How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[Pogo]

you missed completely the fact that the Subject of the thread can not be coherently discussed without (not splitting hairs .. in strawman fallacy bliss) having A Definition .. of some sort .. which you did manage to give so kudos for that much .. summarized as "Apparent ability to mess with the forces of nature and beyond .. through force of will" the Will being the Supernatural Power

and we are not talking about Creation .. but evolution .. whether we can detect the hand of a God in evolution .. were it there .. and whether or not you believe that beings might well exist with such "Apparent" powers .. say the power to move a chair .. through force of will .. and/or perhaps humans might one day develop technology that focuses brain waves .. giving one the ability to move that chair... through force of will .

Which is why I asked you for a differential definition between a Magician and your Concept of God because without explaining your belief in some intangibles from your interpretation of your Bible, we don't see a difference in capabilities and so to us they are indistinguishable and interchangeable.

 

[shunyadragon]

you missed completely the fact that the Subject of the thread can not be coherently discussed without (not splitting hairs .. in strawman fallacy bliss) having A Definition .. of some sort .. which you did manage to give so kudos for that much .. summarized as "Apparent ability to mess with the forces of nature and beyond .. through force of will" the Will being the Supernatural Power

and we are not talking about Creation .. but evolution .. whether we can detect the hand of a God in evolution .. were it there .. and whether or not you believe that beings might well exist with such "Apparent" powers .. say the power to move a chair .. through force of will .. and/or perhaps humans might one day develop technology that focuses brain waves .. giving one the ability to move that chair... through force of will .

I think it is worthy of note that @wordy80 started the thread and like a gooney bird dropped his smelly load and disappeared in the dark.

 

[Brian2]

Is that not what @wordy80 was doing, using his awe and lack of understanding of the evidence as evidence for his desired conclusion / creator.
Yes it is a fallacious logic.

Then it is also a fallacious logical argument from incredulity to claim that nature did it all and not magic when the person claiming that does not believe in magic (or whatever the mocking synonym for God that the person might want to use).

 

[Brian2]

Agreed. But the time to believe something is true is when there is good evidence that convinces you.

Actually, that's wrong.

The evidence in fact DOES tell us that a creator is not needed, since the natural process detailed in the theory of evolution is sufficient to explain the evidence.
What you probably meant to say is that the evidence does not tell us that a creator had no part in it.


Let's illustrate with a simpler example that might be less controversial to you since it doesn't threaten your dearly held religious beliefs.

Say I have a chocolate cake in my kitchen. I enter the kitchen and notice that half of it is missing.
My child is standing in the kitchen and his T-shirt, hands and face is covered in chocolate. There is nobody else in the house.
Based on this evidence, I conclude my child ate the cake. The evidence tells me that the explanation is sufficient to account for the missing half.
This evidence thus tells me that it is not needed to think about a third party having broken into the house to steal half the cake. Or that extra-dimensional aliens materialized into my kitchen and went off with half the cake.

The evidence does not allow me to exclude such a third party or extra-dimensional aliens having taken part of that half while my child ate the rest of that missing half. It doesn't even exclude that they took the entire half and then smeared chocolate all over my child to make it look AS IF he ate it all.

But as there is no evidence of such things happening, and the hypothesis of the child eating it all is sufficient to explain the facts, the evidence most certainly tells me that such third parties or extra-dimensional aliens are not needed to account for the missing half of the cake.


See?

I see, of course, but you seem to think that science has shown that chemistry could have accomplished evolution without a third party intervention. But that is not the case imo.

 

[Sargonski]

Which is why I asked you for a differential definition between a Magician and your Concept of God because without explaining your belief in some intangibles from your interpretation of your Bible, we don't see a difference in capabilities and so to us they are indistinguishable and interchangeable.

The definition of God for which you asked was given .. and a definition of Magic .. which by definition .. a God is capable .. at least of some forms. and this was done with no reference to the Bible and has nothing to do with any belief in the Bible ..

What is the point you wished to make ? Do you believe that there was some supernatural or "Alien" intervention in the creation of humans ?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

How can you expect anybody to believe that it was random mutations that ultimately created all of this,

While mutations are random, natural selection is anything but.

