the grand scheme) if one murders someone else ? Animals do it all the time.

I look at it like pro-abortion folk (and I have no interest in getting into that subject, nor am I saying I am against abortion. Although, I am and not all for religious reasons.) If abortion is ok, then why all the guilt and all the pre-procedure psychological preparation. Logically speaking one should go in get it done and go to the theater (or as chez would say, theatre) afterwards.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand what NotReady was saying. I wanted Doug to explain why what NotReady said makes no sense. If evolution was started by chance (not God) then why is it not ok to murder - theoretically speaking, of course, not relative to ones chosen social order?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if it ok to murder, you don't have to teach it in schools.

Also not liking the consequences of an argument does not make it illogical (except to someone who believes things are true because they would like them to be).

chez

[RJT]

I agree, chez. I am not really sure if NotReady feels the actual passion his point makes or not; ie. If we must teach evolution then we must teach murder ok. His point is a valid one is all. I look at his point as an extreme example of a position one can take of evolution, used to put things in a particular perpective.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, chez. I am not really sure if NotReady feels the actual passion his point makes or not; ie. If we must teach evolution then we must teach murder ok. His point is a valid one is all. I look at his point as an extreme example of a position one can take of evolution, used to put things in a particular perpective.

[/ QUOTE ]

but it misses the main point. Even if evolution implies no absolute morality it makes no difference to whether evolution is logically possible.

Personally I think killing someone is far worse if there's no god than if there is a god but so what, it makes no difference here.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Practically speaking of course you are right. NotReady’s point is theoretical. If all by chance then so what (in the grand scheme) if one murders someone else ? Animals do it all the time.


[/ QUOTE ] If I am correct pratically speaking, what is the point of NotReady's statement. RJT you are a reasonable man, I don't always agree with you but that doesn't matter. NotReady is no where close to being reasonable, or logical.

Animals aren't as developed in reasoning skills. Which is why he is correct that murder is ok if man is without reason.

But I would like to know the general reasoning skills of animals. I am reminded of walden, in which a great war was faught between ants. And the victors buried their own dead, but left the dead of their enimies. I am also reminded of a test where researchers placed honey in the middle of a lake. When the scout bees when back to the hive and danced the location of the honey, the bees didn't listen, based of the location.

Additionaly if one murders someone else with religion it is the same as stealing. It is a sin, in the eyes of god it is the same. This is bad reasoning. However our ethics dictate, from both god and reason, an "eye for an eye". Which means the punishment should fit the crime.

[ QUOTE ]
I look at it like pro-abortion folk (and I have no interest in getting into that subject, nor am I saying I am against abortion. Although, I am and not all for religious reasons.) If abortion is ok, then why all the guilt and all the pre-procedure psychological preparation. Logically speaking one should go in get it done and go to the theater (or as chez would say, theatre) afterwards.

[/ QUOTE ] Seriously, people aren't pro-abortion. But if you don't want to discuss it, Why even bring it up then. To much of this in other threads. I'll glady, well not really galdy, debate it there.

[RJT]

Doug,

The only reason I got involved in the discourse between you and NotReady was because you said his point makes no sense. It might not be a “reasonable” idea viz a viz civilized society. But, technically it does make sense. That’s all I was trying to say.

Regarding the abortion think - I didn’t bring it up per se, I was merely using it as an analogy to further explain NotReady’s point.

RJT

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
but it misses the main point. Even if evolution implies no absolute morality it makes no difference to whether evolution is logically possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, chez. I am not really sure if NotReady feels the actual passion his point makes or not; ie. If we must teach evolution then we must teach murder ok. His point is a valid one is all. I look at his point as an extreme example of a position one can take of evolution, used to put things in a particular perpective.

[/ QUOTE ]

but it misses the main point. Even if evolution implies no absolute morality it makes no difference to whether evolution is logically possible.

Personally I think killing someone is far worse if there's no god than if there is a god but so what, it makes no difference here.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Chez, I would like to put forth the idea that there is a absolute moralitly. It may be realitive to the positions of the person involved. But I wish to say that given a specific situation that someone is in, there are absolute correct ethical responses. How can one know what is ethically correct? Reason, Knowlege, values, and phsychology. Do you think this is a reasonable position to take?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Doug,

The only reason I got involved in the discourse between you and NotReady was because you said his point makes no sense. It might not be a “reasonable” idea viz a viz civilized society. But, technically it does make sense. That’s all I was trying to say.

Regarding the abortion think - I didn’t bring it up per se, I was merely using it as an analogy to further explain NotReady’s point.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]Ok. I'm still lost as to why NotReady's position is reasonable at all. It seems to be wrong on all accounts. Can you use something other than pro-life vs pro-choice to help me along. Basicaly back up murder is OK if evolution is correct. Actually nevermind the only problem here is that some people have beliefs not founded in reason that when science provides evidence to those beliefs lacking. The response is to attack that which provides the evidence, not instead to change unfounded beliefs.

Other flaws with NotReady statement are

Murder is not ethically correct. Yet he wants to teach that it is.

Evolution does not disprove God. You he thinks it does.

His position is entirely unreasonable, on every account, in every shape, in every way.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, chez. I am not really sure if NotReady feels the actual passion his point makes or not; ie. If we must teach evolution then we must teach murder ok. His point is a valid one is all. I look at his point as an extreme example of a position one can take of evolution, used to put things in a particular perpective.

[/ QUOTE ]

but it misses the main point. Even if evolution implies no absolute morality it makes no difference to whether evolution is logically possible.

Personally I think killing someone is far worse if there's no god than if there is a god but so what, it makes no difference here.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Chez, I would like to put forth the idea that there is a absolute moralitly. It may be realitive to the positions of the person involved. But I wish to say that given a specific situation that someone is in, there are absolute correct ethical responses. How can one know what is ethically correct? Reason, Knowlege, values, and phsychology. Do you think this is a reasonable position to take?

[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose two people disagree about the ethics in a given situation. Are you saying thats impossible if they are both have full knowledge of the situation? (I think that's what Socrates might say) if not how do you decide who is right?

chez

[RJT]

Doug,

Can I butt in again? This is the whole point of NotReady. (Said at the risk of alienating you from reading the rest of my post.) There is no absolute morality without a context of a Moral Authority that promulgated such. We can all agree to some moralities - theoretically everyone in the world can even agree to them. But, if one person does not agree to said morality, there is no “supreme court” that says they are wrong.

If you disagree, then think of an example.

NotReady has already implied that if there is no god then murder is ok. I agree with him. So, now we have two folk who disagree with one possible “absolute morality”. I am not saying I would want to murder someone. I am speaking theoretically- others might, and obviously do, think it is fine to murder (some of the people who commit murder.) .

Moralities are (merely) social conduct that reasonable (rationale) people agree (to and) makes sense in an ordered society.

This a very important (I think) concept to understand. (If I am incorrect, then it is time I get it right anyway.) Once one sees this then one has come to just about the end of ones philosophical studies basically, I think. All of philosophy becomes then just interesting, and good exercise for one’s mind, even a good thing to know but that is about all - definitely a good thing to know when one wants to organize a society and for this last reason philosophy never really ends. It becomes exactly how Hegel referred to it “[Philosophy is only] its own time reflected in thought.”

This last paragraph is why I call this forum hypocritical when it includes philosophy in its title and excluded religion. Religion should be added or philosophy deleted. I have no problem either way. But, when Philosophy only is included it gives an assumed bias towards philosophy and against religion (by omitting religion in the title) as valid fields of study.


RJT

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution does not disprove God. You he thinks it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take this quote to mean "You/he things it does."

I won't speak for NotReady.

I already stated the following in my post at the top of this thread: "The two are not mutually exclusive.”

If evolution is correct (true) God started the whole thing is my contention. Doesn’t mean I am right, just my position.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Doug,

Can I butt in again? This is the whole point of NotReady. (Said at the risk of alienating you from reading the rest of my post.) There is no absolute morality without a context of a Moral Authority that promulgated such. We can all agree to some moralities - theoretically everyone in the world can even agree to them. But, if one person does not agree to said morality, there is no “supreme court” that says they are wrong.

If you disagree, then think of an example.

NotReady has already implied that if there is no god then murder is ok. I agree with him. So, now we have two folk who disagree with one possible “absolute morality”. I am not saying I would want to murder someone. I am speaking theoretically- others might, and obviously do, think it is fine to murder (some of the people who commit murder.) .

Moralities are (merely) social conduct that reasonable (rationale) people agree (to and) makes sense in an ordered society.

