Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

By the way, the sun stays in the sky. That's proof that there is a sun. I walk out of the house. That's proof that I walk out of the house. It's not conjecture. It's not theory when I give my address. I don't live in my home theoretically. But if someone wants to say it is theoretical -- <smile> -- ok, that's ok. I am not going to argue if I don't see it, does it mean it's not really there. Or really there. There's proof and there's proof. And unless I want to go into la-la-land, with One Step Beyond, it's over semantically for me.
Just as there is no proof OR evidence that gorillas and humans evolved from an "Unknown common Ancestor." So, guys, be well.

What we see in the sky is evidence and not proof. It is incredibly good evidence that would require an incredibly robust counter to show that it is not evidence for a sun. So far, the explanation that it is a sun stands.

You have claims that you live in a house at a certain address and take certain actions there. Those claims are not proof to me. Maybe you live in a yellow submarine for all I can know. However, I do not doubt that you do given that I am aware that people do live in houses (evidence), these houses have addresses associated with them (also evidence) and that people carry out many similar activities associated with living in a house (further evidence). Confirmation that you exist as claimed would require further evidence. However, the possibility still exists that you could be making it all up. Absolutes in life are darned difficult to demonstrate objectively.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

By the way, the sun stays in the sky. That's proof that there is a sun. I walk out of the house. That's proof that I walk out of the house. It's not conjecture. It's not theory when I give my address. I don't live in my home theoretically. But if someone wants to say it is theoretical -- <smile> -- ok, that's ok. I am not going to argue if I don't see it, does it mean it's not really there. Or really there. There's proof and there's proof. And unless I want to go into la-la-land, with One Step Beyond, it's over semantically for me.
Just as there is no proof OR evidence that gorillas and humans evolved from an "Unknown common Ancestor." So, guys, be well.

I do not see the sun in the sky at night.

 

[John53]

I do not see the sun in the sky at night.

I now have evidence you don't live near the Arctic circle.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I now have evidence you don't live near the Arctic circle.

Or that I may keep my eyes closed when out at night, be blind, lie about being outside at night, live in a cave...

As I am sure I am with you in the recognition that demanding proof of something while proposing an alternative that has no evidence, or proof, is not a sound means to convince anyone that science should be rejected.

 

[John53]

Or that I may keep my eyes closed when out at night, be blind, lie about being outside at night, live in a cave...

As I am sure I am with you in the recognition that demanding proof of something while proposing an alternative that has no evidence, or proof, is not a sound means to convince anyone that science should be rejected.

Dang it, for a minute there I thought I'd narrowed the search down.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Dang it, for a minute there I thought I'd narrowed the search down.

If only you had proof of my location and not just silly old evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You will wait because there is no evidence that fossils support evolution. The fact that dna may be similar in various compositions of living matter does not mean they evolved. So there's nothing to show because there is nothing to show of fossils that these things evolved. It is all supposition. That's not hard to understand, but it is if one is convinced that all things happened as a result of evolution, re "natural selection" or survival of the fittest. Per evolutionary means. Nothing to show that life evolved. I can keep mentioning it, and you can keep saying I'm not proving it, but we all must decide. And I've decided that science has not determined that life evolved in any case. It's all -- conjecture.

I just explained to you why they do. You are wrong. You are demonstrably wrong. What I do not understand is why you insist on denigrating your own God so much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, the sun stays in the sky. That's proof that there is a sun. I walk out of the house. That's proof that I walk out of the house. It's not conjecture. It's not theory when I give my address. I don't live in my home theoretically. But if someone wants to say it is theoretical -- <smile> -- ok, that's ok. I am not going to argue if I don't see it, does it mean it's not really there. Or really there. There's proof and there's proof. And unless I want to go into la-la-land, with One Step Beyond, it's over semantically for me.
Just as there is no proof OR evidence that gorillas and humans evolved from an "Unknown common Ancestor." So, guys, be well.

Life is constantly evolving that is "proof" of evolution.

 

[LIIA]

Is English your first language? Science is almost a second language. You do not seem to understand what it mans when a hypothesis is confirmed. Or that a complex problem can be split into many hypotheses. Confirming any one hypothesis is confirming the overarching hypothesis, it is evidence for it. But it is not absolute proof.

Once again, there is no absolute proof in the sciences, but there is evidence. You really should try to learn what is and what is not evidence.

No one is talking about “absolute proof”. Don’t fool yourself. Your tricks don’t fool anyone. It only exposes the weaknesses of your argument and No, English is not my first language, It’s Arabic.

The hypothesis of abiogenesis is about the origin of life from nonliving matter not some simple amino acids. You cannot merely dip your toe in the water and fool yourself that you’ve already crossed the ocean. The emergence of some amino acids from inorganic matter is by no means a confirmation of abiogenesis, you’re way far from any meaningful evidence yet you’re ridiculously talking about “absolute proof”. Who is asking for an “absolute proof”? get real.

And adaption is evolution. You do not even know what evolution is. How are you ever going to refute it.

Adaptation is a fact, it’s what you may call “microevolution” but the alleged “macroevolution” is a myth. I didn’t refute "MS”, the 21st century science already did.

