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

[mikkel_the_dane]

@shunyadragon
Got any link for anything?

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon
Got any link for anything?

Science IS NOT what I see IT is, Insults are not an adequate argument when you are not able(?) todo our own homework.

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.

I have presented links in the past and of course you hand wave things in the past as philosophy. Simple google Methodological Naturalism, and the various topics related to basis of scientific methods. I do not spoon feed stoic denial of an anti-science world view as referenced.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@shunyadragon

So you are in effect stuck in a believer loop. You can't give any source for yout beliefs, so you simply repeat them.

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon

So you are in effect stuck in a believer loop. You can't give any source for yout beliefs, so you simply repeat them.

So you are in effect stuck in a believer loop.

Science IS NOT what I see IT is, Insults are not an adequate argument when you are not able(?) todo our own homework.

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.

I have presented links in the past and of course you hand wave things in the past as philosophy. Simple google Methodological Naturalism, and the various topics related to basis of scientific methods. I do not spoon feed stoic denial of an anti-science world view as referenced.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@shunyadragon

New species formed by merging two species.

https://newatlas.com/biology/life-merger-evolution-symbiosis-organelle/ Two lifeforms merge in once-in-a-billion-years evolutionary event By Michael Irving April 18, 2024 The algae Braarudosphaera bigelowii has been found to have absorbed a cyanobacteria called UCYN-A, which may be a huge...

www.religiousforums.com

You do know how to use links so I will continue to ask for a link to what science is as method.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How can you expect anybody to believe that it was random mutations that ultimately created all of this, the complexity is ridiculous and there's no way all these complex organisms could have evolved to work together in harmony as they do?

Others have pointed out to you your incredulity fallacy: "I can't imagine how it happened therefore it didn't, therefore God."

But there's another fallacy there: special pleading. You're saying that a cell or living organism seems too complex to exist undesigned and uncreated, so you propose something ostensibly much more complex to account for it.

Well, since I have a positive faith in that the universe is real, fair, orderly and knowable, I can't understand what version of nihilism it is.

I explained it to you. Your only response was to put me on ignore.

"With respect, I'd like to offer some observations about our discussions. We've had discussions in the past that ended with hard feelings. I think that I was to blame there. I let what I called your epistemic nihilism get the best of me. You're a nice guy and a well-meaning guy, but you exasperated me with your unending string of "well how do you know"s. One simply cannot function in life thinking like that. It's disabling and distracting. You asked shunya how he knows there's a physical reality. Your words:

"What is relevant is if you claim that the universe is physical and you can show so using science? So do you claim that the universe is physical? If yes, then how do you know that using science?"

It's worthwhile considering such matters at some point, but not over and over. Yes, we only have an intuition that there is something outside the theater of consciousness, and it's instructive and even exciting to contemplate the implications of that, but not with every situation or conversation one is in. For me, it was exasperating, since it prevents forward progress as we dither over these matters. I find myself trying to get to a point and being unable as you ask these questions.

So, I have avoided discussion with you (and you with me) for a few years now, and I am loath to return to that. What I'm saying is that I don't intend to address these questions. If we can proceed forward, then fine, let's exchange ideas. But if you're going to go into a terminal tailspin of "how do you know"s, I'll lose interest quickly and disengage. It's unproductive. No, it's counterproductive. It impedes progress.

What do you say?"

Your entire response to that was, "Well, I should have engaged with you. Sorry, so you go back on ignore. Have a good life." I presume that you left the word "not" out

"God" is just a placeholder term we use for what we imagine and refer to as this presumed mystery source of existence.

The word is more than a placeholder. It carries baggage. Most immediately think of a conscious agent. I don't call the "presumed mystery source of existence" God. But I did have some fun a few years back. I called that source Jockomo. Jockomo may be a person (a god), but need not be. Now THAT'S a placeholder.

Spoiler: IKO – a belief system

This is a personal belief system called IKO*, which is meant to represent the gratitude that (this) one feels to be included in existence. The creation, FEENO, is a stunning and awesome thing, remarkable not only for its beauty, complexity and potential for beneficence, but remarkable just that it can and does exist and is apparent to us.