This a very important (I think) concept to understand. (If I am incorrect, then it is time I get it right anyway.) Once one sees this then one has come to just about the end of ones philosophical studies basically, I think. All of philosophy becomes then just interesting, and good exercise for one’s mind, even a good thing to know but that is about all - definitely a good thing to know when one wants to organize a society and for this last reason philosophy never really ends. It becomes exactly how Hegel referred to it “[Philosophy is only] its own time reflected in thought.”

This last paragraph is why I call this forum hypocritical when it includes philosophy in its title and excluded religion. Religion should be added or philosophy deleted. I have no problem either way. But, when Philosophy only is included it gives an assumed bias towards philosophy and against religion (by omitting religion in the title) as valid fields of study.


RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Sleep time now but I think your wrong on at least one point. Everything about the morality debate is within the domain of philosophy including all religous issues - so no need to add religon. Its not a big point but there's no hypocrisy (I might also mention that there's lots of religon and precious little philosophy on this forum)

As to the contention that there's no absolute morality without god, many (most?) philosophers disagree. Its not a subject I know much about but its not as simple as contributors to this forum seem to believe.

Also, it may be the case that god can define absolute morality but in doing so right and wrong becomes meaningless to man, its just a case of following orders. (unless of course god has no choice about how to define absolute morality, but in that case absolute morality doesn't require god)

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Sleep time now but I think your wrong on at least one point. Everything about the morality debate is within the domain of philosophy including all religious issues - so no need to add religion. Its not a big point but there's no hypocrisy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Well, I should say, I agree what you say, but not your relative juxtaposition of the two. Religion as (only) philosophy is meaningless. Of course, agnostics equate the two; and that is fine. But, I am suggesting that by including philosophy with science and math elevates philosophy to a science (or at least on par with science). That is what is hypocritical. It isn’t the including of the word philosophy in the title, it is the implied license it gives (with its inclusion) to posters to bash religion and worship philosophy. It is ok here to be a “philosopher”, but to be a “religious” is silly. Philosophy is just social thought, nothing more. When posters generally accept philosophy as merely that, then the hypocrisy won’t exist and my point will become moot.


[ QUOTE ]
(I might also mention that there's lots of religion and precious little philosophy on this forum)

[/ QUOTE ]

That is because religion is precious, chez. /images/graemlins/grin.gif Seriously, though, yep and that is good that both are discussed - if nothing else it exercises our minds - and hopefully educates us to what religion might really be saying instead of common misconceptions. After the education, what one does with it is irrelevant to me - that is I do not try to evangelize, here.

[ QUOTE ]
As to the contention that there's no absolute morality without god, many (most?) philosophers disagree. Its not a subject I know much about but its not as simple as contributors to this forum seem to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very important for us to clarify. Perhaps tomorrow one of us (Doug?) can start a new thread to this topic. I am not aware of any philosophy that states there are absolutes without an Absolute Being that can withstand today’s scrutiny.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it may be the case that god can define absolute morality but in doing so right and wrong becomes meaningless to man, its just a case of following orders. (unless of course god has no choice about how to define absolute morality, but in that case absolute morality doesn't require god)

[/ QUOTE ]

No need to put Decartes Bouvier de horse (the cart before the horse. Is there another philosopher that is supposed to replace the words “the horse“? This is an old joke and I can‘t remember the whole thing. ) Let’s get this first point figured out first.

“Bedtime for Bonzo” (me), too - refers to an old movie.

RJT

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I am not really sure if NotReady feels the actual passion his point makes or not


[/ QUOTE ]

That was the intent. If you're going to teach ID in the schools to prove how silly religion is you should also teach ALL of evolution by chance to show what the consequences are.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

How can one know what is ethically correct? Reason,


[/ QUOTE ]

How can reason be valid if chance is ultimate?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Murder is not ethically correct. Yet he wants to teach that it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't. It's DS that doesn't care.

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution does not disprove God.


[/ QUOTE ]

Evoluton by chance does.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

if not how do you decide who is right?


[/ QUOTE ]

The 64 quatrillion dollar question.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

As to the contention that there's no absolute morality without god, many (most?) philosophers disagree


[/ QUOTE ]

No one's established a basis for it yet. Plato could not make the Good above his other ideas. Thus he had plurality and essentially relativity in the ideal world. No one I know has got past this yet.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Evolution does not disprove God. You he thinks it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take this quote to mean "You/he things it does."

I won't speak for NotReady.

I already stated the following in my post at the top of this thread: "The two are not mutually exclusive.”

If evolution is correct (true) God started the whole thing is my contention. Doesn’t mean I am right, just my position.

[/ QUOTE ]Actually it was suppose to be yet he thinks it is correct. Like I said before your position is reasonable. The correctness I disagree with. But provided it's reasonable I'm cool. It's when religious start saying the rest of the world or that my decisions should be based off of gods word that I began to have a problem. Preach whatever you like, I can not or will not try to stop it. But do not use public funds to do so. This relates to ID as well as to the other situation you brought up. Your beliefs, morals, and ethics are yours to live by not mine.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, chez. I am not really sure if NotReady feels the actual passion his point makes or not; ie. If we must teach evolution then we must teach murder ok. His point is a valid one is all. I look at his point as an extreme example of a position one can take of evolution, used to put things in a particular perpective.

[/ QUOTE ]

but it misses the main point. Even if evolution implies no absolute morality it makes no difference to whether evolution is logically possible.

Personally I think killing someone is far worse if there's no god than if there is a god but so what, it makes no difference here.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Chez, I would like to put forth the idea that there is a absolute moralitly. It may be realitive to the positions of the person involved. But I wish to say that given a specific situation that someone is in, there are absolute correct ethical responses. How can one know what is ethically correct? Reason, Knowlege, values, and phsychology. Do you think this is a reasonable position to take?

[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose two people disagree about the ethics in a given situation. Are you saying thats impossible if they are both have full knowledge of the situation? (I think that's what Socrates might say) if not how do you decide who is right?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]If to people disagree about the ethical response, they either do not have full knowledge, full reason, correct axioms. There may be perfecticable acceptable moral alternatives, stemming from ones free will. How do you decide who is right, by gaining full knowledge, better reason, and correct axioms.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Doug,

Can I butt in again? This is the whole point of NotReady. (Said at the risk of alienating you from reading the rest of my post.) There is no absolute morality without a context of a Moral Authority that promulgated such. We can all agree to some moralities - theoretically everyone in the world can even agree to them. But, if one person does not agree to said morality, there is no “supreme court” that says they are wrong.

If you disagree, then think of an example.

NotReady has already implied that if there is no god then murder is ok. I agree with him. So, now we have two folk who disagree with one possible “absolute morality”. I am not saying I would want to murder someone. I am speaking theoretically- others might, and obviously do, think it is fine to murder (some of the people who commit murder.) .

Moralities are (merely) social conduct that reasonable (rationale) people agree (to and) makes sense in an ordered society.

This a very important (I think) concept to understand. (If I am incorrect, then it is time I get it right anyway.) Once one sees this then one has come to just about the end of ones philosophical studies basically, I think. All of philosophy becomes then just interesting, and good exercise for one’s mind, even a good thing to know but that is about all - definitely a good thing to know when one wants to organize a society and for this last reason philosophy never really ends. It becomes exactly how Hegel referred to it “[Philosophy is only] its own time reflected in thought.”

This last paragraph is why I call this forum hypocritical when it includes philosophy in its title and excluded religion. Religion should be added or philosophy deleted. I have no problem either way. But, when Philosophy only is included it gives an assumed bias towards philosophy and against religion (by omitting religion in the title) as valid fields of study.


RJT

[/ QUOTE ] This post has given me great insight into the human mind and the importance of God. I wish I could share it with you. If we can't decide what is wrong and right without god, in my opinion we are lacking. But we are only lacking in our knowledge, in our reason, and in our understanding. So all hope is not lost. I was already aware of these deficeits, but it spells out the difference between you, me, NotReady, and DS quite well.

Those who disagree that depriving someone of thier life is ethical, do not understand ethics, the world, and or reason. Reason is a very difficult, complex thing and no one is born with it fully developed. It is earned. Knowledge of the world has taken millinea.

Philosphy is what you use to make difficult choices, incomplete and all. Philsophy has so much of it's own time interfering with it. Philosophy is riddles with democracy because of it's origins. It is a problem with philosphy that should be addressed.

AS to your last paragraph, to say that someone else must provide you the right to talk about your religion, is a major problem with your arguement here as well as with ID.