Your fairytale boils down to random mutations + natural selection but again, all of the fundamental assumptions of the latest theory today “the modern synthesis” were disproved. See #753 & 781. Wake up; it’s the 21st century!

All you have is ignorant nay saying. And name calling.

The ignorant naysaying is always on your end. On my end, I never make a claim with respect to science without supporting it with a source/reference. It’s evident in all previous posts in the thread; take a look, it's not going anywhere.

 

[LIIA]

As to how nucleic acids could have formed naturally here you go:

https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i18/first-nucleotides-might-formed-Earth.html

A) Thanks for providing a reference for your claim, (unprecedented)!! But I’m sorry. it doesn’t cut it.

First, Let’s make it clear that nucleotides are not nucleic acids, its only the building blocks of nucleic acids. If you convince yourself that blocks can emerge in nature (it absolutely doesn’t), does this mean that entire buildings can emerge on its own? Neither is true.

Second, how can you provide such an essential precursor “ribose-5-phosphate” that is required for the biosynthesis of nucleotide and nucleic acids (DNA, RNA), which absolutely doesn’t exist in nature/prebiotic conditions, and you do it in controlled lab conditions, as some sort of an attempt to reverse engineer nucleotides, then convince yourself that you provided evidence that nucleotides form on its own in nature?

If you claim that barbituric acid and melamine may exist in prebiotic conditions, which is very highly questionable, then “ribose-5-phosphate” (which is the most vital component in the experiment) absolutely does not exist in prebiotic conditions.

All what they did was essentially an attempt to build the building blocks of nucleic acids (not the nucleic acids itself) and they did it by providing essential required components that don’t exist in nature.

It’s really ridiculous. Don’t get me wrong, I admire their work, the problem is that they adapt a pathetic false premise that abiotic reactions originally produced nucleotides and believe it as if it’s a fact while it’s not. When you build on a false premise, everything that follows is necessarily false. Such a waste of effort of bright minds.

B) Ok, let's go back to the real world. Here is article by ACS Publications dated January 9, 2020, it provided a background and up-to-date progress that will allow the reader to judge where the field stands currently with respect to the “Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis” which wrapped up the review with a cautionary note in this context about coming to conclusions as to whether the problem of chemistry of prebiotic nucleotide synthesis has been solved.

See the quotes below from the conclusion:

“All attempts to recapitulate the biological pathways for nucleotide synthesis (or other chemistries) have at best produced dubious results with no significant follow ups."

“To date there has been no single prebiotically plausible experiment that has moved beyond the generation of a mixture of chemical products, infamously called “the prebiotic clutter”"

“—creating prebiotic clutter and nothing further. None of the above have led to any remotely possible self-sustainable chemistries and pathways that are capable of chemical evolution"

“the experimental set up is not widely accepted as prebiotically realistic in terms of its concentrations, spatial-sequence separation and the availability of pure starting materials.”

“….clean starting materials and controlled lab environments that call the relevance of the results of the chemistries of abiotic synthesis into question.”

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis | Chemical Reviews (acs.org)

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis (acs.org)

 

[LIIA]

Even that claim of yours is not correct. Talk to a physicist. They can give you examples of things occurring without a cause. On the macro scale we see cause and effect. But that is not what is observed on the veery tiniest of scales. On the quantum scale events are a result of probabilities. There is no "cause". And we can sometimes directly observe those events. For example when a radioactive nucleus decays appears to be a probabilistic event. There is no "cause" of the specific time of an individual decay.

Without a known cause is not the same as without a cause.

If you say a cause is not required, you’ve necessarily undermined the entire scientific method, which essentially searches for causes.

If you reject magic based on the absence of causation (not scientific), then how can you accept the same in science? You either accept causality as a premise or deny it but you cannot pick and choose whenever convenient for you.

At atomic and subatomic scales, it’s about probabilities not observation but probability is a mental perception not a physical state. If the cause is beyond your perception or awareness, it doesn’t mean the cause doesn’t exist.

Wrong. Well we cannot prove that a God does not exist. But it is easy to prove that a lack of belief is justifiable. Do you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn? How do you justify your lack of belief if you do not believe? By your standards people should believe every ridiculous claim if they cannot personally disprove it.

You need to start with a premise. You cannot draw any conclusions without starting with a premise that is self-evident, which is the principle of causality. Even if you try to disproof the principle of causality, you will need to use causality, if not, the causal relation between evidence and conclusions (or between causes and effects) will be broken.

All reasoning, knowledge, observations lead to God. Nothing leads to the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

All entities that we can observe are probabilities; probabilities are changes that may or may not materialize, changes are only changes relative to an existing state. Probabilities are not possible without an existing state that gives rise to it. Reality exists/must exist, hence reality cannot be only probabilities, probabilities don’t give rise to itself. An aspect of reality must be a necessary existence to give rise to all probabilities.

Probabilities don’t explain its own existence; neither circular reasoning (interdependency) nor infinite regression of probabilities is logical. Infinite regression of probabilities (cause/effect chain) never explains the existence of the chain no matter how long the chain is. The length is irrelevant. If there was nothing at the beginning, then there would be nothing now.

