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

[shunyadragon]

Hence please explain what existence is and how you know that.

"Know that" The view of Vedic recluse living in a cave. This question reflects your extreme subjective perspective of reality.

I defined "existence" and even Mental entities, and you failed to respond.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Know that" The view of Vedic recluse living in a cave. This question reflects your extreme subjective perspective of reality.

I defined "existence" and even Mental entities, and you failed to respond.

I did answer. Mental states are not real. You are taken in by bad non-science.

 

[shunyadragon]

But I don't want definitions

, , , but, but, but, but and but, but as the fishing boat faded into the swamp of delusions,

You offered a highly selective biased definition, and I responded

You state that physical is what can be observed. I can work with that.

Based on your biased selective first citation concerning 'Existence' the above is a contradiction.

But the mental states can't be observed like physical ones, so I conclude that they are not real.
So why do you post claims that are not real, since it is not physical and thus doesn't exist?

More but buts.

Mental states can be observed directly in detail by way of modern technology, but that is not the point.

Your digging yourself in deeper. What you conclude "that they are not real" this is your mental problem you have to deal with.

Mental states do exist they can be measured and observed by modern technology.

Your going deeper and deeper into the darkness of your delusional subjective sink.

The question is not whether they are 'observable, but are they reliable? You have been shown to be unreliable.

The reliability of mental entities is not dependent one individual, such as yourself, but the collective predicable observations overtime in the history of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

I did answer. Mental states are not real. You are taken in by bad non-science.

Yes, you did answer, but you are not reliable. You are too slippery and inconsistent.

Note: The references I gave are dependent on our mental states being real. Reread the definitions. The reference that described mental states DID NOT conclude they were not real. In fact the references I searched did not address whether Mental States or Mental entities are real or not. They simply are descriptive.

It is true the selective biased reference you gave may support your delusional view.

 

[shunyadragon]

I did answer. Mental states are not real.

Only an assertion of what you believe no references.

You are taken in by bad non-science.

Insults fo not replace coherent posts with references.

 

[Valjean]

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.

But it is NOT unexplainable. "
I don't understand it" ≠ inexplicable.

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".

Neither abiogenesis nor evolution is unknown, unknowable or impossible by known chemistry, physics or population dynamics.
Abiogenesis is not yet fully understood, although many basic mechanisms have been discovered. Evolution and its several mechanisms is very well understood, consilient, and easily demonstrated.

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.

Magic is effect sans mechanism. It does not mean 'unknown'.

No, I have repeatedly defined it as an existent mystery. A mystery isn't nothing, it's something that we don't comprehend.

Something we don't comprehend or understand is not magic. Not long ago we didn't comprehend disease, earthquakes, or hurricanes, but they were never magic. They had natural, non-intentional mechanisms behind them, though they were often attributed to divine displeasure with us.
Abiogenesis is no different. It's just the current vanguard in along series of magical interventions that later proved perfectly natural.

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

We have no evidence that there even is a god, much less an actively manipulative or intentional one.
Till there is some evidence thereof, or a phenomenon that would require one, the 'god "explanation"' is without merit, and justifiably dismissed.

You have no idea what is likely or probable, and neither does anyone else.

Au contraire.
What is probable is what has always proved probable, the unguided unfolding of natural law.

You assessed probabilities are nothing more that your own unfounded bias.
By definition, the source of existence is "magical".
Of course you would, just as your blind bias dictates.

No, any bias is historically and scientifically justifiable.
No, I don't think any reasonable definition of magic would necessarily include the source of existence.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Organic chemistry is essentially carbon chemistry.

 

[Sargonski]

Natural Selection nor mutations do not involve a random process.

Yes they often do ... a stray gamma ray breaking a bond is a random process

 

[Sargonski]

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Holy mind block Robin .. followed by strawman after strawman.. What is your problem that you must falsly attribute positions to me that have not expressed and do not hold .. I did not claim Magic was not an inexplicable event ... .. I stated that not all inexplicable events are Magic ... for example a cell phone to a farmer in 1800 BC .. to the farmer the event is inexplicable .. but it is not magic .. There are many things we can not explain .. .. We can not yet explain teleportation .. but if an alien shows up . and then blinks out we can't explain how Alian man did it but we do not believe it was Magic.