Oh and butt in anytime. I certainly learn much more from your posts than I could come up with on my own.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I am not really sure if NotReady feels the actual passion his point makes or not


[/ QUOTE ]

That was the intent. If you're going to teach ID in the schools to prove how silly religion is you should also teach ALL of evolution by chance to show what the consequences are.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm sorry NotReady I can not understand where you are coming from at all. But somehow I think, you think that schools are to provide you the pulpit to teach your views on life. Perhaps you actaully have a problem with evolution. You use the word evolution by chance in your posts. So I can assume that you mean in teaching of evolution, without teaching that evolution was gods work, is incorrect science. Am I arriving at something here?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How can one know what is ethically correct? Reason,


[/ QUOTE ]

How can reason be valid if chance is ultimate?

[/ QUOTE ]Do you mean how can reason be valid if chance exists?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Murder is not ethically correct. Yet he wants to teach that it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't. It's DS that doesn't care.

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution does not disprove God.


[/ QUOTE ]

Evoluton by chance does.

[/ QUOTE ]

DS's philosphical studies seem lacking. Although his logic is prestine.

I've never heard evolution by chance. Perhaps there is a beter way to describe evolution without invoking a creator, if you don't like chance. Natural Selection? Specieazation?

Evolution by creation won't fly. Got anything better, that doesn't do so much damage to your beliefs?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

if not how do you decide who is right?


[/ QUOTE ]

The 64 quatrillion dollar question.

[/ QUOTE ]I gave you the correct answer. Where is my money?

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Murder is not ethically correct. Yet he wants to teach that it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't. It's DS that doesn't care.

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution does not disprove God.


[/ QUOTE ]

Evoluton by chance does.

[/ QUOTE ]

DS's philosphical studies seem lacking. Although his logic is prestine.

I've never heard evolution by chance. Perhaps there is a beter way to describe evolution without invoking a creator, if you don't like chance. Natural Selection? Specieazation?

Evolution by creation won't fly. Got anything better, that doesn't do so much damage to your beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that what NotReady is getting at is that if no god exists, the universe itself exists by chance, which means evolution exists by chance. Since it's just a statistical fluke that we came into existence through evolution, and since there is no higher power dictating the proper mode of behavior, why not slaughter everyone in your town? It ultimately makes no difference.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Murder is not ethically correct. Yet he wants to teach that it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't. It's DS that doesn't care.

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution does not disprove God.


[/ QUOTE ]

Evoluton by chance does.

[/ QUOTE ]

DS's philosphical studies seem lacking. Although his logic is prestine.

I've never heard evolution by chance. Perhaps there is a beter way to describe evolution without invoking a creator, if you don't like chance. Natural Selection? Specieazation?

Evolution by creation won't fly. Got anything better, that doesn't do so much damage to your beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that what NotReady is getting at is that if no god exists, the universe itself exists by chance, which means evolution exists by chance. Since it's just a statistical fluke that we came into existence through evolution, and since there is no higher power dictating the proper mode of behavior, why not slaughter everyone in your town? It ultimately makes no difference.

[/ QUOTE ]Ultimately, it makes no difference either way. It is unethical in both situations. It is only a man without reason who thinks that taking someones life is ethical. It is important to have reason down, before you try to act ethically without someone else telling you what is ethical.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But somehow I think, you think that schools are to provide you the pulpit to teach your views on life.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the exact opposite. My post on teaching murder was simply a response to DS. What I think on this issue is that when evolution is taught by atheists they invariably bring chance into it one way or the other. But that is not scientific, it betrays a world view they may not even be aware of, and is basically an opinion about the entire nature of reality.

[ QUOTE ]

So I can assume that you mean in teaching of evolution, without teaching that evolution was gods work, is incorrect science. Am I arriving at something here?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really an expert in what is being taught currently in public schools. I am familiar with what evolutionists say in books and on the net. When they bring chance in as the explanation for evolution they are no longer doing "real" science. Read Dawkins for instance. Leave chance out of it, teach what is actually known about biology, anthropology, etc. I am not advocating that the schools teach ID, just don't teach chance, and don't bring it in through the back door.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you mean how can reason be valid if chance exists?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. A case can be theoretically made that God could allow chance as long as He controls the result. For instance, He may not care whether a coin comes up heads or tails in most cases, but if a king was using a coin flip to decide whether to go to war, God would make sure the result was how He planned it. Chance, if it exists in any sense,must be below God, not in control of God. Else He isn't God.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I've never heard evolution by chance.


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't always stated directly, but it often is.

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution by creation won't fly


[/ QUOTE ]

At this point some definition of evolution would have to be agreed on. If evolution is change within species, no problem. Certainly God could be the ultimate cause and be in control of that kind of biological process. The main kind of evolution I oppose is the origin of life from non-life by chance. I also am very skeptical of species evolving into entirely different species.

I oppose nothing that is scientifically proven, though I believe much of the content of evolution is still theoretical.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I gave you the correct answer. Where is my money?


[/ QUOTE ]

I missed it. Give it to me again. Move your lips slowly so I can keep up.

[David Sklansky]

"Those who disagree that depriving someone of thier life is ethical, do not understand ethics, the world, and or reason. "

What's the definition of "someone"? A healthy human, a brain dead human, a dolphin, a selectively breeded super smart chimpanzee, an intelleigent alien, a computer that can pass the Turing test? Which of those?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How can one know what is ethically correct? Reason,


[/ QUOTE ]

How can reason be valid if chance is ultimate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whilst its true that chance doesn't guarantee reason, there is a chance of it emerging.

You claim to have a logical proof its not possible, any chance of you producing it.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
But, I am suggesting that by including philosophy with science and math elevates philosophy to a science (or at least on par with science). That is what is hypocritical.

[/ QUOTE ]
I couldn't disagree more. Science is a mere sub-branch of philosophy. If philosophy is considered useless its because whenever a part of it becomes useful it forms its own discipline.

[ QUOTE ]
Philosophy is just social thought, nothing more

[/ QUOTE ]
I take back what I just said, I do disagree more /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
This is very important for us to clarify. Perhaps tomorrow one of us (Doug?) can start a new thread to this topic. I am not aware of any philosophy that states there are absolutes without an Absolute Being that can withstand today’s scrutiny.

[/ QUOTE ]
Happy to chew the fat but not much point unless an expert gets involved. The absolute being theory doesn't stand up very well to this level of scrutiny, Kant is generally thought to fail the test but holds its own far better than god.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you mean how can reason be valid if chance exists?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. A case can be theoretically made that God could allow chance as long as He controls the result. For instance, He may not care whether a coin comes up heads or tails in most cases, but if a king was using a coin flip to decide whether to go to war, God would make sure the result was how He planned it. Chance, if it exists in any sense,must be below God, not in control of God. Else He isn't God.

[/ QUOTE ]

He may not be your god but you have a very limited view of god. God can allow chance if he wishes, only a perverse view of his omnipotence and nature causes a problem.

chez

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What logical objections can be made about the theory of evolution?


[/ QUOTE ]

I make no claim to intellectual but there is a major logical objection to evolution by chance, which is basically the objection to atheism.



[/ QUOTE ]

Since you have decided that the the literal truth of the Bible [is] axiomatic, you are, of course, correct. It is clear to all that some of us do not accept your axiom. If I don't accept your axiom, your statement is not logical. This is the basis of our disagreement.

You say morality is dictated by god, and as such it is absolute.

I say morality is not absolute, because it is a product of the human mind.

We have a "temporal impasse" here, so I am sure I can't convince you that I am correct, and equally sure that you can't convince me that you are correct.

Unless we change our axioms...

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You claim to have a logical proof its not possible, any chance of you producing it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chance is the antithesis of reason. Chance means "no reason". How can reason be based on its opposite?

[NotReady]

You said:

[ QUOTE ]

God can allow chance if he wishes, only a perverse view of his omnipotence and nature causes a problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

I said:
[ QUOTE ]

A case can be theoretically made that God could allow chance as long as He controls the result.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I say morality is not absolute, because it is a product of the human mind.


[/ QUOTE ]

If morality means "ought" then how can that be made relative? It isn't merely a reliance on the Bible.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I say morality is not absolute, because it is a product of the human mind.


[/ QUOTE ]

If morality means "ought" then how can that be made relative? It isn't merely a reliance on the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Morality does not have a physical existence. It only exists in our minds, and thus is different for you than it is for me. An action that is "wrong" for me might be "right" for you. In that case there is no way to prove either of us is absolutely correct.

This does not lead necessarily to chaos because we still have the ability to choose. We can choose not to kill our neighbor, or we can choose to do so and risk the consequences of this world. If a society somehow decided that murder was "ok", meaning there would be no consequences, no vengeful family members, no prison or whatever, do you think they would last long? I don't. I think it would weaken itself such that it would be taken over by its nearest rival in short order.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

An action that is "wrong" for me might be "right" for you.


[/ QUOTE ]

This reduces to might makes right. Hitler's only mistake was losing. Had he won genocide would be ok.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

An action that is "wrong" for me might be "right" for you.