The necessary existence is not a probability or a change but rather a cause, an origin "cause" that gives rise to every probability that may exist or can be witnessed. Necessary existence is not a contingent existence; it’s an absolute existence.

All entities or beings of all kinds whether physical, metaphysical, matter, force, power, influence, morals, values, abilities (see, hear, comprehend), all senses, intelligence, rationality, consciousnesses, etc. are all relative possibilities. None if it is an absolute entity, its existence is not justifiable unless grounded in an absolute root cause at the very end of the chain.

The absolute existence is absolute in every way imaginable (or unimaginable), absolute consciousness, absolute intelligence, absolute power, absolute awareness, absolute morality, eternal existence beyond any limits, there is nothing to exert an influence, a change or impose any limitation of any kind on the absolute origin/cause.

All contingent entities must be rooted in the non-contingent origin. All consciousness must be rooted in greater consciousness, all powers must be rooted in higher power, intelligences must be rooted in higher intelligence. The absolute is greater than everything relative. Relative entities get its definition only as it relates to the absolute. The origin is the reference that gives meaning to everything. The greater does not come from the lesser. The lesser is rooted in the greater.

And no, we do not see any such systematic purpose or design. In fact if you understood the sciences and biology enough you would see that we observe the opposite. Life is the ultimate kludge. Evolution works on "good enough" and that is what we see again and again. We never see "perfect" or even close to it.

Absolutely false.

A fundamental question about the origin of life is that how a chaotic prebiotic clutter of organic molecules somehow transitioned to the biologically ordered world of life. Had those molecules just interacted randomly then, they would never have chanced upon the right interactions to ultimately lead to biologically ordered life out of all the random possibilities. Not even a single celled organism would be possible. Possible number of random interactions is astronomical; there wouldn’t be enough material in the whole universe to try it. Randomness is a mathematical impossibility. See # 1517

No organism is merely good enough, not even a bacterium. Every organism is perfection. You’re just so used to it to the point that you cannot see it.

Endless aspects of perfection are exhibited in every single organism. Internal perfection of endless coordinated biological functions and external perfection as exhibited in the body plan of the organism and its unique set of morphological features. We discussed that before, see # 424.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 22 | Religious Forums

Below is a partial copy from # 424 with emphasis on a single aspect of external perfection, which is clearly visible to all of us but we never demand an explanation for it since we’re extremely used to see it almost in every single multicellular organism. It’s the “Reflectional Symmetry”.

External morphological features of most multicellular organisms exhibit symmetry that can be seen in the balanced distribution of duplicate body parts or shapes within the body of an organism. The duplicate parts exhibit “Reflectional Symmetry” along the axis/plane of symmetry. These external body parts appear almost identical, but are always reversed in the direction. Almost a perfect mirror image of the opposite side in a harmonious beautiful proportion and balance.

External vital organs necessary for live such as the nose, mouth, the head itself and reproductive organs are always aligned along the axis of symmetry (centerline). Other less vital organs (the creature may continue to live without it) such as limbs, ears, and eyes are organized in a “Reflectional Symmetry” along each side of the axis.

All parts/organs are organized logically, proportionally sized; symmetrical parts are always a perfect mirror image and of the same size. We don’t see limbs longer or one side, displaced or not following the rigid rule of “Reflectional Symmetry”. We don’t see eyes on the legs or tail on the head. All species are perfectly designed for survival in its niche. No exception.

If the alleged evolutionary process is random (not intelligently guided) then we should see all sorts of errors such as limbs longer on one side, or body parts in the wrong locations, multiple repeated parts or at least the rigid “Reflectional Symmetry” would be broken. We don’t see that in nature.

All living organisms exhibit perfection as manifested in its body plan balanced morphological features and developmental characteristics with the necessary functions to allow the organism to successfully survive and reproduce with its niche.

Order is the norm not randomness. We’re so used to it to the point that we cannot recognize it or appreciate it. We appreciate light because of our experience with darkness. But we don’t appreciate or even recognize order simply because we never experienced randomness and what it would truly entail.

The alleged random evolutionary process is always working on the transformation of one already perfect living organism (as explained above) into another.

If the process is random, then selection as the purifying mechanism should not only be involved in the transformation of one perfect living organism into another but rather the major role of the purification process should be mainly involved in constant correction/elimination of millions of all kind of random errors in a tedious and extremely slow process as entailed by the hypothesis of random gradual change. We don’t see that in nature. We see perfection in every organism.

Per the ToE, a first living organism with the ability to grow, reproduce is an absolute prerequisite before any evolutionary process may take place. This organism with the ability to survive in its environment and pass changes to offspring is perfection. Such perfection of the extremely complex living system came to existence without the involvement of any evolutionary process. The emergence of live is not dependent on any evolutionary process; on the contrary no evolutionary process is possible without life as a necessary prerequisite.

 

[LIIA]

You just contradicted yourself. And you should really read your article. It does not support your claims. If anything "scientific racism" arose before long before Darwin came along and it is more a of a religious belief than a scientific belief. It was always a misapplication of scientific concepts. It was never "scientific".