But this rabbit hole completely misses the other glaring problems that you conveniently avoided .. crying out you got no jutificaion .. when you were given a whole bunch of justification .. just you are now avoiding responding to that justification for your claim that "inexplicable" constitutes a sifficient definition of a Godly Power in of itself .. as it does quantify that Godly power in any way shape or form such that we could identify such power. Just because you can't explain something .. does not make it a Godly Power .. and nor is this inability to explain something a rational definition .. because you are defining Nothing in particular .. a quantity of Zero .. and thus this is definitional nonsense .. a definition that is not a definition .. failing to distinguish Godly power from something that is not Godly power.

Give a example of a Godly power ... "Magic" . and why is it so difficult for you to give an example... as definitions most often do. This is like the forth time you have been asked for an example of what you are defining as "Magic"

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes they often do ... a stray gamma ray breaking a bond is a random process

No, the timing of the event is random, a gamma ray breaking of a bond is not a process, In many processes in nature the timing of the event is random, but the processes are NOT random. For example the timing of a mutation event maybe random, but the process of genetic mutations is not random.

 

[YoursTrue]

Scientists can measure the mutation rate, scientists can estimate population sizes. Scientists can also observe and estimate the rate of positive mutations. Right there you have all that is needed to judge if evolution is possible or not. Have you heard any scientists that are experts in the filed saying "OMG!! Evolution is impossible!"

We know that it is possible. The basic mechanisms are understood and there do not appear to be any contradictions. We have endless evidence that evolution happened.

On the other hand there is not any scientific evidence for any creationist explanation of how life arose. When everything supports one side and one side only why would any sane person believe in magic instead?

The basic explanation of how life arose and was made is obviously very brief as described in the Bible. But the complexity of life, including that of animal life, really does demonstrate that the how's and why's are truly beyond human explanation except as conjecture. To actually see the different types of birds' nests is astounding and -- as far as I am concerned, scientifically inexplicable as to how each species of birds perform their particular functions except by conjecture, of course.

 

[YoursTrue]

That silly argument does not help you. It only makes you look bad.

Really? Gorillas remain gorillas, monkeys have not invented printing presses. You may say it makes me look bad to say that gorillas remain gorillas, etc, but -- your overlook without decent explanation except evolution did it makes you look bad. Frankly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? Gorillas remain gorillas, monkeys have not invented printing presses. You may say it makes me look bad to say that gorillas remain gorillas, etc, but -- your overlook without decent explanation except evolution did it makes you look bad. Frankly.

Wow! Breaking the Ninth Commandment again. You have been given more than a decent explanation. Right now you unfortunately are definitely claiming that your God is a liar. It is a pity that you are too afraid to learn how you are doing that.

 

[Valjean]

The basic explanation of how life arose and was made is obviously very brief as described in the Bible. But the complexity of life, including that of animal life, really does demonstrate that the how's and why's are truly beyond human explanation except as conjecture. To actually see the different types of birds' nests is astounding and -- as far as I am concerned, scientifically inexplicable as to how each species of birds perform their particular functions except by conjecture, of course.

Sorry you're so incredulous. You really should learn more about adaptation and selection.
The complexity and diversity of life is eminently explicable. The process and mechanisms are very well understood -- but apparently not by everyone.

 

[Valjean]

Really? Gorillas remain gorillas, monkeys have not invented printing presses. You may say it makes me look bad to say that gorillas remain gorillas, etc, but -- your overlook without decent explanation except evolution did it makes you look bad. Frankly.

Gorillas, and other species, are slowly changing, generation after generation. You don't notice it on a human time frame, but it's happening.
Try to look at the big picture. Our world did not materialize in 6,000 years.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Mental states can be observed directly in detail by way of modern technology, but that is not the point.

Your digging yourself in deeper. What you conclude "that they are not real" this is your mental problem you have to deal with.

Mental states do exist they can be measured and observed by modern technology.

Your going deeper and deeper into the darkness of your delusional subjective sink.