 

[Brian2]

While mutations are random, natural selection is anything but.

Natural selection is the process by which the best random mutations survive in a population and help an organism to survive.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then it is also a fallacious logical argument from incredulity to claim that nature did it all and not magic when the person claiming that does not believe in magic (or whatever the mocking synonym for God that the person might want to use).

Your misrepresenting the overwhelming objective objective verifiable evidence and hundreds of years of discoveries and research with what you is a 'fallacious logic.' Both the claim of literal Genesis nor the documented view science are logical arguments, but based on the support of the evidence provided for their claims.

Each argument must be defended by the evidence, which the Genesis account lacks any verifiable evidence beyond the belief that the Genesis account without provenance or science is true,

Fallacies | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Fallacious argument - One widely accepted definition defines a fallacious argument as one that either is deductively invalid or is inductively very weak or contains an unjustified premise or that ignores relevant evidence that is available and that should be known by the arguer.

Argument from incredulity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

Where is the independent justifiable evidence to support the accuracy of the Genesis account?

 

[PureX]

Perhaps I can help clarify some of this.

The proposition is that that Evolution is helped along by God (Magic) and the alternate proposition "I don't believe in Magic" (don't believe the hand of God had anything to do with it).

To address any of this one must have a functional and agreed upon definition of what would constitute "Magic" = What powers are required for something to be a God

This is an inherently contradictory demand. "Magic", by definition, is a process-to-result that we cannot understand according to any current means of understanding that we possess. Not understanding how it's happening is precisely why it's being called "magic". So the idea that we must have a functional and agreed upon definition of 'magic' is an inherently contradictory and irrational statement. It is exactly the LACK of those that defines magic as magical.

Only once the power of this God to do magic is defined .. can any sense at all be made out of the above propositions.

This, then, is an inherently illogical conclusion. Magic, by definition, is beyond our understanding the process through which it is occurring. So there is no possibility, then, of defining the "power of God" to perform such magic. If there were, the result wouldn't be called "magic".

For example -- using an ancient definition of a God .. "The Sun" for example a God of Nature and / or the power of a God over the forces of nature .. an important distinction.

The ancient definition of the sun as a god is nothing like the current definition as the sun as an objective physcal phenomenon.

To the first part --- obviously the Sun is a power that has great influence over our lives .. a power which shaped the evolutionary process .. a power without which .. evolution could not have occurred .. and we have the evidence which proves this is true .. and we can not say that this force does not eminate from the Godhead.

We can, however, determine that the sun's effect on our lives is no longer something to be considered "magical" since we now do understand the objective physical mechanisms involved (the processes that determine the results) in this effect.

For me .. I need more for something to be called magic .. the power of a God must include the ability to manipulate a force or forces of nature to a certain degree through force of will ... Such God-Like Power I call magic.

That's actually quite easy to obtain once you are willing to contemplate the mysterious source from which those 'natural' (objective) forces arise. Because whatever that source is, and whatever we choose to call it, it does clearly possess 'powers' that transcend any power manifesting in or as existence as we know it. And how that is happening is clearly "magical", then, by the definition of that term.

More formal -- A Godly Power would be the ability to manipulate matter and energy through force of will - External to its body.

In the case of existential reality, this "Godly power" does not just manipulate it, but creates it.

Note that you have this power .. but it is limited only to your Body .. you can will your pinky to move . .and magically it does .. but you can not will the chair across the room to move .. but if you could .. it would be "Magic" - and a Godly power.

The "Godly power" wills that we can control our fingers, but that we cannot control the chair. Because it controls all that is. And it does so "magically".

Now - we can address the question -- Do you believe in God / "Magic" .. and is there a hand of this God in evolution .. .. took it from the normal path .. and if this is so .. would we be able to detect it.

The "normal path" IS the "hand of God"; not only being witnessed through the process of evolution, but through ALL natural processes. The "magic" is not in the fact that we cannot understand those specific processes. The "magic" is in the fact that we cannot understand how those processes came to exist at all. Or why they continue to maintain the event of existing.