This is why you should learn the basics of science. And logic. Until you do you will keep making rather ignorant errors where your own sources refute what you believe.

We have been talking about scientific racism, biological racism, eugenics, social Darwinism, etc. If you want to focus on “scientific racism” in particular, then my article absolutely supported my claim that scientific racism is an application of evolutionary biology along with other disciplines. This “application” now is considered as “misapplication” but that only confirms that “application” took place in the first place.

The article said, “Scientific racism misapplies, misconstrues, or distorts anthropology (notably physical anthropology), anthropometry, craniometry, EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, and other disciplines”

Yes, scientific racism arose before Darwin but we are talking about events that took place after Darwin and after the application of evolutionary biology in scientific racism. Per the article, scientific racism was common to the end of World War II. And despite the criticism of scientific racism since second half of the 20th century, yet has persistently been used to support or validate racist world-views, based upon belief in the existence and significance of racial categories and a hierarchy of superior and inferior races.

Let alone “scientific racism”, the ideas of Darwin himself with respect to race and gender were extremely racist as explicitly stated in his scientific book “The Descent of Man". The very book that was intended to address evolutionary biology as it applies on humans.

Why can’t you understand what you read? It’s not that difficult. Is it? If you do understand it, then why the dishonest tricks? It only exposes the weakness of your premise not the other way around as you might think.

Scientific racism - Wikipedia

 

[LIIA]

Darwin's contribution was the discovery of natural selection. The selector is environment.

In the real world, the selection criteria of the fittest as the idea applies to humans was up to whichever group has political power

Sure, a some of Darwin's speculations were rubbish.

Yes, and it did its damage.

but his crowning discovery of the mechanism of natural selection.

Natural selection is purification mechanism not a creative mechanism. It purifies existing species. The creative mechanism is mutation; directed mutation enables the organism to adapt to the variables within an environment.

The Nazi atrocities were not a result of Darwin.
Do you blame their tanks on Henry Bessemer, their bombers on the Wright brothers, or the bombs on Julius Wilbrand?

Tanks, bombers and bombs are tools, racism is an ideology. You can’t compare a tool to an ideology.

Tools can be dangerous if the wrong ideology is adapted. Racism is a wrong ideology. Darwin ideas (especially per “The Descent of Man") played a role in the adaptation of racism in the world especially in the first half of the 20th century.

 

[LIIA]

There is no scientific basis to deny the possibility of God, just as there is no scientific basis to deny the possibility of leprechauns or lizard-men from Mars. God is unevidenced, hence, His existence is logically unsupportable.

All reasoning, knowledge, observations lead to God. Nothing leads to the leprechauns. How can you make such an irrelevant comparison?

All relative entities are manifestations of the absolute, relative entities get its definition only as it relates to the absolute. Without the absolute, there is nothing to give rise to probabilities, everything we see is a probability that may or may not materialize, everything we see is a change, a change is only a change as it relates to an existing state. If there was nothing at the beginning then there is nothing now, in other words, there is nothing to exert a change or give rise to a probability. Without the non-contingent origin, absolutely no contingent entity can be explained.

Even the universe in its entirety is a contingent entity (a change), if the universe always existed, then the universe would be the brute fact/non-contingent entity that gives rise to everything, but it's not, the universe has a beginning, the universe is a contingent change, there must be an influence to exert the change that took place at a specific point in time 14 billion years ago. The physical realm, which started with the Big Bang do not constitute all aspects of the absolute reality. Reality must have a non-contingent aspect beyond the Big Bang/physical realm. This aspect is necessarily supernatural. If we understand/accept that the existence of this aspect of reality is logically necessary, then next question is what is it? And what can we know about it? See # 1851

Unattainable knowledge is no knowledge. How can we know the attributes of something completely speculative?

I didn’t say Unattainable knowledge, I said Unattainable evidence through observation/experimentation for the NATURE of God (not his existence), as we previously discussed, knowledge is not limited to observation/experimentation.

Noöne's claiming it's magic. An observed effect is evidence. When no other mechanism of effect is known, this strengthens the evidence. It does not confirm dark matter.

You didn’t get it, it's an analogy, the claim of magic is yours.

Even so the most abundant existence in our universe is assumed to be the totally invisible dark matter and dark energy which constitute about 96% of what’s out there in the universe, yet the intrinsic nature of dark matter is totally mysterious and unattainable, but we logically infer its existence because otherwise various astrophysical observations would not be explainable by currently accepted theories. We infer the presence of something of a totally unknown nature that can’t be understood or observed because we demand an explanation.

The point of this analogy is to demonstrate that the inference of a mysterious, invisible, unknown causal influence has nothing to do with a claim of magic and has everything to do with logic.

The question is, if our pursuit of an explanation for astrophysical observations drives our logical inference that the existence of an invisible unknown dark energy is logically necessary to exert an observed causal influence, shouldn’t we similarly pursue an explanation for the causal influence that forced dark matter itself to existence? Can we merely stop at the preceding domino and fool ourselves that we have an ultimate explanation. Is that logical? Don’t logic necessities that without the first domino, the entire chain reaction is not possible?