[/ QUOTE ]

This reduces to might makes right. Hitler's only mistake was losing. Had he won genocide would be ok.

[/ QUOTE ]

It happened, and I suppose it would be legal if Hitler's Germany ran the world, but I still think genocide is wrong. My intuition tells me so.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You said:

[ QUOTE ]

God can allow chance if he wishes, only a perverse view of his omnipotence and nature causes a problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

I said:
[ QUOTE ]

A case can be theoretically made that God could allow chance as long as He controls the result.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm.

[/ QUOTE ]

and the two are different, whats your point.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You claim to have a logical proof its not possible, any chance of you producing it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chance is the antithesis of reason. Chance means "no reason". How can reason be based on its opposite?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that it?

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

whats your point.


[/ QUOTE ]

That I don't see yours.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Is that it?


[/ QUOTE ]

It's a brief summary of an argument about which books have been written.

[RJT]

chez,

Not to belabor (belabour) the point, but...

[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't disagree more. Science is a mere sub-branch of philosophy. If philosophy is considered useless it’s because whenever a part of it becomes useful it forms its own discipline.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you are saying. For example logic, which was born from philosophical thought, is really its own branch of science– more of a mathematics almost.

I like how you put that, can I paraphrase you?: Science is merely a sub-branch of philosophy. (Puts things in perspective.)



[ QUOTE ]
Happy to chew the fat but not much point unless an expert gets involved. The absolute being theory doesn't stand up very well to this level of scrutiny, Kant is generally thought to fail the test but holds its own far better than god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, just to make clear what I am saying - I am not saying “there are absolute morals, therefore God.”

I am saying there are no absolute morals unless there is a God.

Even simpler: There are no absolute morals; if there are prove it. Again, I’ll even settle on a few (one) example as proof.

Again, I am not trying to prove God. Prove there are absolutes, period. (If you do, then I’ll take your work and I probably can prove a God, and we will both become famous.)


Regarding an expert: An expert did get involved, DS. His whole dog and pony show was to show that there are no absolute morals. If you disagree then cite my post on 10/04/04. I implored David to state to the forum that there are no absolutes. He did not because he knows there are none. He only posts when he has something to say or to correct someone. His non response is evidence that I am correct when I stated such a thing.

You want to rely on other experts – there are students on the forum that attend a number of leading Universities – get one to ask any professor. If there are absolute morals, I’d be happy to know it and what those morals are.

RJT

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
"Those who disagree that depriving someone of thier life is ethical, do not understand ethics, the world, and or reason. "

What's the definition of "someone"? A healthy human, a brain dead human, a dolphin, a selectively breeded super smart chimpanzee, an intelleigent alien, a computer that can pass the Turing test? Which of those?

[/ QUOTE ]
As far as these go "brain dead human, a dolphin, a selectively breeded super smart chimpanzee, an intelleigent alien, a computer that can pass the Turing test" I don't know and I don't think it is imporant yet. Except maybe for the dolphin instance. Why is it that the only benifit I get from reading your thoughts is the rights of animals? Is it because you think non-Human animals are equal to human animals. Or is it because the other mumbo jumbo you talk amounts to the same bs that the religious on this forum speak, without as much pre existing discusion. I don't want to discuss the eithics of intelligent machines, space aliens, gods, or anything else your genious mind can fathom up until we can get to the ethics of man in regards to man. There is a reality, so can we forget this sidetrack.

Just tell me the point(s) of your question, as it realates to the ethics of man in regard to man?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What does that mean?


[/ QUOTE ]

Much the same as this:

This is fine as long as they also teach that if evolution by chance is true it's ok to murder people.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "ok"? please be more specific.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I am not really sure if NotReady feels the actual passion his point makes or not


[/ QUOTE ]

That was the intent. If you're going to teach ID in the schools to prove how silly religion is you should also teach ALL of evolution by chance to show what the consequences are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most places do teach that murder is ok. Rightfully so. Ever heard of the death penalty? Lets also not forget that murder is ok even in the religious model of the world. We may murder emotional animals for survival and judeo-christian religions do support the death penalty too.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
When they bring chance in as the explanation for evolution they are no longer doing "real" science. Leave chance out of it, teach what is actually known about biology, anthropology, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe quantum mechanics is fake science even though no human observation has ever contradicted a prediction of the theory?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "ok"? please be more specific.


[/ QUOTE ]

If God doesn't exist then everything is relative, there is no right or wrong, might makes right.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Most places do teach that murder is ok. Rightfully so. Ever heard of the death penalty?


[/ QUOTE ]

I distinguish murder from killing.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you believe quantum mechanics is fake science even though no human observation has ever contradicted a prediction of the theory?


[/ QUOTE ]


As I understand it, and I've been over this on this forum before, QM simply states that we can't predict when and where a particle will be because our observation changes location and speed. Thus it's a question of our ignorance, not of absolute chance.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Most places do teach that murder is ok. Rightfully so. Ever heard of the death penalty?


[/ QUOTE ]

I distinguish murder from killing.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Most places do teach that murder is ok. Rightfully so. Ever heard of the death penalty?


[/ QUOTE ]



I distinguish murder from killing.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to speak for NotReady, but - Killing connotes some reason behind it, some "justification”. Murder does not need a “reason”.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Most places do teach that murder is ok. Rightfully so. Ever heard of the death penalty?


[/ QUOTE ]



I distinguish murder from killing.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to speak for NotReady, but - Killing connotes some reason behind it, some "justification”. Murder does not need a “reason”.

[/ QUOTE ]

When does murder occur without a reason? can i have an example?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Most places do teach that murder is ok. Rightfully so. Ever heard of the death penalty?


[/ QUOTE ]



I distinguish murder from killing.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to speak for NotReady, but - Killing connotes some reason behind it, some "justification”. Murder does not need a “reason”.

[/ QUOTE ]

When does murder occur without a reason? can i have an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I leave my house and go shoot somebody right now.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "ok"? please be more specific.


[/ QUOTE ]

If God doesn't exist then everything is relative, there is no right or wrong, might makes right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though saying "might makes right" does oversimplify it a bit, I do think that is what this matter basically comes down to. Humanity's version of might makes right is much more complex than that of the other animals, though that is the underlying theme of our moral systems.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

How so?


[/ QUOTE ]

Intent and/or motive. As in the law, murder one, manslaughter, negligent homicide, self defense, captial punishment. Oh yeah, war.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How so?


[/ QUOTE ]

Intent and/or motive. As in the law, murder one, manslaughter, negligent homicide, self defense, captial punishment. Oh yeah, war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, how is the intent and/or motive different for someone "murdering" for evolutionary purposes or "killing" in the case of war or the death penalty?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

whats your point.


[/ QUOTE ]

That I don't see yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was saying that god can allow chance if he wants to, that is create a situation where the outcome is random. You are claiming he can't because then he has no control over the result.

Have I misunderstood you or is that a difference.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I like how you put that, can I paraphrase you?: Science is merely a sub-branch of philosophy. (Puts things in perspective.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, royalties to the 'save the chezlaw' fund please.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, just to make clear what I am saying - I am not saying “there are absolute morals, therefore God.”

I am saying there are no absolute morals unless there is a God.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand that's what your saying, I have sympathy with the view but it's not a done deal.

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding an expert: An expert did get involved, DS. His whole dog and pony show was to show that there are no absolute morals. If you disagree then cite my post on 10/04/04. I implored David to state to the forum that there are no absolutes. He did not because he knows there are none. He only posts when he has something to say or to correct someone. His non response is evidence that I am correct when I stated such a thing.

You want to rely on other experts – there are students on the forum that attend a number of leading Universities – get one to ask any professor. If there are absolute morals, I’d be happy to know it and what those morals are.

[/ QUOTE ]

DS may be a genius but his no expert in this field. I'm not going to lead a conversation on absolute morality because I'm too ignorant. I don't want to rely on the testimony of other experts (I'm no DS) but would like an expert to get involved and argue the case for moral absolutism without god and explain if/why there are discredited.

chez

[David Sklansky]

"Just tell me the point(s) of your question, as it realates to the ethics of man in regard to man?"

It means that murder is OK. At least not nearly as bad as Not Ready catching you in a contradiction.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
The main logical objection I could come up with as a scientific theory of the origin of species is that it is not empirically verifiable/falsifiable, in that we cannot practically observe the process by which it suddenly came about. What we can do is more anthropological in nature, by tracing fossils and such, and by emprically observing the act of gentic mutation. This puts two and two together.