The complexity of evolution -- in of itself -- is in no way evidence for or proof of an invisible hand of the Magical variety .. it is a function of the actions of different forces .. a number of which we do not yet understand for one .. and no for other reasons - such as some of the forces are pushing evolution in a certain direction .. which causes violations to the random probability equation..

The complexity of the design system we are calling "evolution" is still far beyond the degree of complexity that we humans can comprehend. Which would clearly indicate that whatever is the source of it's occurrence, that source is far more "intelligent" than we are and that it's means of manifestation remains "magical" by definition.

That said .. analysis of the actions of these forces with respect to Evolution speaks to an invisible hand according to some .. and thus we see some Magic in Evolution ..

Because there are aspects of this very complex design mechanism that we call "evolution" that we still cannot grasp, these unknowns still fall logically under the term "magic". But the real mystery and magic is within the source of all the systems of design that are manifesting existence as we know it. The source and means of manifesting all of those systems are so great and so powerful that we can only call them "God-magic". And so many do.

 

[shunyadragon]

The "normal path" IS the "hand of God"; not only being witnessed through the process of evolution, but through ALL natural processes. The "magic" is not in the fact that we cannot understand those specific processes. The "magic" is in the fact that we cannot understand how those processes came to exist at all. Or why they continue to maintain the event of existing.

The complexity of the design system we are calling "evolution" is still far beyond the degree of complexity that we humans can comprehend. Which would clearly indicate that whatever is the source of it's occurrence, that source is far more "intelligent" than we are and that it's means of manifestation remains "magical" by definition.

Science can fully comprehend and described in detail the complexity in nature and the evolution without the spooky claims of some Theists of Intelligent Design. There is absolutely not falsifiable hypothesis to support any version of Intelligent Design. The oft claim of the highly subjective claim of appearance of Design in nature has no basis in the factual evidence,

Because there are aspects of this very complex design mechanism that we call "evolution" that we still cannot grasp, these unknowns still fall logically under the term "magic". But the real mystery and magic is within the source of all the systems of design that are manifesting existence as we know it. The source and means of manifesting all of those systems are so great and so powerful that we can only call them "God-magic". And so many do.

The statement of 'very very complex' clearly reflects an outrageous assertion of some theists, where the nature of our universe and life is simply naturally complex. I heard previously back door arguments for Intelligent Design by arguing simply Design in nature for which there is no evidence for 'Design' in nature by definition. The argument for "Intelligent Design' is a religious argument without objective evidence or falsifiable hypotheses.

Could you present any falsifiable hypothesis for 'Intelligent Design.' or a reference to a scientific reference for a fallsfiable hypothesis? For many years the Discovery Institute has tried but failed.

 

[gnostic]

Magic evolves, like everything else in life that isn’t traveling at the speed of light.

Even neutrinos evolve, as we’ve just recently discovered.

The speed of light isn’t magic. This speed is about photons, one of the elementary particles. Photons are natural phenomena.

Neutrinos occurred naturally, most often through nuclear fission (hence radio decays), but more often through nuclear fusion (eg during Nucleosynthesis processes in the star’s core, eg the Sun’s core). Most of neutrinos come from the Sun.

Neutrinos are not affected by or interacted with electromagnetic forces or strong nuclear forces; neutrinos only interact with weak nuclear forces and gravity. It has less mass than electrons, but not massless like photons, so it move extremely fast, but fall short of speed of light.

There are no magic involved with photons or with neutrinos, if you bother to understand Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics & the Stellar Nucleosynthesis (which I know you don’t).

Just because you don’t understand natura occurring things, don’t mean it’s magic or miracle or whatever supernatural woo.

 

[Kenny]

It's called reality. The alternative is yours given your rejection of facts and science. You prefer an obsolete tradition of belief.

Creative thinking

 

[PureX]

Science can fully comprehend and described in detail the complexity in nature and the evolution without the spooky claims of some Theists of Intelligent Design.