The question is not whether they are 'observable, but are they reliable? You have been shown to be unreliable.

The reliability of mental entities is not dependent one individual, such as yourself, but the collective predicable observations overtime in the history of science.

So it can be observed that I exist and you have descriped over several posts using science my mental states as they exist. So what is the problem?
It happens as a part of the human physical existence and I don't do anything supernatural or so on. All takes places in the universe. So what is the problem?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But the complexity of life, including that of animal life, really does demonstrate that the how's and why's are truly beyond human explanation except as conjecture

The theory of explanation shows that the above statement is as false as can be.
Rejecting it with arguments from ignorance, incredulity, awe, etc... will not change that.

To actually see the different types of birds' nests is astounding and

See? Incredulity and awe.

-- as far as I am concerned, scientifically inexplicable

In your willful ignorance.

https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v099n02/p0253-p0270.pdf

The Evolution of Birds Nests - Londolozi Blog

An African Safari blog which features news on leopards, lions, elephants, our camps as well as the rest of the Big 5 on Londolozi Game Reserve, bordering the Kruger National Park.

blog.londolozi.com

Asynchronous evolution of interdependent nest characters across the avian phylogeny - Nature Communications

Nearly all bird species build nests; however, there is extensive variation in both how and where their nests are built. Here, Fang and colleagues reconstruct the evolution of nest structure, nest site and nest attachment across all extant bird families.

www.nature.com

as to how each species of birds perform their particular functions except by conjecture, of course.

You keep calling it "conjecture", but the truth of course is that you are willfully ignorant about the scientific theory.

What's next? Another repeat of the "...but they remain gorillas" PRATT that I've been correcting you on since 2021?



EDIT: ow my...... I swear I didn't see the post which immediately followed the one I was quoting

Really? Gorillas remain gorillas, monkeys have not invented printing presses. You may say it makes me look bad to say that gorillas remain gorillas, etc, but -- your overlook without decent explanation except evolution did it makes you look bad. Frankly.

Allow me to just link you to some of the the responses I gave you 3 years ago (and MANY MANY times after that) when you made such silly ignorant claims:

More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

I like bananas, too. One thing in favor of gorillas -- as I understand it, they are not big meat eaters. So they don't raise cattle which is apparently adding to ruin the earth. (Oh, well. The Bible says God will ruin those who ruin the earth -- that's in Revelation, but of course, you probably...

www.religiousforums.com

Species? Kinds? Species? Something?

Statement defining evolution, comments from experts here on evolution, please. I'm not an expert on evolution, but I was a biological science undergraduate. I'm probably best described as an interested/educated layman at this point. See what you think of the following statement since I'm...

www.religiousforums.com

Does evolution have a purpose?

I don't think so. No. He is correct. Utter nonsense.

www.religiousforums.com

I mean... for real.... aren't you embarrassed? You've been repeating this same mistake for at least 3 years now and had it corrected every time. When will you finally learn?

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, here is a text about existence.

Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It relates to your idea of physical existence. It turns out existence is not science, it is philosphy. So with that out of the way, what is physical? Can you explain that?

Existence is an accepted factual nature of our physical existence. In and of it self it is neither science or philosophy,

It does not need to be explained if you understand English and what is defined as science and philosophy.

 

[shunyadragon]

So it can be observed that I exist and you have descriped over several posts using science my mental states as they exist. So what is the problem?
It happens as a part of the human physical existence and I don't do anything supernatural or so on. All takes places in the universe. So what is the problem?

Mental states and mental entities are real. Yes you cannot do anything supernatural.

 

[shunyadragon]

But I don't want definitions. You state that physical is what can be observed. I can work with that. But the mental states can't be observed like physical ones, so I conclude that they are not real.
So why do you post claims that are not real, since it is not physical and thus doesn't exist?

You may not want definitions, but that is your mental problem. I will provide definitions and references That is how the English language works in communication.

Your under the delusion that it has to be physical to be real.

As defined and described in all the references I can find Mental States and Mental Entities are real. They do indeed exist.

An interesting source that describes Mental Representation and the various philosophical views, Nothing in the references describes Mental States or Mental Entities as not real

Mental Representation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Intentionality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)