That being said, it's still the only game in town as far as a scientific theory goes. Don't flame me as a creationist nut (I am certainly not!). Plus, there might be research on the change of species in a lab that I'm not aware of (as a layperson) -- maybe someone made a new species of insect to adapt to new conditions created in a laboratory. (That would be cool!) This would weaken the above statement. But I'm pretty sure no one has reacreated the "primordial soup" that led to spontaneous "creation" of a one-celled organism that eventually led to more complex creatures. (That would be ever cooler, but would probably take a loooooooooooooong time.)

EDIT: Also, I have trouble coming up with the conditions by which one could RULE OUT the theory. What could happen to overturn it? What study or experiment could do that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both of the things you mention have essentially been done experimentally. We have, in our lifetimes, created new species of plants. You can basically put the 2x or 1.5x the genetic material of the original plant into a plant (or it may occur spontaneously in a nondisjunction event) and result in a new species (in humans such an event is fatal). Oftentimes, you just end up with a larger plant. My AP bio teacher alluded to these sorts of events resulting in things like larger strawberries, but I haven't verified this assertion.

Natural selection processes have certainly occurred in our lifetime. The most famous of these involves the gypsey moth, Biston betularia and its related soot adapted relative Biston carbonia (I'm not sure there's cause for two different species name as I believe they're the same species--whatever). Basically, due to sooty conditions on tree trunks in the dirty 19th century industrial era, selective pressures resulted in greater survival rates for darker genetic variants of a moth.

Neither of these events proves evolution occurred, however.

The fossil record provides some good evidence. I'm told the prokaryote-eukaryote transition is not well elaborated, however. Genetic similiarity studies also provide some strong evidence in favor of the theory of evolution being true.

There's no proof for evolution which is why it's a Theory rather than a law.

If you think about natural selection, it seems pretty damn reasonable. Anyone that argued against the concept of natural selection would be, in my mind, not only ignorant, but incapable of rational tought. Evolution seems like a reasonable enough extension of natural selection, but I can still see some reasoning against evolution being the case (though I have heard absolutely no alternate theories that for which there was any evidence).

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Basically, due to sooty conditions on tree trunks in the dirty 19th century industrial era


[/ QUOTE ]

I once googled this and found some sites that claim this was a hoax. What's the real deal here?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Okay, how is the intent and/or motive different for someone "murdering" for evolutionary purposes or "killing" in the case of war or the death penalty?


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean by "murder is ok" that someone would murder for evoltionary purposes, but that if evolution is true there is no absolute moral standard and so murder isn't wrong. In a moral system distinctions are made on the basis of intent/motive.

I'm not saying people who believe in evolution don't have a moral system and aren't moral themselves. Many atheists behave far better than Christians. My point is that if evolution is true there's no ultimate reason for someone to behave morally - morality can't be justified.

[NotReady]

I said:
[ QUOTE ]

A case can be theoretically made that God could allow chance as long as He controls the result.


[/ QUOTE ]


You said:
[ QUOTE ]

I was saying that god can allow chance if he wants to, that is create a situation where the outcome is random. You are claiming he can't because then he has no control over the result.


[/ QUOTE ]

The difference we're making is whether something can be completely outside the control of God. I believe that God has sovereign power over everything. When you flip a coin, God may not care whether it's heads or tail, so he may not intervene. But He can if He wants to. This is true of everything including man's free will and the movement of particles. Nothing is beyond God's reach. If it was, He would not be God. So maybe our disagreement is on the nature of God.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I said:
[ QUOTE ]

A case can be theoretically made that God could allow chance as long as He controls the result.


[/ QUOTE ]


You said:
[ QUOTE ]

I was saying that god can allow chance if he wants to, that is create a situation where the outcome is random. You are claiming he can't because then he has no control over the result.


[/ QUOTE ]

The difference we're making is whether something can be completely outside the control of God. I believe that God has sovereign power over everything. When you flip a coin, God may not care whether it's heads or tail, so he may not intervene. But He can if He wants to. This is true of everything including man's free will and the movement of particles. Nothing is beyond God's reach. If it was, He would not be God. So maybe our disagreement is on the nature of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you're claiming your god is not god by denying him the power to let something happen at random.

This is not a simple case of a logical paradox. Why shouldn't god want to make something happen at random? The logical problem only occurs when you insists god has to be able to know things he doesn't want to be able to know.

chez

[hurlyburly]

Is the commandment "Thou shalt not murder." or "Thou shalt not kill."?

Curious in Texas

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The logical problem only occurs when you insists god has to be able to know things he doesn't want to be able to know.


[/ QUOTE ]

The logical problem is how can an all-powerful God not be all-powerful?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The logical problem only occurs when you insists god has to be able to know things he doesn't want to be able to know.


[/ QUOTE ]

The logical problem is how can an all-powerful God not be all-powerful?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a logical problem at all in less you have that perverse view that all powerful means that god cannot do what he wants to.

I still don't understand why you deny god the power to make something happen by chance. It's such an extraordinary view for someone who claims god is all powerful.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
"Just tell me the point(s) of your question, as it realates to the ethics of man in regard to man?"

It means that murder is OK. At least not nearly as bad as Not Ready catching you in a contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

David, Is our general disagreement one regarding the conclusion of objective ethics in relation to man regarding man? Between it is OK to murder, versus it is unethical to murder? Do I have a foundation that there is an objective ethics to work on? If you say that murder is ok, this is a statement of objective morality.

If we agree that there is an objective morality, it's a mere matter of seeing whose reason is best, and who is privy to and using significant knowledge.

As to NotReady catching me in a contradiction, I'm happy when where I'm lacking is pointed out. I don't have much emotional investment in being correct.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]

Much the same as this:

This is fine as long as they also teach that if evolution by chance is true it's ok to murder people.

[/ QUOTE ]

NotReady's posts are superlative in that they often provide multiple examples of logical fallacies (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm) in nearly every sentence.

[Jeremy517]

Note: I can't take credit for writing this. It was posted on another board I read.

If Evolutionists really want to persuade people, here are some things they must address.....

Originally, it was thought that life took billions of years to form, simply because evolution was thought to be slow because it is based on random mutations, collection of amino acids that have incredible odds stacked against them, etc. Now we know that life arose almost instantly as soon as it was possible for life to survive 3.8 billion years ago. The Late Heavy Bombardment, which turned the surface into a magma ocean lasted to about 3.85 billion years ago, and it is thought that it would take roughly 50 million years for the earth to cool, water to condense, etc. etc. and for life to even be possible. Life arose in a geological instant, and there needs to be a good explanation for that.

Secondly, the first life to appear 3.8 billion years ago was unicellular, but it was also complex. It wasn't just a cell floating around. It was advanced, and it was diverse. If there were simpler life before that, or if there was any kind of primordial soup, there would be tremendous evidence of carbonaceous material in the layers below that first unicellular life, and there isn't.

Thirdly, there needs to be a plausible mechanism for evolution. Gradualism is not validated by the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion contains roughly 85% of all phyla in a space of 5-10 million years. And that occured over 2 billion years after the first life. Punctuated Equilibrium has no real mechanism by which to work. And we have done ourselves a disservice by arranging the "tree of life" the way we have, which is mainly on body type, because it is no longer consistant with DNA evidence.

Forth, evolution needs a way to deal with Convergence. If things are truly random, (and as Gould suggests, that if we run the tape back and play it over again, everything will be different) we would not expect to see so many similar features arising in unrelated organisms like we do.

Fifth, we see no evidence of speciation since [censored] sapien sapien. Not a new bacteria, not a new insect, not a new anything. Where this is most troubling is the fact that the higher the population size, the more likely we should see mutations that produce a new species. However, in looking at the ants and the whales (with incredibly different population size, justation period, etc.) we see no change in either over the same period of time.

Lastly, there needs to be a plausible explanation for the jumps and stasis (depending on what you are looking at) with regards to the encephalization quotient (brain mass to body mass ratio). Humans rank at about a 7, which is 2 points higher than the next closest animal, which is the dolphin. Most hominds are around a 2.5, while Neanderthal is about a 4, which is still nearly twice as low. Beyond that, there is also the question of composition make up of the brain.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

NotReady's posts are superlative in that they often provide multiple examples of logical fallacies in nearly every sentence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

NotReady's posts are superlative in that they often provide multiple examples of logical fallacies in nearly every sentence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one.

[/ QUOTE ]

"This is fine as long as they also teach that if evolution by chance is true it's ok to murder people. "

The preceding is an implicit appeal to consequences (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/conseq.htm) .

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Note: I can't take credit for writing this. It was posted on another board I read.

If Evolutionists really want to persuade people, here are some things they must address.....

[/ QUOTE ]

The author apparently doesn't realize the items on this list (at least those which are relevant to evolution) were "addressed" years ago. The author should read basic evolutionary theory before he posts irrelevant and false "arguments" and strawmen.