No, it cannot. This is the intractable myth of scientism that makes it akin to a religion. Science cannot even tell us how life happened in the first place. And even if it could, that still would not explain the forces that allowed for it to occur however it did.

There is absolutely not falsifiable hypothesis to support any version of Intelligent Design.

Except that it is evident everywhere, and in everything, and science wouldn't exist without it.

The oft claim of the highly subjective claim of appearance of Design in nature has no basis in the factual evidence,

Don't you then mean the "appearance of factual evidence"? I mean, if the existential design that everyone sees and uses to function in life is just an "appearance", then so must be the "evidence" that it generates and that causes everything to make sense to us, and to enable us to make predictable decisions about the consequences of our actions.

The statement of 'very very complex' clearly reflects an outrageous assertion of some theists, where the nature of our universe and life is simply naturally complex.

Well, it's too complex for we humans to comprehend. So ... it seems to me that's a circumstance that's aptly described as "very, very, complex".

I heard previously back door arguments for Intelligent Design by arguing simply Design in nature for which there is no evidence for 'Design' in nature by definition.

Science is the evidence that there is design in nature. Among others.

The argument for "Intelligent Design' is a religious argument without objective evidence or falsifiable hypotheses.

Religion is a boogerman for you that rears up every time you hear the words "intelligent design". But for the rest of us "intelligent design" is just inteligent design. It's not a religious boogerman that we must try and discredit by any means mecessary.

Could you present any falsifiable hypothesis for 'Intelligent Design.' or a reference to a scientific reference for a fallsfiable hypothesis?

I don't have to as it's completely self-evident. Intelligent design is what science exists to study. And it's how you are able to learn and to function as a life form. You can't see this because all you can see is the religious boogerman that you have convinced yourself that you are duty bound to exterminate.

For many years the Discovery Institute has tried but failed.

The fact that they think they could prove their God boogerman is just as foolish as the fact that you think they should have to. It's just the blind fighting with the blind.

 

[Brian2]

Your misrepresenting the overwhelming objective objective verifiable evidence and hundreds of years of discoveries and research with what you is a 'fallacious logic.'

You are mistaken if you think that science has discovered that evolution happened or could have happened without a designer and assistance along the way.

Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

So it is a fallacious argument from incredulity to claim that nature did it all and not magic because the person claiming that does not believe in magic. The claim that it was only nature is a claim that contradicts personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

Where is the independent justifiable evidence to support the accuracy of the Genesis account?

The Genesis account can be read to line up with the discoveries of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, it cannot. This is the intractable myth of scientism that makes it akin to a religion. Science cannot even tell us how life happened in the first place. And even if it could, that still would not explain the forces that allowed for it to occur however it did.

Except that it is evident everywhere, and in everything, and science wouldn't exist without it.

Science exists because of the predictable Natural Determinism of the nature of our physical existence.

Your profound ignorance of science based on a ancient tribal agenda is obvious.

Don't you then mean the "appearance of factual evidence"? I mean, if the existential design that everyone sees and uses to function in life is just an "appearance", then so must be the "evidence" that it generates and that causes everything to make sense to us, and to enable us to make predictable decisions about the consequences of our actions.

No, There is no appearance of factual evidence. Read you definitions and update your basic English.

Well, it's too complex for we humans to comprehend. So ... it seems to me that's a circumstance that's aptly described as "very, very, complex".

The objective verifiable evidence says no. Can you present any complexity in nature that cannot be determined to be of natural causes,

Science is the evidence that there is design in nature. Among others.

Science exists a because of the predictable Natural Determinism of the nature of our physical existence.
What others???

Religion is a boogerman for you that rears up every time you hear the words "intelligent design". But for the rest of us "intelligent design" is just inteligent design. It's not a religious boogerman that we must try and discredit by any means mecessary.

I don't have to as it's completely self-evident. Intelligent design is what science exists to study. And it's how you are able to learn and to function as a life form. You can't see this because all you can see is the religious boogerman that you have convinced yourself that you are duty bound to exterminate.

The fact that they think they could prove their God boogerman is just as foolish as the fact that you think they should have to. It's just the blind fighting with the blind.