That anything at all exists is itself the most fundamental and awe-inspiring mystery (AYE-NA-NAY), one which is a continual source of awe (FIYO), and for which we are deeply grateful (FEE-NA-NAY). That existence should be as rich and robust as we find it is infinitely more remarkable. That we were included in it as conscious beings to experience it even more so, and that that conscious experience includes a faint intuition of the sacred that is accompanied by an experience of mystery, of awe and of gratitude.

To experience FEENO is the greatest gift. My gratitude that all of this is so is called IKO, and it is expressed as an affinity for the creation FEENO, and by implication, its source JOCKOMO, whether that be person-like, purposeless and accidental forces, or any other ontogenic entity or entities.

Nothing can be said or known about the creative source of FEENO, an entity termed JOCKOMO. All that can be ascertained about the reality of JOCKOMO is that which is faintly intuited by the mystery faculty called SPYBOY (the faculty of the brain that intuitively produces the experience of mystery or divinity to us), and whatever little bit that the reasoning faculty can add to that.

JOCKOMO may be existent, may have been formerly existent, or something else altogether. It may be substantial (material) or transcendent. It may be plural or singular, finite or immortal, conscious or insentient; we cannot know. Whatever the case, we love it and identify with it through its creation, FEENO by which we intuit JOCKOMO faintly and indirectly.

We do not know if JOCKOMO knows us or can know us. It is not necessary. We are astounded and grateful nevertheless. We are indebted to JOCKOMO for being included in the creation FEENO and being blessed with the faculty of conscious mind, including SPYBOY that generates our intuition of the mysterious and divine, called AYE-NAH-NAY. The awe we feel is called FIYO, and the gratitude that results naturally from these is FEE-NAH-NAY.

IKO – a belief system
FEENO – the creation
JOCKOMO – the source of the creation FEENO
SPYBOY – the faculty that reveals the mystery and awesomeness of the creation FEENO
AYE-NA-NAY – the intuition of the mysterious and divine
FEE-NA-NAY – the gratitude experienced for being included in the creation
FIYO – the experience of awe

I am not the least bit anti-science. I just don't make an idol of it as the scientism crowd here does.

Nobody here idolizes science, but you have made an idol of Jockomo. You did that when you called it God.

Religions have a whole array of imaginary possibilities, too. But they don't actually know any more than the scientists do.

But you love those religious guesses and attack those who don't respect them.

The religions have contributed no answers to man's fund of knowledge about reality. There are no ideas there that can be used to benefit beyond comforting those that can be comforted by such fantastical claims and promises.

why are you constantly demanding proof for every possibility that you encounter, even though you know you can't have it

He's a critical thinker and empiricist. That means that he has mastered the technique that keeps false and unfalsifiable ideas out of his collection of beliefs. He requires compelling evidence (are you still stuck on "proof") to believe.

 

[Audie]

Lots of them, my Orchid food is all inorganic as are carbon dioxide and water.
View attachment 92547
Not a single organic chemical there.

I think could "have form inorganic" chemicals, should have been " have formed from inorganic chemicals.

Just making sure we know ' organic"
is anything w carbon.

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon

New species formed by merging two species.

https://newatlas.com/biology/life-merger-evolution-symbiosis-organelle/ Two lifeforms merge in once-in-a-billion-years evolutionary event By Michael Irving April 18, 2024 The algae Braarudosphaera bigelowii has been found to have absorbed a cyanobacteria called UCYN-A, which may be a huge...

www.religiousforums.com

You do know how to use links so I will continue to ask for a link to what science is as method.

Continue as you wish like acracked78 record.

​

@It Aint Necessarily So post expressed very well the problem of even responding to your stoic denial of science and your incoherent posts and failure to respond to previous references.​

Science IS NOT what I see IT is, Insults are not an adequate argument when you are not able(?) todo our own homework.

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.

I have presented links in the past and of course you hand wave things in the past as philosophy. Simple google Methodological Naturalism, and the various topics related to basis of scientific methods. I do not spoon feed stoic denial of an anti-science world view as referenced.