[ QUOTE ]

Originally, it was thought that life took billions of years to form, simply because evolution was thought to be slow because it is based on random mutations, collection of amino acids that have incredible odds stacked against them, etc. Now we know that life arose almost instantly as soon as it was possible for life to survive 3.8 billion years ago. The Late Heavy Bombardment, which turned the surface into a magma ocean lasted to about 3.85 billion years ago, and it is thought that it would take roughly 50 million years for the earth to cool, water to condense, etc. etc. and for life to even be possible. Life arose in a geological instant, and there needs to be a good explanation for that.


[/ QUOTE ]

The emergence of life, called abiogenesis, is not part of evolutionary theory as it is a very different process. It is true that theories of abiogenesis are not as well validated as evolution since, unlike the latter, there no longer remains direct evidence of the pre-biotic self-replicating organic molecules which led to life. Nevertheless, it is hardly considered by researchers to be inexplicable, and much progress has been made to formulate a theory.

In any case, evolution need not "account" for the supposed sudden emergence of life, since that is not part of the theory.

[ QUOTE ]

Secondly, the first life to appear 3.8 billion years ago was unicellular, but it was also complex. It wasn't just a cell floating around. It was advanced, and it was diverse. If there were simpler life before that, or if there was any kind of primordial soup, there would be tremendous evidence of carbonaceous material in the layers below that first unicellular life, and there isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is strong evidence that the chemistry of the early Earth was conducive to the synthesis of complex organic molecules. I don't have the expertise to refute your claim about the lack of "carbonaceous material" being evidence against current theories of abiogenesis. I do know that if a theory is shown to be inconsistent with geological evidence, it is abandoned. There really is no "atheistic conspiracy" among scientists to establish a theory easily falsified by the evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
Thirdly, there needs to be a plausible mechanism for evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the first point that is even pertinent to evolution. The "plausible mechanism" is known to be genetic variability + natural selection.

[ QUOTE ]

Gradualism is not validated by the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion contains roughly 85% of all phyla in a space of 5-10 million years. And that occured over 2 billion years after the first life. Punctuated Equilibrium has no real mechanism by which to work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only does the fossil record not falsify evolution, it provides overwhelming evidence in support of the theory. Numerous predictions have been made from evolution, which were later validated by the discovery of new fossils. Read some of the evidence yourself (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) .

[ QUOTE ]
And we have done ourselves a disservice by arranging the "tree of life" the way we have, which is mainly on body type, because it is no longer consistant with DNA evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is known to be false. The consistency between the tree of life based on the fossil record/morphology and that based on more recent DNA evidence is perhaps the single most powerful evidence in support of evolution. This is known as the twin-nested hierarchy. Read about it here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy)

[ QUOTE ]

Forth, evolution needs a way to deal with Convergence. If things are truly random, (and as Gould suggests, that if we run the tape back and play it over again, everything will be different) we would not expect to see so many similar features arising in unrelated organisms like we do.


[/ QUOTE ]

The author misquotes Gould out of context. Convergence (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/glossary.html#convergence) in fact is predicted by natural selection.

[ QUOTE ]

Fifth, we see no evidence of speciation since [censored] sapien sapien.


[/ QUOTE ]

Speciation has been observed (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) both in nature and in the lab.

[ QUOTE ]

Lastly, there needs to be a plausible explanation for the jumps and stasis (depending on what you are looking at) with regards to the encephalization quotient (brain mass to body mass ratio).

[/ QUOTE ]

The fossil record in fact shows a gradual increase in brain size among hominids over the last 10 million (or so) years.

See this hominid evolution FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/) .

[David Sklansky]

Who ARE you?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Who ARE you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer not to provide my full name.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

NotReady's posts are superlative in that they often provide multiple examples of logical fallacies in nearly every sentence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one.

[/ QUOTE ]

"This is fine as long as they also teach that if evolution by chance is true it's ok to murder people. "

The preceding is an implicit appeal to consequences (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/conseq.htm) .

[/ QUOTE ]

NotReady does not say this:

(i) You can't agree that evolution is true, because if it were,
then we would be no better than monkeys and apes.
(ii) You must believe in God, for otherwise life would have
no meaning. (Perhaps, but it is equally possible that since
life has no meaning that God does not exist.)


I understand him to say this:

(i) If you agree that evolution is true, and if you agree that God has (had) no input in it, then we would be no better than monkeys and apes (maybe he would say - we are different than them, because we can think - and perhaps even that since we can think we are more interesting than them - better or worse is too subjective a word - he would say that simply because we can think, does not make us better than them. It does not.

(ii) Life has no absolute or ultimate meaning if there is no God. Have all the meaning you want in life. But, don’t state there is meaning, per se, without a God. If so what is it? Tell me. If everyone agrees to said meaning you might be on to something. Get back to me when you know what said meaning is. Then we’ll decide.

So, try another superlative, bluesman.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

NotReady's posts are superlative in that they often provide multiple examples of logical fallacies in nearly every sentence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Name one.

[/ QUOTE ]

"This is fine as long as they also teach that if evolution by chance is true it's ok to murder people. "

The preceding is an implicit appeal to consequences (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/conseq.htm) .

[/ QUOTE ]

NotReady does not say this:

(i) You can't agree that evolution is true, because if it were,
then we would be no better than monkeys and apes.
(ii) You must believe in God, for otherwise life would have
no meaning. (Perhaps, but it is equally possible that since
life has no meaning that God does not exist.)

So, try another superlative, bluesman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't claim he said what you quote. I stand by my example.

[RJT]

I was not quoting NotReady, nor you quoting him. The quote was a repeat of what was in the link. With the link you inferred that NotReady made similar type arguments.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you believe quantum mechanics is fake science even though no human observation has ever contradicted a prediction of the theory?


[/ QUOTE ]


As I understand it, and I've been over this on this forum before, QM simply states that we can't predict when and where a particle will be because our observation changes location and speed. Thus it's a question of our ignorance, not of absolute chance.

[/ QUOTE ]


Nope, by my understanding, your conclusions are incorrect. Firstly, the uncertainty principle says that its impossible to get those measurments exact. This is a natural phenomena, so to speak, rather than the result of ignorance.
Secondly, what about quantum tunneling and other quantum phenomena that are based on pure chance?

Chance, from what i understand, is definitely intrinsic to the studies of quantum mechanics. The "chance" i speak of is NOT the result of feeble, ignorant experiemtns, but rather an inherent part of nature. Though i am no expert, I am quite sure my understanding of this issue is correct.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Chance, from what i understand, is definitely intrinsic to the studies of quantum mechanics. The "chance" i speak of is NOT the result of feeble, ignorant experiemtns, but rather an inherent part of nature. Though i am no expert, I am quite sure my understanding of this issue is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if QM (or something similar) is correct then the uncertainty principle means its impossible to know position and momentum precisely.

Are you saying that it is impossible that there is an explanation which would allow exact measurements or is it just that the best explanations avaliable say that exact measurements are impossible.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Nope, by my understanding, your conclusions are incorrect. Firstly, the uncertainty principle says that its impossible to get those measurments exact.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've asked someone else on this board who seemed knowledgeable and he assured me that our observation affects the measurements. I've also found science sites on the net which agree.

[ QUOTE ]

Secondly, what about quantum tunneling and other quantum phenomena that are based on pure chance?


[/ QUOTE ]

Never heard of it. How can a finite being establish the existence of pure chance?

[NotReady]

The logical position is that if it's wrong to murder, evolution by chance isn't true, and if ebc is true it isn't wrong to murder. Therefore, if ebc is true and it isn't wrong to murder and you insist on teaching ALL of ID in the schools and you teach ebc in the schools then you should teach ALL of ebc in the schools which includes that's it' ok to murder. I don't make a logical argument that you should believe in God because if ebc is true it's ok to murder.

I see no logical fallacy. Feel free to try again. I have no doubt I've made one somewhere as I don't spend a great deal of time checking everything I say against every possible logical aspect. I just didn't make one here.

[Hoopster81]

[ QUOTE ]
Originally, it was thought that life took billions of years to form, simply because evolution was thought to be slow because it is based on random mutations, collection of amino acids that have incredible odds stacked against them, etc. Now we know that life arose almost instantly as soon as it was possible for life to survive 3.8 billion years ago. The Late Heavy Bombardment, which turned the surface into a magma ocean lasted to about 3.85 billion years ago, and it is thought that it would take roughly 50 million years for the earth to cool, water to condense, etc. etc. and for life to even be possible. Life arose in a geological instant, and there needs to be a good explanation for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that the appearance of life (on Earth) coincides with the appearance of liquid water makes a strong case for the arguement that life did not begin on Earth.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

life did not begin on Earth.


