Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[thomas t]

For nomadic hunter-gatherers distinguishing good terrain from bad is useful, just as distinguishing healthful food from unhealthful or hot objects from cold. Senses are useful, and are selected for.
Productive terrain looks beautiful, healthful food tastes good, hot rocks hurt.

yes, this was a good counter argument. (in this long long thread your co-poster from the atheist side made similar remarks, but it is totally fine for to not read ever single post, of course.... this is the problem when we have 1000 posts-threads)
Also, @ratiocinator linked to a page describing "evolutionary aesthetics" the other day... that pretty much comes down to what you've just said.

However, my argument is not about distinguishing two different landscapes... this could easily be described by these "evolutionary aesthetics" that ratioc brought up...

My point is about ascribing beauty to landscapes, at all. Including those who are not productive as a habitat.

But you are totally right in asserting that productive terrain looks beautiful, indeed.


To add a non-beneficial landscape:https://pixabay.com/photos/northern-lights-sky-night-aurora-1081752/

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That doesn't mean that macroevolution is possible,

It actually does. You might off course miss that fact if you start from a misrepresentation of what macro evolution actually is. Which in your case, seems incredibly likely, considering you basically misrepresented just about all aspects of evolution till now.

So here's a question: in your own words, what do you think "macro evolution" is about?

because there are limits to the changes that mutations allow.

See, when you say stuff like this, you're already kind of exposing that you are once again coming at this from a strawman point of view.

Every mutation is necessarily a microchange. These microchanges then accumulate over generations through inheritance of DNA. There's no such thing as "macro changes" in mutations.

The macro, simply is a set of accumulated micro changes.
Lot's of small fish, make up for a big whale.
Moving one inch at a time, inevitably results in moving miles.

It's not possible for populations to develop survival traits without individuals first developng those traits, and those individuals would die before they develop their survival traits.

That made no sense whatsoever, in context of how evolution actually works.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Modifications of other traits is microevolution, not macroevolution.

Another piece of evidence that you have no idea what macroevolution actually is.
Clearly you consider it as some kind of distinct process, separate from "micro evolution".

I can only inform you that you are wrong about that.
They are one and the same process. The only difference is the amount of generations, and thus the amount of accumulation of micro-changes that happened.

Learn the theory before trying to argue against it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

DNA changes have limits. A being can't evolve into a change of kinds.

If "kind" means "clade", then changes in kind don't happen in evolution.
In fact, a change in kind in that case would actually falsify evolution, as it would be a violation of the nested hierarchy, or the law of monophy.

Learn the theory before trying to argue against it.

Macroevolution is different from microevolution because it implies a change of kinds.

It does not (assuming "kind" means "clade")

Learn the theory before trying to argue against it.




ps: if by "kind" you mean something other then "clade", then please define the term "kind" in an objective way that allows us to independently determine whether or not 2 random creatures are the same "kind". The word "kind" is meaningless in biology and taxonomy. So if it's not a clade, you're going to have to define it properly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Homophobia is relating to womanizing

lol!
You realize homosexuals aren't attracted to women, right?

, which is behavior that the Bible says is wrong.

Thatt's not at all what the bible says.

I'm not I think people living together before marriage is right, but I was agreeing with you saying that couples who live together before marriage get along good.

So you are taking back your previous statement where you called it immoral?
Please be clear.

Just a reminder of what you actually said:

Not lying, stealing, living together before marriage, are common sense moral rules that people know even without the Bible.

You even said this is known without the bible. So you yourself implied you could give a non-religious argument as to how/why it supposedly is immoral.

So, you're taking back that statement?
I'ld like you to take an explicit stance on this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe that the standard of what's right and what's wrong comes from God.

So, slavery - the treatment of humans as private property and being able to beat them - is a moral practice?
Killing homosexuals is a moral practice?

After all, that is what your bible says...

 

[Polymath257]

DNA changes have limits. A being can't evolve into a change of kinds. Macroevolution is different from microevolution because it implies a change of kinds.

No limits to the amount of change in DNA have ever been discovered. There is no mechanism for such limits.

The term 'kind' is too vague to be useful.

And macroevolution is just microevolution over more generations. There are no known limits nor any mechanisms for limits to this change.

 

[Polymath257]

The term appears to be a WLCism.

Wireless LAN Controller?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry this post somehow escaped me yesterday.
Let's count assumtions necessary to explain the perceived beauty on earth also for landscapes that are in no way a good habitat for man (such as the Alps-picture shown in an above post):
1) God proposition. 2) naturalistic explanation.
Let's alter 1) first: I don't narrow it down to a God. I just say "higher force that is loving" ok? Theoretically it could be a loving version of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, too. ok?
And lets further talk about a specific kind of love: the one that is perceivable. Many people feel love for persons but never show it. This kind of love may not be called "love" for a moment, ok? Love as used here, may refer to something active, the kind of love that the loved individuals can really sense.
Furthermore, I speak of some "higher" or "greater" love meaning that it comes from some propbably supernatural source...

So now, lets count the number of assumptions necessary to explain the beauty?

1) a higher love exists.

2) a/ there is an evolutionary benefit for people to find landscapes beautiful that are detrimental as a habitat. Meaning those who recognise non-beneficial landscapes as beautiful... have better chances to survive.

b/ this effect is cutting enough to have an influence on the evolutionary process. It is not only beneficial to think that non-beneficial lanscapes are beautiful (see a/) ... but in the process of evolution, it really makes a difference if people pass their perception of beauty on to their offspring.

c/ this effect (b/) developed so early in humankind that the tendancy of ascribing beauty to non-beneficial landscapes.... had enough time to be spread and can be found in at least half of humankind by now.

d/ the effect (a/) is not evened out by potential detrimental effects of ascibing beauty to non-beneficial landscapes.

So 1) had 1 assumption... whereas 2) had 4 assumptions, so 2) is less parsimonious.

One need not only count assumptions. One needs to see how justified assumptions are. An assumption of a magic being is extreme. By parsimony you still lose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wireless LAN Controller?

William Lane Craig and his much abused Kalam argument.

 

[janesix]

Actually, if they can show good data that the box is too small, that can make a career. Or, if they can give good, theoretical justification for a position, that can help them greatly.

The nature of the profession encourages people to think outside the box *as long as it is supported by evidence*.

More often than not the opposite is true.

 

[janesix]

What does all this have to do with canon? The geometry of the universe is physics.

They are sacred numbers.

 

[Audie]

More often than not the opposite is true.

You are just making that up

 

[janesix]

Not at all. For example, to move through water efficiently requires a particular body form. So those animals that live in the water and have to move efficiently will tend to have that body form. We see such in sharks, dolphins, icthyosaurs, etc.

We can predict the forms by the constraints of the environment.

What constraints of environment predict a dog?

 

[janesix]

Yes, but not because of God. Not because of intentional manipulation. This is a special pleading. No intentionality is needed, just basic physics.

I admit that is possible. It is one or the other, and I haven't really decided yet.

 

[janesix]

You are just making that up

Not at all.

 

[janesix]

Oh dear.
I asked for data and you give
me a platonic ideal.

Here is a little clue. Do you think fish and dolphins have a similar shape because of some mystical ideal, or because that form works so well?

This is important, give it a minutes thought.

Ideal.

 

[janesix]

People who wouldst claim to know so much about science should be careful not to betray
their ignorance by asking for proof in matters of science.

I did not make that claim.

 

[janesix]

Looks to me like someone is being mislead by the law of small numbers. Sorry, but numerology is largely nonsense.

It is not numerology. These are facts. This is how the universe is arranged.

 

[Audie]

Not at all.

Did so