God’s nature is mysterious, and unattainable but we see an exerted influence exhibited in the universe/physical realm in its entirety with various observed effects of not only matter, but also consciousness, intelligence, order, morals values, etc. all these relative entities must be rooted in a cause. This cause is not the immediately preceding domino; it’s the absolute first one. Demanding such a root cause of the observed domino effect has nothing to do with a claim of magic and has everything to do with logic, even if the nature of the cause is unattainable.

Causality works at different levels, but the logic is the same. If we accept causality as a premise, we have to pursue it to the absolute end. We cannot pick and choose.

Evolution and abiogenesis have natural mechanisms that account for them, even if the processes are not yet completely understood.

Evolution is nothing but an adaptation of an organism to fit in an environment as a function of directed mutation, there is no such thing as tiktaalik transforming to a human being. It’s nothing more than a historical narrative.

If you talk about a fact, you may claim that it is not completely understood but this is not the case with abiogenesis, it's only an unevidenced hypothesis. See #1850

"Goddidit" doesn't even claim a mechanism, and there is virtually no evidence of any mechanic, ergo: magic!

See# 490, Levels of Causality.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 25 | Religious Forums

You may claim or get some understanding of a mechanism only at the first level of causality (level C). Beyond that, it’s no longer possible.

” The dark energy did it” doesn’t claim a mechanism, does it? It only claims an unknown influence not a mechanism, do you understand?

What is the mechanism through which the dark energy that acts between galaxies or the strong nuclear force that act between subatomic particles (or any natural force for that matter) exerts its influence on matter? It's never a mechanism, it's always an unknown observed influence.

If you go a step further in the hierarchy of causality, what is the mechanism that caused dark matter to exist? Do you understand the need for an absolute origin that exists by virtue of its mere essence? Without it, the entire chain reaction of cause/effect is not possible. You need the first domino not merely the preceding one. Without the first domino, there is absolutely no domino effect of any kind.

Dark energy is no more evidence of a conscious or intentional "higher cause" than matter or gravity are.
Didn't you just claim we knew nothing about its intrinsic nature?

There is nothing special about dark energy as explained above; it’s only an analogy of how the logic applies.

We know nothing about the intrinsic nature of dark energy, we only observe or logically understand its influence. That’s why it’s reasonable to infer that “something” is exerting that influence.

If we observe consciousness, intelligence, rationality, morals, values, purpose, order, matter and a physical realm in its entirety, isn’t it reasonable to infer that “something” is exerting that influence? Again, it’s not about the preceding domino, it’s about the first one.

The existence of that “something” is a logical necessity, yet its nature/essence is not known but we may infer attributes of that “something” through the observations of the exerted influences itself.

If all aggregates of consciousness that we may observe are caused changes (relative entities), not a brute fact, wouldn’t be reasonable to infer that the causal influence of it exhibits higher level of consciousness?

Same is true, for morals, values, intelligence, power, abilities to exert influences, etc., wouldn’t be reasonable to infer that the causal influence of it exhibits higher level of such attributes? A greater doesn’t come from the lesser; the lesser is rooted in the greater.

That presupposes our sensory experience of an "arrow of time" is accurate. It is not.

The "arrow of time" is not relevant, since time itself ceases to exist beyond the Big Bang which necessarily refutes infinite regression.

Infinite regression of cause/effect is not only a logical fallacy but scientifically not possible. Infinite regression demands no beginning. The Big Bang is a beginning point, beyond which there is no time space, matter, radiation or any physical entity of any kind.

I believe in physics.

I believe in physical science, biological science, social science, mathematics, philosophy, logic and every legitimate source of knowledge. How is that against the existence of God?

The modern scientific method itself emerged during the Islamic golden age as inspired by religious beliefs. There is no contradiction as you might think.

Cause doesn't always preceed effect. An effect may not need a cause at all.

Cause and effect are inseparable, if you break the bond between cause and effect, the entire scientific method absolutely collapses. If you’re not aware of a cause, it doesn’t mean the cause doesn’t exist. You either accept causality as a fundamental principle or reject it but you cannot pick and choose.

Don’t you see the irony of your claim to deny causality on scientific basis while I’m insisting on it on religious basis? But the establishment of causality as a fundamental principle is not only based on religious basis, not at all, it's definitely logical and scientific as well.

If you believe “effect may not need a cause at all”, then what are your reasons not to believe in magic poofs? But no, there is no such thing as uncaused effect.

Its effects are within the domain of my awareness. It's nature and mechanisms remain unknown.

Exactly, effects within the domain of your awareness are evidence of a necessary causal influence even if the nature and mechanisms are not known.

There is really too little that we may possibly get to know. Only if we understand it.

So, in the absence of evidence, why invent an invisible magician at all?

Neither the evidence is absent, nor anyone is inventing an invisible magician. I’m saying logic necessitates the existence of causal influence of an unknown nature.

“Unknown nature” is not equal to “invisible magician”. It’s only your false imagination of something that you neither understand nor have any knowledge of.

The only one talking about magic is you as you claim that cause doesn't need to precede effect, isn’t that your own definition of “magic poof”?

 

[LIIA]

Unevidenced speculations by prophets, seers and madmen are not evidence, however revered the seer.