[/ QUOTE ]


The Hopeful Alien Theory, or HAT - first stated by Clarke in 2001, I think. The out for evolution if and when it's shown that none of their models account for the evidence. About as "scientific" as evolution by chance.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

life did not begin on Earth.


[/ QUOTE ]


The Hopeful Alien Theory, or HAT - first stated by Clarke in 2001, I think. The out for evolution if and when it's shown that none of their models account for the evidence. About as "scientific" as evolution by chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe the late 70s by respected scientists?

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/wickramasinghe/article.html

On your other point, what do you believe is the mechanism for evolution if not by chance (mutation of genes)? Do you believe in evolution but mediated by non-chance events (eg divine intervention, ID, or other non-chance (eg deterministic but natural ) mechanism)?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

On your other point, what do you believe is the mechanism for evolution if not by chance (mutation of genes)? Do you believe in evolution but mediated by non-chance events (eg divine intervention, ID, or other non-chance (eg deterministic but natural ) mechanism)?


[/ QUOTE ]

My general position on evolution is that far more claims are made than proved. Some things obviously occur in nature that are called evolution and which no one I know disagrees with - species change in color, size, strength, etc. The problem is no one can show that chance exists, so to connect evolution to chance is "unscientific". It's interesting to note that HAT doesn't solve this problem. When I first saw 2001, in the theatre in 1969 I think, it occured to me they were only succeeding in setting up an infinite regress. If aliens caused us, who or what caused them?

Anticipating, I know this is also the argument against the cosmological theistic proof. As that proof is usually stated, it has that flaw, which is why I don't use it as it is normally presented.

Edit: BTW, when I said 2001 I meant the movie, 2001, A Space Odessey, not the year.

[Trantor]

It is known chance mutations to the gentic structure can cause variations in the animal that develops. A standard technique to provide variations in fruit flies, for example. In humans too, chernobyle and all that.

So, it is known chance mutations can cause changes in the animal and so be subject to selective pressures.

What I have never understood is what non-chance events could result in changes in the animal that would subject it to selection pressures. Chance events are easily explained whether background radiation or simple mistranscribing of the DNA.

I really am amazed that you can say "The problem is no one can show that chance exists, so to connect evolution to chance is "unscientific".

Or are you saying something basic about the nature of the universe (not just in the context of evolution)? That is , in principle, nothing can happen by chance?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
It is known chance mutations to the gentic structure can cause variations in the animal that develops. A standard technique to provide variations in fruit flies, for example. In humans too, chernobyle and all that.

So, it is known chance mutations can cause changes in the animal and so be subject to selective pressures.

What I have never understood is what non-chance events could result in changes in the animal that would subject it to selection pressures. Chance events are easily explained whether background radiation or simple mistranscribing of the DNA.

I really am amazed that you can say "The problem is no one can show that chance exists, so to connect evolution to chance is "unscientific".

Or are you saying something basic about the nature of the universe (not just in the context of evolution)? That is , in principle, nothing can happen by chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

NotReady believes that even an all powerful god cannot cause something to happen by chance.

chez

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]

NotReady believes that even an all powerful god cannot cause something to happen by chance.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

So the RNG's aren't possible? Party is rigged!!

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Or are you saying something basic about the nature of the universe (not just in the context of evolution)? That is , in principle, nothing can happen by chance?


[/ QUOTE ]

This one. Chance is a perfectly valid concept within the laws of nature. I view chance as a euphemism for ignorance. I flip a coin and from my perspective whether it's heads or tails is random. But if I knew everything that affects the coin I could calculate exactly which it will be. I contest the idea of ultimate chance. Only omnipotence can know empirically whether chance exists. And though the laws of probablility are necessary for many scientific applications, they aren't necessary in biological theories, and they are often brought in as a stealth argument to counter theism. If God exists, chance doesn't. The coin comes up heads because God wills it. Genetic mutations occur because God wills it. That doesn't exclude secondary causes. When we don't know those secondary causes, when we are ignorant of them, we call it chance.

[David Sklansky]

"The coin comes up heads because God wills it."

But why does he will it to come up almost exactly half the time? Why has NOTHING ever occurred outside of six standard deviations or so?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But why does he will it to come up almost exactly half the time? Why has NOTHING ever occurred outside of six standard deviations or so?


[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't you ever heard of the laws of probability?

[David Sklansky]

"I view chance as a euphemism for ignorance. I flip a coin and from my perspective whether it's heads or tails is random. But if I knew everything that affects the coin I could calculate exactly which it will be. I contest the idea of ultimate chance."

That makes sense to me. Einstein agrees with you as well. But Bell's Inequality, I'm told, comes close to proving we are all three wrong. And I believe 99% of physicists say that when it comes to subatomic particles (and thus ultimately everything made of them) ultimate chance does exist.

I am still a bit skeptical but I have no right to disagree with them (since they include people as smart as me and who know more about the subject). Same goes for you.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"I view chance as a euphemism for ignorance. I flip a coin and from my perspective whether it's heads or tails is random. But if I knew everything that affects the coin I could calculate exactly which it will be. I contest the idea of ultimate chance."

That makes sense to me. Einstein agrees with you as well. But Bell's Inequality, I'm told, comes close to proving we are all three wrong. And I believe 99% of physicists say that when it comes to subatomic particles (and thus ultimately everything made of them) ultimate chance does exist.

I am still a bit skeptical but I have no right to disagree with them (since they include people as smart as me and who know more about the subject). Same goes for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone else know much about this. In my very limited understanding it seems that Bells inequality, locality etc are only relevant to those 'inside' the system and do not mean a god or being 'outside' the universe would be subject to chance.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I am still a bit skeptical but I have no right to disagree with them (since they include people as smart as me and who know more about the subject). Same goes for you.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a lot skeptical. But there's one other point I've made in posts with chez. God could allow pure chance in small things so long as He retains control of the effect. He might let particles bounce around any way they want but has the final say over the result. I don't think it works this way, but it's at least theoretically possible and doesn't detract from His sovereignty any more than allowing you and me to flip a quarter, winner take all, with the result purely random.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

life did not begin on Earth.


[/ QUOTE ]


The Hopeful Alien Theory, or HAT - first stated by Clarke in 2001, I think. The out for evolution if and when it's shown that none of their models account for the evidence. About as "scientific" as evolution by chance.

[/ QUOTE ]


The electron density of certain spores, including those of the hallucinogen-containing mushroom Psylocybe cubenis, are similar to metals and considered to be robust enough for interstellar travel.

Here's a PDF document (http://www.astrobiology.cf.ac.uk/Wallis.pdf) with serious discussion of the matter. If you use google, you can search for this document and get it in html form.


I'd say it's about as scientific as evolution by chance, but only because it still requires evolution by chance. Chance rules the universe and everything appears to happen by chance. It's just in some cases the numbers become bigger and the chance takes many orders of magnitude to occur. Your use of language strikes me as an attempt at derogatory slight whereas if you consider your words more critically, there are additional implications to your words.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

there are additional implications to your words.


[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

there are additional implications to your words.


[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your use of the word chance makes it sound like *poof* and then there was life. Sort of an unexplained throwaway of "life happened, next..." At the same time, chance also implies an idea that isn't so flippant, a more statistical/probabalistic view. I was just pointing out that you might accidentally have given more credit to the idea that life may have arisen spontaneously than you meant to do by your choice of words.

If I thought myself more clever, I might assume you had engaged in a Freudian slip. As it is, I just see multiple ways of interpreting your statement, one of which seems to be a perversion of your intention.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
That makes sense to me. Einstein agrees with you as well. But Bell's Inequality, I'm told, comes close to proving we are all three wrong. And I believe 99% of physicists say that when it comes to subatomic particles (and thus ultimately everything made of them) ultimate chance does exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an a priori assumption among scientists that quantum mechanics will not be falsified by the Bell test experiments (in other words, bell inequalities are violated), and as a result, physicists are confident that once detection loopholes are blocked, they will confirm Bell's theorem. One should recognize that egos are at stake here, and that there is no firm agreement on what constitutes conclusive proof. But it doesn't matter...

If you really must cling to the principle of local realism -- that is, that properties of particles exist independant of observation -- then you can take the view that a non-local hidden variable theory (e.g Bohm Interpretation) is correct. I don't know enough about superluminal phenomena to determine how plausible this; It may be at odds with relativity. Anyway, there seems to be some hope for absolute determinism.

[Trantor]

The search for a hidden variable theory of quantum mechanics continues. The EPR paradox attempted to show that quantum mechanics must be deterministic. The Bell inequalities are a different prediction for that scenario on the assumption that there cannot be any hidden variables. The Bell inequalities have been shown to hold experimentally so proving the EPR paradox is not a paradox after all and that their proof of the existance of deterministic quantum mechanics fails (hence the continued serach by some for a hidden variable theory).

