Can you give me an observable evidence that Evolution is true?

[Nietzsche]

what spontaneous mechanism created the spontaneous mechanism? that's a paradox unique to atheism.

I already went over why the universe has effectively always existed. There can be no time before time.

Creative intelligence is the only phenomena which can break the chain of infinite spontaneity with the unique creative power of purpose, intent will

Except that there is no chain to speak of. There can only be "before" if there is time. A Creator implies life before both time and space(both in the sense of outer space and the abstract concept of space). That makes more sense than 'spontaneous'?

 

[LuisDantas]

what spontaneous mechanism created the spontaneous mechanism? that's a paradox unique to atheism.

More like the idea that there must be a creator is a paradox unique to certain varieties of theism, actually.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think you are mixing things.

Automated, naturalistic, chance, spontaneous are four things with very different meanings. For instance, naturalstic does not entail chance. The same for automated, whatever you mean with that.

You are moving the target. Which one do you want to address, if any?

Ciao

- viole

it's your belief, pick whichever label you prefer for what you believe, it doesn't change the belief

I don't mind, but it would make for a more interesting discussion on substance rather than language

 

[SkepticThinker]

"It's as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" Dawkins

You've given a quote mine in response. Seriously??

 

[SkepticThinker]

as above, you may want to take it up with Dawkins
"It's as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history"

I don't have to take up anything with Dawkins, since he isn't here.

I just need to look at the evidence. I can drive down the street a few miles and see the Canadian Shield for myself.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I already went over why the universe has effectively always existed. There can be no time before time.


Except that there is no chain to speak of. There can only be "before" if there is time. A Creator implies life before both time and space(both in the sense of outer space and the abstract concept of space). That makes more sense than 'spontaneous'?

that's one way to look at it, Hawking ran into that problem and made up his own imaginary time for multiverses to exist in.
other's like Linde posit our time being created within another time existing in another universe etc...

intelligent design v chance can both be argued in one universe (big crunch) or multiverses (alien creators)?

so it's a separate, and interesting q. My money would be on a single independent realty, as the multiverse do not explain the 'universe' in it's largest sense, they only expand it's definition yes?

 

[viole]

it's your belief, pick whichever label you prefer for what you believe, it doesn't change the belief

I don't mind, but it would make for a more interesting discussion on substance rather than language

There cannot be any possible argument if we do not settle on definitions. If you do not like that, then my opposition to theism is motivated by dhcvjhsdbvjhbs. I hope you do not require an explanation of what it is, for I would like to concentrate on substance, lol.

You started with the dychotomy chance/intent and in a few posts you moved to a pentathomy chance/automated/naturalistic/spontaneous/intent, which are very different things.

So, I am not really sure what the target of your objection is. Is it naturalism? Or automated? Or chance?

What is it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Is it naturalism? Or automated? Or chance?

What is it?

Ciao

- viole

this isn't converting me to atheist viole! I'm still skeptical, call it what you will

 

[Salek Atesh]

Can you give me an observable evidence of a change of kinds. Something that I don't have to receive by faith.

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence" Richard Dawkins.

Do you have enough money to buy some pea plants and the time and effort to play with polination?? If so, you can recreate Gregor Mendel's experiments. Gregor Mendel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nietzsche]

that's one way to look at it, Hawking ran into that problem and made up his own imaginary time for multiverses to exist in.
other's like Linde posit our time being created within another time existing in another universe etc...

intelligent design v chance can both be argued in one universe (big crunch) or multiverses (alien creators)?

Just as our singular universe does not need a creator nor does the multiverse. I've always pictured the multiverse as being the sum total of all possibilities. Some universes would have a creator because it(multiverse) would be literally infinite. The question is whether ours does, and I posit that it doesn't because I feel a Creator would have much more noticeable marks rather than the chaotic mess that is our universe.

so it's a separate, and interesting q. My money would be on a single independent realty, as the multiverse do not explain the 'universe' in it's largest sense, they only expand it's definition yes?

Not quite. I would make the argument that regardless of whether the universe was created by an intelligence or simply came into being in a way we cannot fathom(because our ability to understand something relies on physics as they exist now) there would also be others. If it can happen once there is no reason to assume it couldn't happen again and we just be ignorant of it right now.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You've given a quote mine in response. Seriously??