You’re making an unevidenced claim. It’s not about speculations or evidence; it’s about info from credible sources. 99% of your knowledge is info from credible sources, it's almost never personal experience. If you trust the credibility of the source, you trust the info. In the case of religions, Credibility or authenticity can be established through the methods of historiography.

I assess the knowledge not by the word of those conveying it, but by the reproducible observations underlying it.

It’s actually based on the credibility of the sources, even your trust that the observations are reproducible is based on the credibility of the source not because you verified it or reproduced it yourself.

Again, humans get most of their knowledge from trusted sources, the domain of what can be reproduced is really limited. Our knowledge cannot be limited to merely what can be produced.

Can you reproduce the pyramids of Egypt to know original methods of building it? Can you reproduce observations of the cosmos after the expansion makes it no longer observable from earth? Can you reproduce the Big Bang? Can you reproduce life from nonliving matter? Can you reproduce alleged transformation from tiktaalik to Homo sapiens? Can you reproduce Napoleon Bonaparte to know who he really was? Can you reproduce a memory from your childhood to prove to me that it did happen? You can’t, but if there were logical reasons to establish your credibility, then it would be reasonable to believe you.

Our knowledge and overall understanding of reality cannot be confined to what can be produced. It can never be the only source of knowledge but rather a fraction of it.

That may be true, but I'll need evidence before I can reasonably accept it.

The Big Bang is a change that is dependent on a preceding existing state to explain the instantiation of the universe into reality at this specific point in time. Without an existing state to exert an influence, no change would be possible.

The nature of the preceding state is necessarily supernatural, totally beyond any laws that govern our realm. Even time and space didn’t exist; even the use of the past tense is not applicable to the supernatural state that exists without any dependency on time or space. A totally different nature beyond anything we experience or can imagine. But again, it’s not our understanding that creates reality, we perceive what we can, we don’t create.

So... nothing is natural. All is magic.

What is magic? There is no such thing. It’s a false concept. All effects are caused, the only entity that is not caused is the first cause simply because it's not an effect.

So you claim. Back it up with evidence, please.

See above and # 1851

You may think that your position is driven by evidence of reality but it’s not. It’s driven by your own will to interpret reality in one way or another.

You cannot impose your imagined impossibility on the nature of the absolute reality, which you neither understand nor have any knowledge of.

Conscious organisms may relatively think that what they perceive is very much all what there is, it may be reasonable for them to be under that impression, but human beings are different and can do better. Through logic, we can have a glimpse of what’s beyond the limitation of our relative perception.

 

[LIIA]

Why do you think I have been asking you about reading modern biology textbooks?

Irrelevant question, I’ve been talking about an influence not a curriculum. Do you understand the difference?

How the modern curriculum is related to my specific argument about the negative influence, especially if we are talking about events that mainly took place in the first half of the 20th century?

The influence was mainly about playing a significant role in shaping an ideology that proved to be very damaging, even if this specific ideology is not being taught in textbooks that teach the theory.

Again, the influence has nothing to do with disproving the theory from a scientific perspective.

I asked because you are obsessed with past models and with past mistakes, and not focused on the current teachings from universities and from current biology textbooks, now used.

I’m not obsessed with past models, evidence of my claim of negative influence had to be events/facts that did happen in the past, we had to argue about it so many times not because obsession with the past but rather because of your defensive denial of these facts. Current biology textbooks are neither concerned with documenting past negative influence of the ToE (not history books) nor can be claimed to influence the specific events that happened in the past such as the Holocaust.

Yet, if I make a claim about disproving the ToE, I don’t talk about the past at all but rather the latest 21st century finds of molecular biology as clarified in # 753 & 781.

Why the obsession with “Eugenics” and “racism” and “Social Darwinism” and “Nazi Holocaust”, WHEN none of these exist in syllabuses of today biology and biology-related subjects.

It's not an obsession, it's a clarification/details of a negative influence/damage that did take place, yet you guys insisted to deny it. Hadn’t you engaged in an argument to deny it, we would have moved on and left this subject behind.

Have you ever study college biology or university biology before?

If you did, you would know that university entries, annual tuitions, plus books and equipments are all expensive for students (and for students’ parents, if they are for their children).

And you would also know that when you enrolled in these university courses, you would only spend an estimated specific amount times students should spend in completing their courses (eg 3-year course, 4-year, 5-year, etc). So times are short and very hectic for both students and the educators (eg professors, lecturers, teachers, tutors, trainers, etc).

My points about textbooks, and about expense and time spent at universities, there are seriously limitations as to amount of time on each subject...SO THEY ARE ONLY TAUGHT WHAT ARE NEEDED FOR THEIR CAREER PATH. SO THEIR SUBJECTS WON’T INCLUDE ON ANYTHING IRRELEVANT THAT ARE NO OF USE TO THEIR COURSES.

I am emphasizing my points with CAP-ON, because you bloody focused on the past and not what are actually taught in the present.

“Irrelevant” like this stupid Eugenics, Social Darwinism, racism, and Nazi war crimes are not included in biology textbooks and courses.