God does play dice, after all.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]

God does play dice, after all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet, TJ Cloutier is G-d. I got his autograph!

[Dan Mezick]

Once again any arguments against darwinism are assumed to confirm creationism.

You can disagree completely with darwinism and not confirm creationism. The idea that invalidating darwinism confirms creationism just perpetuates the going-nowhere status quo of this "debate".

For example both sides can't deal with the info link below. That's what dogma does to you, it rots your brain. darwinists are at least as dogma-prone as the others.

Free your mind.



Start here. (http://www.panspermia.org/)

[Dan Mezick]

Once again any arguments against darwinism are assumed to confirm creationism.

You can disagree completely with darwinism and not confirm creationism. The idea that invalidating darwinism confirms creationism just perpetuates the going-nowhere status quo.

For example both sides can't deal with the info link below. That's what dogma does to you, it rots your brain. darwinists are at least as dogma-prone as the others.

Free your mind.



Start here. (http://www.panspermia.org/)

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

I've asked someone else on this board who seemed knowledgeable and he assured me that our observation affects the measurements. I've also found science sites on the net which agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but does not prove your point. Read this and hopefully you will understand what i mean.(also, if this doesn't prove my point, let me know why).
(from:quantum mechanics in plain english (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/quantum.shtml) )
" OBSERVERS DISTURB WHAT THEY MEASURE

Quantum mechanics says only certain answers are allowable. In the case of our pesky couch and ceiling particle, only "couch" or "ceiling" is an allowable answer. This is the crux of quantum mechanics: since the answer must be either "couch" or ceiling," and cannot be somewhere in between, we say the answers are quantized. In other words, when we ask this mixed particle where it is, there is a 30% chance it will say "couch" and a 70% chance it will say ceiling." And nobody has any control over which answer it will give.

The particle does not know which answer it will give until we ask, and we, the askers, have no way of determining which answer the particle will give. The limitation here is not a limitation of our experiments or measurements. The particle itself doesn't know what it's going to say until asked. This phenomenon is by far the weirdest of all quantum phenomena.

Here's the situation. When a mixed particle is forced by our question to give us an allowable answer, it will suddenly and uncontrollably be thrown into a pure state of the type the question demands. When we ask the question, we force the particle into a pure state, but we have no way of knowing which state that will be. When the particle gives its answer, it becomes a pure state, and it will stay that way until otherwise disturbed.

Let's say that when we asked the particle where it is, it must reply (and be snapped into),"The couch state." That, of course, is a pure position state, not a mixture of two position states. It is true, though not the whole truth. We'll never know about the ceiling state, and the particle has no recollection of it. But from now on, if we ask it again where it is, the particle will always say it's behind the couch.

Remember the movie theater? You really could sit in three places at once. But, when someone asks you where you are sitting, you would suddenly be thrown into one and only one seat, say in the front, and "front" would have to be your answer, even though there's more truth to be known about where you sit. "


Another thing you may be refering to is the fact that to view anything we need light. Therefore, in order to see a particle, light must reflect off the particle. The act of the light hitting the particle will change the particles position. This is NOT why particles have undeterminable positions. Again, i'm pretty sure my understanding of this is correct, but i'm having trouble finding a link to verify. Regerdless, this or my above link at least seems to be what you are talking about.




[ QUOTE ]


Never heard of it. How can a finite being establish the existence of pure chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

A finite being can't fully validate pure chance, but no human trial/observation has ever contradicted a prediction of quantum mechanics.

the original point

Aside from the above, here are some links that will hopefully better explain what i've come to understand:

(from: the uncertain universe (http://physicalworld.org/restless_universe/html/ru_5print.html). i'd suggesting reading the whole thing by clicking the link, but here is a very relevant section of the page which i bolded for key reading points.)

"
The use of probability in physics was not new. But the suggestion that probability was intrinsic and unavoidable was shocking. In classical physics, probability was used when something which could be known in principle (such as the exact path of a particle) was not known; probability filled the gap left by ignorance. Statistical mechanics, for example, used probabilities to estimate likely pressures and entropies, compensating for ignorance about detailed molecular motions. It was not doubted however, that such details existed, and could be determined in principle. In quantum mechanics the situation was completely different; a probabilistic statement along the lines of 'this has a 30% chance of happening' might well be the most that could be said in a certain situation, even in principle.
figure 1.30, A quantum mechanical model of a hydrogen atom Figure 1.30 A quantum mechanical model of a hydrogen atom, which has one electron, in its state of lowest energy. The varying density of the spots indicates the relative likelihood of finding the electron in any particular region.
Click here for larger image (11.88kb)
Niels Bohr, whose atomic theory was overthrown by quantum mechanics, was a keen supporter of the new mechanics. He had partly inspired Heisenberg to undertake its development in the first place, and in May 1926 he welcomed Heisenberg to his institute in Copenhagen where a great deal of effort went into formulating a complete interpretation of quantum mechanics that included the idea of intrinsic probabilities. The Copenhagen interpretation that emerged from this work is now regarded as the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics, though there have always been those who have questioned its correctness. Some of the features of this interpretation are: The measurable properties of objects (position, velocity, etc.) do not generally have values except just after a measurement. Measurement causes potentiality to become actuality. The measured values occur at frequencies determined by probabilistic rules. The probabilities are intrinsic and fundamental, and can be predicted by quantum mechanics. The last of these points represents a substantial shift from classical determinism. In classical mechanics the past uniquely determines the present and hence the future. In quantum mechanics this is not so. Even the most complete possible knowledge of the past would only permit the calculation of the probability of future events. Some, perhaps a little naively, saw in this a scientific basis for free will: there was an element of freedom, or at least of chance, in the Universe. The Copenhagen interpretation calls simple realism into question. If the most that you can say about a position measurement you are about to perform is that various values may be obtained, with various probabilities, then it may well mean that the object has no position until it is measured. Note that this is quite different from saying that the object has a position which you don't happen to know - it is as if the object had not made up its mind where to appear until the position measurement has been made. Clearly if you say that the object has no position, you call into question its independent reality, and hence the philosophy of realism, at least in its simplest form. This emphasizes the enormous importance of measurement in quantum physics and the motivation for making statements such as '...they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts' and 'there is no quantum world'. An alternative stance is to assume that there is a real world out there, but to admit that it cannot be adequately described in terms of classical concepts such as position or velocity. This is plausible. We have no right to expect microscopic physics to be just a scaled-down version of everyday experience. Given that quantum mechanics deals with a microscopic world well beyond the immediate reach of our senses and intuitions, perhaps the most surprising thing is that we can make predictions at all. From this perspective, the price that must be paid for the mismatch between our classical concepts and the quantum world is astonishingly small, and is reflected mainly in the appearance of probabilities. In philosophical terms, the concept of a real world can be preserved by admitting that certain aspects of it are inaccessible to us, clumsy giants that we are. But in practical, or scientific, terms this makes no difference. It is hard to see how we could ever develop an understanding that was not based on classical concepts, so probabilities seem destined to remain intrinsic and unavoidable, offering the only gateway through which we can glimpse the microscopic world.

Question 1.6
In Section 1 it was said that the notion of scientific law was based on the fact that identical situations produced identical outcomes. To what extent does this remain true in quantum physics where identical experiments may produce different outcomes?

Q1.6 In quantum mechanics, identical situations do not always produce identical outcomes. Nevertheless, a certain regularity remains because if an experimental arrangement has a variety of possible outcomes, each occurring with a definite probability, subsequent repetitions of the experiment will have the same outcomes occurring with the same probabilities. By repeating the experiment a large number of times we can check whether the probabilities predicted by quantum mechanics are valid. The most important characteristic of a scientific law is that it should be open to experimental tests. Quantum mechanics has introduced a new type of scientific law - one based on probability which embraces the fact that identical situations do not produce identical outcomes."

[IronUnkind]

There are deterministic scenarios which do not violate Bell's theorem (unlikely as they may be).

[NotReady]

Interesting stuff. But I don't see that it establishes that chance exists. I don't see how finite mind can ever do that, because no matter how much we know, if we don't know everything, we don't know that God isn't controlling microsopic physics, either directly or though natural laws we haven't yet discovered.

Another point that occurred to me in the last couple weeks and I've mentioned in some posts since then. Even if particles have some randomness even for God(which if they do it's only because He has designed it that way), if the results of that randomness are within a certain boundary, then the chance elements of position and velocity would not detract from God's sovereignty. For Him, the chance factor of particles would be irrelevant to the accomplishment of His plan or stated another way, He can use that kind of chance as part of the accomplishment of His plan.