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

[PureX]

...and God isn't even an explanation. The process remains unexplained.

God is a possible explanation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God is a possible explanation.

Is it?

How?

Show the explanatory power and explain how it was shown to be possible.

 

[LuisDantas]

There are 3 billion base pairs in the human genom(a cell) and around 30-40 trillion cells in a human each specialized for a specific function.

There are approximately 86 billions of neurons in the brain.

The eye has a cornea, iris, pupil, lens, retina, optical nerve, macula, fovea, Aqueous Humor, Vitreous Humor, Ciliary Muscles, sclera, Choroid and Conjunctiva to name a few. The eye can distinguish between 10 million colours.

The human gut is home to trillions of microorganisms, collectively known as the gut microbiome.

These are just a few incredible facts about the human body there are hundreds more.

This doesn't even touch on the origins of the first cell, first DNA, first multi cell etc etc

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?

Basically, you are suffering from a flaw of perception.

Numbers are just numbers. The quantities that you describe give witness to little more than how tiny cells are.

The variety of phenomena that can and do happen when you have many generations, trillions of cells and thousands to billions of organisms is indeed impressive, but you are reading those all wrong. That is in itself impressive.

 

[ChristineM]

but of course you believe in magic .

Don't tell me what i believe, it's ignorant.

Were you to have an interaction with an equivalently advanced entity -

I'll wait.

The proof of God is Evolution if you define "Magic" and define "GOD" properly ..

In your opinion.

 

[LuisDantas]

God is a possible explanation.

Nope.

Even if you mean that miraculous intervention might be a possible explanation, that would still be no explanation, just an appeal that there is no need (or possibility?) of an explanation.

 

[LuisDantas]

Back in 2007, while I was giving final exams, my wife told then Senator Barack Obama that he would be the next President of the United States of America.

She was concerned for the safety of him and his family, given the dangers posed by the gundamentalists (like one of our armed forum members here), so she cast a magic spell on Senator Obama to keep him and his family safe.

They’re still alive to this day.

I have recited "Ka Nama Kaa Lajerama" often in social situations in recent months.

Not one was disturbed by Serpent Men.

Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Audie]

Is it?

How?

Show the explanatory power and explain how it was shown to be possible.

Same way that just saying things is an explanation.

 

[PureX]

Nope.

Even if you mean that miraculous intervention might be a possible explanation, that would still be no explanation, just an appeal that there is no need (or possibility?) of an explanation.

You are just spouting off your bias, since you have absolutely nothing tangeable or logical to back it up.

Existence is happening, and from our perspective it is nothing short of miraculous. Even magical, since we have no idea whatever how it could have occurred, or why.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is it?

How?

Show the explanatory power and explain how it was shown to be possible.

Well, it is connected to anti-realism as per the evil demon by Descartes. If it is impossible to show what objective reality is other than independent of the mind, then God is possible, as being not shown to be impossible.
As for showing there is any explanation possible as such, then you have to show how you know an explanation is possible in the positive sense.

So as always we are playing the limitations of epistemology.
And no, that I act as if the universe is real, doesn't cause the universe to become real. That would be magical thinking. And that is reasonable to believe the universe is real, is subjective and depends on what is taken for granted about being reasonable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope.

Even if you mean that miraculous intervention might be a possible explanation, that would still be no explanation, just an appeal that there is no need (or possibility?) of an explanation.

Well, I have yet to come across an explanation that didn't run into Agrippa's Trilemma and the evil demon by Descartes.
In other words to claim naturalism is in some cases naive realism in some sense.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You are just spouting off your bias, since you have absolutely nothing tangeable or logical to back it up.

Existence is happening, and from our perspective it is nothing short of miraculous. Even magical, since we have no idea whatever how it could have occurred, or why.

And you resent science for trying to understand how such came about - simply preferring some creation of your own mind?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, it is connected to anti-realism as per the evil demon by Descartes. If it is impossible to show what objective reality is other than independent of the mind, then God is possible, as being not shown to be impossible.
As for showing there is any explanation possible as such, then you have to show how you know an explanation is possible in the positive sense.

So as always we are playing the limitations of epistemology.
And no, that I act as if the universe is real, doesn't cause the universe to become real. That would be magical thinking. And that is reasonable to believe the universe is real, is subjective and depends on what is taken for granted about being reasonable.

Would you like some mayonaise with that word salad?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Would you like some mayonaise with that word salad?

Well, could you explain how you understand that it is not correct? Your answer is not an explanation. It is in effect one of your subjective feelings that is neither science nor knowledge in any other sense.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, I have yet to come across an explanation that didn't run into Agrippa's Trilemma and the evil demon by Descartes.
In other words to claim naturalism is in some cases naive realism in some sense.

Naive realism?

If you say so. First I hear of that expression.

 

[LuisDantas]

You are just spouting off your bias, since you have absolutely nothing tangeable or logical to back it up.

Existence is happening, and from our perspective it is nothing short of miraculous. Even magical, since we have no idea whatever how it could have occurred, or why.

Thanks. It brightens my day to be accused of having a bias towards the reality of facts.

All the best to you.

 

[McBell]

Naive realism?

If you say so. First I hear of that expression.

Naïve realism (psychology) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, could you explain how you understand that it is not correct? Your answer is not an explanation. It is in effect one of your subjective feelings that is neither science nor knowledge in any other sense.

@PureX made a claim and I asked him to support his claim.

Your post... it's not even a matter of it being correct or not. It's rather that it contributed nothing at all to the question that was asked in the post you were replying to. Instead, you just went back to your default go-to word salad that contributes nothing at all and seemingly only serves to avoid talking about the actual subjects you are replying to. I wonder why you bother replying at all if all you are going to do is try and muddy the waters as much as possible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Naive realism?

If you say so. First I hear of that expression.

It is from philosophy. And is connected to the debate of realism versus anti-realism in regards to the epistemological ability to know anything about objective reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is from philosophy. And is connected to the debate of realism versus anti-realism in regards to the epistemological ability to know anything about objective reality.

Having read the wiki article, I think it's a bit ironic that you accuse others of such.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@PureX made a claim and I asked him to support his claim.

Your post... it's not even a matter of it being correct or not. It's rather that it contributed nothing at all to the question that was asked in the post you were replying to. Instead, you just went back to your default go-to word salad that contributes nothing at all and seemingly only serves to avoid talking about the actual subjects you are replying to. I wonder why you bother replying at all if all you are going to do is try and muddy the waters as much as possible.

Well, can you justify your worldview? The problem is that you assume you can do that in your answer to the rest of us.

It is called taking for granted. You take for granted you can justify your worldview. And you don't like if that is questioned.