Today’s biology subjects & courses and today’s textbooks would only focused on useful theories in their path today,

They are biology students, not history students. The courses and textbooks are not there now to teach irrelevant and unrelated subjects, like eugenics, Social Darwinism or about World War 2. Today’s subjects also don’t waste their time and efforts on what Darwin made mistakes in or things that are out of date.

For example, no biology students would spent times learning Darwin’s clumsy genetics. Today’s genetics are more in line with Gregor Mendel’s, not with Darwin’s, but students are more focused on today’s genetics that have ADVANCED beyond the Mendelian Inheritance, because Mendel (and Darwin) knew nothing about nucleic acids that you would know as DNA & RNA, and other molecular biology subjects that didn’t exist in the mid-19th century.

You should be focused on biology taught today, but you have been mindlessly obsessed with 2nd half of the 19th century & 1st half of the 20th century.

Do you really have nothing to add are taught in the last 30 years? Must you stick your head in the sand, and only focused on out of date theories or irrelevant subjects like Social Darwinism and World War 2?

Didn’t I already tell you in last couple of posts that modern biology textbooks don’t teach racism? WHY ALL THE IRRELEVANT TALK ABOUT COSTLY TUITIONS? Its neither relevant nor a proof of anything.

If you want to really prove it, you need to get recognized/certified biology curriculums from educational institutions around the world to show what they actually teach, not some irrelevant argument about tuitions! But why bother if I already acknowledged that racism is not being taught in biology textbooks? It’s not that I know the biology curriculums around the world for a fact but it’s a logical assumption. If you want to prove it, go ahead get the curriculums.

But again, the curriculum of a textbook is one thing and its influence specially with respect to shaping an ideology is another thing. Here is an example, the ToE with respect to biology is not concerned with morals or values, but the influence of the theory, indeed played a significant role in reshaping the understanding of it.

 

[LIIA]

@LIIA

@Subduction Zone is correct:

​

You had not bother to read your own wiki link about Scientific Racism. Once again, you are blaming Darwin for something he never started.

This Scientific Racism occurred over 2 centuries before Darwin’s On Origin publication in 1859.

Scientific Racism started around 1600, in the middle of the Counter-Reformation (1545 -1648) with the Roman Catholic pushed back at the advances of Protestantism (early 16th century Reformation, eg Luther) and the Thirty Years’ War (1618 - 1648).

The Thirty Years’ War was the most destructive wars in Western Europe, before World War 1, where a number of nations took part, the Catholic’s Holy Roman Empire (including Germany and Austria), Spain, and the Protestant Germans, and their allies, Sweden, Britain and France.

Most of the battles took place in what is now Germany.

This Scientific Racism took place at the transition between the end of Late Renaissance and Early Baroque.

Plus, Scientific Racism wasn’t “scientific”, like subduction zone said, it was religious concept.

You continue to blame things on Darwin which Darwin didn’t start.

You and Subduction Zone are wrong. See #1852

Here is some further clarification.

Wiki link said,“Scientific racism misapplies, misconstrues, or distorts anthropology (notably physical anthropology), anthropometry, craniometry, evolutionary biology, and other disciplines”

First, modern scientific racism was a scientific concept (not religious).

Second, Obviously “evolutionary biology” is Darwin’s ideas.

Third, Scientific racism application of evolutionary biology was initially considered as a legitimate scientific application, later Since the second half of the 20th century, scientific racism has been criticized as obsolete and got discredited.

Wiki link said,“Scientific racism was common during the period from the 1600s to the end of World War II“

Yes, it started before Darwin but as you may know, science is ever changing; Darwin’s ideas were incorporated later. From 1859 to end of World War II, evolutionary biology ideas played its role in scientific racism. This is the time when the most atrocious acts by racist regimes took place.

Wiki link said, “Since the second half of the 20th century, scientific racism has been criticized as obsolete and discredited, yet has persistently been used to support or validate racist world-views, based upon belief in the existence and significance of racial categories and a hierarchy of superior and inferior races.”

Regardless of the criticism since the second half of the 20th century but scientific racism has persistently been used to support or validate racist world-views. The damage continued. The criticism didn’t end it.

 

[LIIA]

@LIIA

You have also keep bringing up the Nazi Holocaust, but racism against Jews in Western Europe, predated Darwin by over a thousand years.

It started in Spain in the 6th century, when the Visigoths ruled most of the Iberian peninsula (today’s Spain and Portugal), before the arrivals of Moors in the following century. Visigoths were eastern Germanic speaking people that settled in Spain and North Africa as early as the late 4th century CE.

Jews were persecuted started here in the 6th century, before it spread throughout Western Europe during Early Middle Ages (500-1000) to the High Middle Ages (1000- 1300), and continued to persist in the Late Middle Ages (eg the 14th century Black Death, where Jews were blamed for the plagues).

Persecution have always been horrific in these European kingdoms, including in Germany and Austria, then called the Holy Roman Empire.

Why do you think there were so many Jews living in Poland before World War 2? Because past persecutions in Germany drove out most of the Jews in the Late Middle Ages and the Late Renaissance.

Nazi weren’t the only anti-Semitic Germans. Medieval Germans have also treated Jews badly. So there was a long history of death, persecution and expulsion in Germany, long before Darwin, so what happened during WW2, wasn't all that surprising.