​

​

 

[firedragon]

Yes, the fact the existence is the result of a set of design parameters and that those parameters are followed consistently. We humans like to call them the "laws of nature" even tough that's a bit a myopic term, since they are the parameters government the expression of what we refer to as "nature". And therefor predetermine it.

Hmm. Interesting statement to make.

 

[shunyadragon]

Just making sure we know ' organic"
is anything w carbon.

Probably not necessarily the case for example what are called organic chemical amino acids on meteorites are not of organic origin,

I do not consider CO2 an organic chemical,

 

[firedragon]

Just making sure we know ' organic"
is anything w carbon.

This statement falls into many logical fallacies. One being hasty generalization.

Anything organic will have carbon. But "anything with carbon" is not organic. E.g. CO. Has carbon. Not organic. Yet this could be that you misspoke.

 

[PureX]

Hmm. Interesting statement to make.

Sorry for all the typos.

 

[wellwisher]

Just making sure we know ' organic"
is anything w carbon.

Carbon based plastics, from raw fossil fuels and then processed oil and coal, are also composed of organic chemicals. Alcohol or ethanol is organic.

Inorganic, on the other hand, are things that do not contain carbon, such as metals and ceramic, or special materials such as silicone oil and silicone plastics. One carbon exception is carbon steel, since that carbon is part of a metal matrix and does not use the covalent bonds found in most other carbon based materials such as CO2, graphite and diamond. Tungsten carbide is also an exception since the carbon is part of a ceramic and crystal matrix.

I used to be material specialists by education specializing on polymers. Bio-polymers like DNA are down my alley. Like plastics, secondary bonding forces, is what defines their properties, with hydrogen bonding and the DNA-water co-polymer, having unique life properties.

 

[firedragon]

Sorry for all the typos.

Nah. That's not a problem. But good thought. I don't even remember any typos really.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Continue as you wish like acracked78 record.

​

@It Aint Necessarily So post expressed very well the problem of even responding to your stoic denial of science and your incoherent posts and failure to respond to previous references.​

That user is a subjectivist as he includes subjective experinces in empiricism if I recalled correctly.

And because he doesn't like that I point that out I have put him on ignore, so I don't answer his posts and upset him.

 

[Pogo]

Just making sure we know ' organic"
is anything w carbon.

No, see graphite, diamond and CO2 for common exceptions
A little closer is Carbon containing compounds that have a covalent Carbon Hydrogen bond as opposed to ionicaly bonded as it is in Hydrogen Cyanide HCN but I am sure even this rule has exceptions that I don't remember.
note, it appears that Google U. is not the place to look for an answer to this.

 

[Pogo]

Carbon based plastics, from raw fossil fuels and then processed oil and coal, are also composed of organic chemicals. Alcohol or ethanol is organic.

Inorganic, on the other hand, are things that do not contain carbon, such as metals and ceramic, or special materials such as silicone oil and silicone plastics. One carbon exception is carbon steel, since that carbon is part of a metal matrix and does not use the covalent bonds found in most other carbon based materials such as CO2, graphite and diamond. Tungsten carbide is also an exception since the carbon is part of a ceramic and crystal matrix.

I used to be material specialists by education specializing on polymers. Bio-polymers like DNA are down my alley. Like plastics, secondary bonding forces, is what defines their properties, with hydrogen bonding and the DNA-water co-polymer, having unique life properties.

Silicone can contain CHR groups but does not always, whether this changes its status I don't know.

 

[Sargonski]

Yes, we have to recognize that an unexplainable event is taking place. And because it is unexplained by any means we would normally apply, it becomes "magical" to us. The inability to explain it IS WHAT DEFINES IT AS MAGIC. So there is no further definition required, or possible.

Doing what by all known means of understanding is impossible = "magic". The specific example is not a requirement of defining the term "magic". And so is not a requirement of anyone wishing to discuss the subject of "magic".