Science could confirm any of the above. The religious argument of Intelligent Design is very specific.

Intelligent Design

Intelligent design is a theory that the universe was designed by an intelligent higher power. Teaching the theory blurs the lines between church and state.

firstamendment.mtsu.edu

Intelligent design is a theory that the universe and its complex life forms cannot be explained solely by natural causes, and thus an intelligent higher power contributed to the origins of the universe.

There is absolutely no evidence of a higher power, ie God. How can in any way objectively demonstrate the existence of the "Designer"?

Still waiting for independent verification of your claims with evidence other than you assertion based on a religious agenda,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science exists a because of the predictable Natural Determinism of the nature of our physical existence.

...

Cover you please give a link to the source of this claim?

 

[shunyadragon]

Cover you please give a link to the source of this claim?

The nature of science as science. The problem remains your nebulous vague slippery subjective philosophy and intentional ignorance of science.

This has been covered in a number of threads. Your stoic intractable denial of science is something you need to deal with., and not worth any more long involved dialogue. You KNOW what science is and what your subjective claims are.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The nature of science as science. The problem remains your nebulous vague subjective philosophy and intentional ignorance of science.

This has been covered in a number of threads. Your stoic intractable denial of science is something you need to deal with.

No, a link please.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, a link please.

Your claiming intentional ignorance.

The nature of science as science. The problem remains your nebulous vague slippery subjective philosophy and intentional ignorance of science.

This has been covered in a number of threads. Your stoic intractable denial of science is something you need to deal with., and not worth any more long involved dialogue. You KNOW what science is and what your subjective claims are.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science cannot even tell us how life happened in the first place. And even if it could, that still would not explain the forces that allowed for it to occur however it did.

The only answers we will ever get about reality will come from empiricism.

You like to write a lot about questions empiricism hasn't answered and may never answer. So what? Religion won't answer them. You'll just have to wait for the scientists to answer or do without answers. You can also guess about gods, but those aren't answers.

Except that it is evident everywhere, and in everything, and science wouldn't exist without it.

That was in response to, "There is absolutely not falsifiable hypothesis to support any version of Intelligent Design"

Like I said, religion has no answers. You're guessing. Guesses are not answers. You just finished bemoaning that, "Science cannot even tell us how life happened in the first place." Science isn't in the guessing game like most religions are.

The fact that they think they could prove their God boogerman is just as foolish as the fact that you think they should have to. It's just the blind fighting with the blind.

Fortunately, you've transcended both of these blind groups. You see further, right? Of course, you've devolved to your same old straw man argument about wanting evidence from believers. They have none to show. You have none to show, just unfalsifiable claims, and the critically thinking empiricist knows that. You'll never see me asking you or any other theist for evidence, but you will see me tell you that I know that you have none that supports your god belief.

The Genesis account can be read to line up with the discoveries of science.

The two Genesis accounts contradict one another, and science contradicts them both.

You are mistaken if you think that science has discovered that evolution happened or could have happened without a designer and assistance along the way.

We're content that the phenomenon can explained without reference to supernaturalism. You would be as well if you hadn't chosen tobelieve otherwise by faith.

So it is a fallacious argument from incredulity to claim that nature did it all and not magic because the person claiming that does not believe in magic.

Same answer. We don't need to invoke magic, so we don't.

Rhetorical question (because I know the answer): Which do you consider the better answer for the unexplained: "We don't know" or "God did it." It's a natural tendency for people to slip into the latter. It's a skill and a discipline to stop at "I don't know" rather than to proceed on with a comforting guess.

PureX noted that we haven't explained the origin of life in the universe in detail yet (we have a good idea, but not a complete answer). He's a creationist like you and like you has guessed that an intelligent designer is responsible. The critical thinker remains agnostic, because he has no test, observation, experiment or algorithm to rule either in or out. He believes that the answer is probably naturalistic, but he doesn't need to commit himself to that and in fact cannot justifiably do so. Why guess? I can tell you why not to guess that a god is responsible. "God did it" stifles inquiry and leads people to believe, defend, and act on guesses about reality.