So are you also going to blame Darwin for what happened in the Middle Ages?

It’s very true that anti-Semitism had its roots before Darwin, no question about it. But a new racist ideology emerged to encompass everyone considered to be not worthy/fit for life from the Nazis perspective including the ill, the disabled and everyone else who is considered inferior from their specific racist perspective.

The holocaust encyclopedia clearly acknowledged the specific role of social darwinism in shaping the Nazis racist ideology. (Please don’t tell me it was Herbert Spencer), Darwin’s evolutionary ideas were major contributor to social darwinism, eugenics, scientific racism, biological racism, etc.

 

[LIIA]

Is someone attacking the theory of evolution? Where?

No, you are only having a bad dream, its ok; you may go back to your sleep.

 

[LIIA]

So support it. Show your work.

See# 1851, 1854 & 1855

OK, so?

So, Data don’t play any role without a process to utilize it. Without purposeful processing towards a meaningful end result, data cannot do anything on its own.

Data may be stored on a computation system, it can be only used as input but without purposeful software program to process it towards a goal, no meaningful output is possible.

It’s always, about the process and meaningful interaction/processing of variables towards a goal not merely a dead storage of coded info. It wouldn’t do anything on its own. Genes don’t create life.

So what is the reliable means in other domains? If it's entirely subjective, I wouldn't expect anyone else to believe it, since I can produce no tangible evidence. It would be real only to me.

Individual observed entities are indicative of the unique causal influences. The observed entities itself give us the understanding of the unique attributes of the causal influence. It's always the attributes never the nature (such as the previously discussed example of dark energy, strong nuclear force, etc.).

Similarly, the physical realm in its entirety with everything in it, is indicative of unique causal influence, the observed entities itself give us the understanding of the attributes of the causal influence.

In each case, whether the observed entity is an individual entity or the physical realm in its entirety, the attributes of the causal influence can be understood based on the observed entities itself.

See #1851, 1854 & 1855

We don't, currently, have evidence of its nature, but don't doesn't mean can't.
By "higher causal influence," do you mean a conscious, purposive influence, like God? Why would there be any reason to expect this? Wouldn't a natural cause be more ikely?

First, the dark energy is only an example, when it comes to fundamental forces; we always observe an influence not a mechanism. We do not and cannot know the mechanism through which natural forces exert its influence. We only know it does, beyond that we neither know the nature nor the mechanism.

Second, beyond the beginning of the universe (Big Bang), there is no such thing as “natural”, no matter, no laws, no space, no time. The predominant state of reality that gives rise to the Big Bang (a contingent change) is necessarily supernatural.

Third, the nature of the higher causal influence is unknown, but collectively, the observed entitles are inductive of the attributes as discussed above.

Fourth, God is the absolute existence that is not subject to any influence of any kind. Nothing in existence is like him. God is a cause. Everything in existence is effect/cause. His nature or how he exerts influence is not known, we cannot speculate about his nature, whatever we may imagine is no him. God is not a human or a person. God is not subject to the limitation of time or space or any natural law. All of these are contingent entities that were caused by the first non-contingent entity/God.

So why believe in these levels at all?

Because level C & B can be observed, and A can be logically inferred.

No. I don't see any logical need for a god.
Define "an absolute," please.

A) Possible being:

- Do not exist necessarily by its own nature.

- Contingent being.

- Caused being (a manifestation of an influence exerted by a cause).

- Has a beginning (didn’t always exist).

- May change due to Interaction with other entities within an environment.

- Relative (not self-defined).

Examples:

All observable entities within the universe fit in this category, the entire universe as a being with a beginning (didn’t always exist) about 14 billion years ago, is also a contingent being.

B) Necessary being:

- A being that exists by virtue of its mere essence.

- Non-Contingent being.

- Brute fact.

- Always exists.

- Unchangeable.

- Absolute.

Examples:

Nothing directly observable in our realm fits in this category. Nonetheless, the observable realm of contingent existence is a manifestation of the necessary existence.

How do we know these are manifestations of an entity at all? Unknown cause = God?

I can see that the problem here is the false imagination of God’s nature. You do not have any grasp of any kind of that nature. You cannot, hence, should not try to imagine it. Whatever you imagine, is not God. There nothing in our realm of existence is similar to God.

How do we know that observed manifestations in the cosmos are inductive of an unknown, unseen, mysterious entity called dark energy? You may only know that it exists and exerts a specific influence on matter. Observed manifestations in the cosmos may give you an understanding about the attributes of dark energy but definitely not its nature or the mechanism through which it exerts an influence on matter. Yet you do infer its existence and you do the same for the weak force, the strong nuclear force, electromagnetic force and gravity.

Now, if we apply the same logic on the universe as an observation/contingent entity, the logic entails that a causal influence is necessary. Observed manifestations give us an understanding about the attributes of the causal influence as previously discussed. But never the nature.

So it's the subjective type apprehended only by a single individual?

As explained above, evidence for the existence and attributes are never subjective. Yet, the nature and mechanism are never attainable, not for the physical forces and definitely not for God.