I have defined the term "magic" many times. now. But it is defined by what we DON'T KNOW, not by what we do. And this fact seems to be escaping you.
No, I have repeatedly defined it as an existent mystery. A mystery isn't nothing, it's something that we don't comprehend.

No .. the inability to explain it is not what defines it as Magic ... as there are manythigns we can not explain that are not magic .. but regardless .. what part of >>>> "" YOUR DEFINITION IS SELF CONTRADICTORY IRRATIONAL FALLACIOUS NONSENSE" are you not getting here ?

You .. albeit unwittingly .. have defined magic as "nothing" and so you should have .. and more correctly stated "I don't believe in Nothing" .. which means you believe in something ..

What we are looking for here is a "Rational Definition" as opposed to an "Irrational definition of something" OK ? Saying "anything we don't understand" is not an example of Magic ..nor a definition of Magic .. not distinguishing Magic from things that are not magic..

What you gave is a Non -Definition .. same as defining God as "Everything" except in a way even more irrational.

You have no way of knowing that the God explanation is wrong, regardless of how or why it's being adopted. Thus, it remains a viable possibility in spite of your irrational bias against it.

The problem for you is that even if your accusations are true, those assertions that "God did it' could still be correct.

What is this raging strawman fallacy .. what explanation of God ar you referring to and where do I say it is wrong ? .. what is a viable possibility .. and what on earth is my bias agaist this possibility that I have not ever heard of ..... and who said God didn't do it ? what on earth is all this made up false nonsense you are attributing to me .. this is as loopy as your definition of Magic .. in the context of Godly Powers. You seem to have no idea what is being argued and so are making things up.

I just want a rational definition of what a Godly power is .. it may not be the only definition but just one sensible definition .. one that is not fallacious illogical circular nonsense .. and /or false definition in an attempt to engage in existential fallacy. OK !?


Just give an example of a Godly power that you would claim is Magic .. then that will suffice as your definition .. doesn't have to be that complicated mate

 

[PureX]

No .. the inability to explain it is not what defines it as Magic ... as there are many things we can not explain that are not magic .. but regardless .. what part of >>>> "" YOUR DEFINITION IS SELF CONTRADICTORY IRRATIONAL FALLACIOUS NONSENSE" are you not getting here ?

What I am not getting is any actual justification for this claim. Please name something that we cannot explain that is disqualified from being labeled "magic". (Not disqualified by your own bias, but actually, logically, disqualified.

You .. albeit unwittingly .. have defined magic as "nothing" and so you should have .. and more correctly stated "I don't believe in Nothing" .. which means you believe in something ..

What we are looking for here is a "Rational Definition" as opposed to an "Irrational definition of something" OK ? Saying "anything we don't understand" is not an example of Magic ..nor a definition of Magic .. not distinguishing Magic from things that are not magic..

It is not irrational that we would be unable to understand how something that we are witnessing happen, can be happening. And "magic" is a common term we humans would use to refer to that kind of scenario. So 'an inexplicable event' is not an "irrational definition" of magic.

What you gave is a Non -Definition .. same as defining God as "Everything" except in a way even more irrational.

Well, I can't help you recognize and understand the obvious when you are clearly determined not to. Magic = an inexplicable event.

What is this raging strawman fallacy .. what explanation of God ar you referring to and where do I say it is wrong ? .. what is a viable possibility .. and what on earth is my bias agaist this possibility that I have not ever heard of ..... and who said God didn't do it ? what on earth is all this made up false nonsense you are attributing to me .. this is as loopy as your definition of Magic .. in the context of Godly Powers. You seem to have no idea what is being argued and so are making things up.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, how can you be so sure that it's wrong? Except by your own blind bias.

I just want a rational definition of what a Godly power is ..

It is the power to define existence as a possibility. And then make it happen.

it may not be the only definition but just one sensible definition .. one that is not fallacious illogical circular nonsense .. and /or false definition in an attempt to engage in existential fallacy. OK !?

Honesty, I really don't think you're going to be able to engage in the conversation that you think you want to have.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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

Exactly, and since they are survive based on adaptability, natural selection is not random.