[/quote]

First of all, organism do not suddenly appear in the Cambrian from nowhere:

"It's as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" Dawkins

I'm siding with Dawkins on this, but I'd be interested to know why you differ, that's what the forum is about

 

[Salek Atesh]

Just as our singular universe does not need a creator nor does the multiverse. I've always pictured the multiverse as being the sum total of all possibilities. Some universes would have a creator because it(multiverse) would be literally infinite. The question is whether ours does, and I posit that it doesn't because I feel a Creator would have much more noticeable marks rather than the chaotic mess that is our universe.

I don't personally ascribe to multiverse theory, nor do I know why it is being discussed here. But in an infinite multiverse model wouldn't there be some universes with a creator that would still be a chaotic mess??

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Just as our singular universe does not need a creator nor does the multiverse. I've always pictured the multiverse as being the sum total of all possibilities. Some universes would have a creator because it(multiverse) would be literally infinite. The question is whether ours does, and I posit that it doesn't because I feel a Creator would have much more noticeable marks rather than the chaotic mess that is our universe.


Not quite. I would make the argument that regardless of whether the universe was created by an intelligence or simply came into being in a way we cannot fathom(because our ability to understand something relies on physics as they exist now) there would also be others. If it can happen once there is no reason to assume it couldn't happen again and we just be ignorant of it right now.

I think that's where multiverses shoot themselves in the foot, other than not accounting for themselves- which is the ultimate question, they would invariable also produce 'God'

if defined as intelligent creators of universes, and if Linde is correct- then that's already getting close to happening right here in this 'chaotic mess' of an 'accidental' universe! if it can happen here as you say..... 'God's would be able to produce universes with a far higher success rate than accidents...

therefor to assume an immaculate virgin birth for our universe, instead of a 'mundane' manufactured one.. would seem a little arrogant?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm siding with Dawkins on this, but I'd be interested to know why you differ, that's what the forum is about

I already told you. Your response was the Dawkins quote mine.

(I doubt he differs either.)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I already told you. Your response was the Dawkins quote mine.

(I doubt he differs either.)

The sudden appearances v the original 'slow steady' change that used to be assumed is simply part of the problem. Its obviously not a black and white thing. But it drastically reduced the amount of time assumed available for these changes to occur accidentally

 

[Guy Threepwood]

More like the idea that there must be a creator is a paradox unique to certain varieties of theism, actually.

what's the unique paradox?

 

[LuisDantas]

what's the unique paradox?

The taking of the premise that everything must have been created by some active agent, only to then decree that there is an exception.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The sudden appearances v the original 'slow steady' change that used to be assumed is simply part of the problem. Its obviously not a black and white thing. But it drastically reduced the amount of time assumed available for these changes to occur accidentally

I don't see how it poses much of a problem at all. What's your point then? That organisms don't evolve? Do you think god planted them there in the middle of the Cambrian period? What?

How long do I have to wait for you to address what I said in the post you basically just ignored in order to quote mine instead?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't see how it poses much of a problem at all. What's your point then? That organisms don't evolve? Do you think god planted them there in the middle of the Cambrian period? What?

How long do I have to wait for you to address what I said in the post you basically just ignored in order to quote mine instead?

when you're a lone skeptic on an atheist dominated forum, you get a lot of questions, so don't take it personally if I don't get to every one specifically.

My point is, that chance alone accounting for all life on Earth is made more problematic by the time constraints, which are ever more apparent.
natural selection works best in smaller gene pools, and often grinds to a halt in larger ones. hence there is a self defeating side of the algorithm, where the more successful the population, the less it's able to evolve. Conversely the process is most effective in small, stressed populations which are more susceptible to extinction and deleterious mutations.

i.e. natural selection alone -as a process- selects losers in this sense

 

[Nietzsche]

I think that's where multiverses shoot themselves in the foot, other than not accounting for themselves- which is the ultimate question, they would invariable also produce 'God'

Yes. A God limited to his singular universe.

if defined as intelligent creators of universes, and if Linde is correct- then that's already getting close to happening right here in this 'chaotic mess' of an 'accidental' universe! if it can happen here as you say..... 'God's would be able to produce universes with a far higher success rate than accidents...

That isn't how infinites work.

therefor to assume an immaculate virgin birth for our universe, instead of a 'mundane' manufactured one.. would seem a little arrogant?

Not when there are no marks of a Creator at all.