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

[George-ananda]

I’m not clear on what this third answer is?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I’m not clear on what this third answer is?

That you don't believe in either mechanical or spiritual.
In effect for different parts of the everyday world I use one or the other, but I don't believe the world is one or another.

 

[George-ananda]

That you don't believe in either mechanical or spiritual.
In effect for different parts of the everyday world I use one or the other, but I don't believe the world is one or another.

So, when it comes to the OP argument from biological complexity do you accept a 'spiritual' or 'mechanical' view? Any inclusion of the 'spiritual' would be inconsistent with the 'mechanical' view. The 'spiritual' view though is fine with 'mechanical' operation being involved too.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, when it comes to the OP argument from biological complexity do you accept a 'spiritual' or 'mechanical' view? Any inclusion of the 'spiritual' would be inconsistent with the 'mechanical' view. The 'spiritual' view though is fine with 'mechanical' operation being involved too.

It depends on what you are asking about as far as what is or how it matters. What is, is mechanical. How it matters, is spirtual. It is a form of dualism without the claim that it is what the world is, rather how I do it. You do it differently and so would a person with a mechanical view.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not sure what the point is of adding "scientists say" is. Will I be disfellowshipped if I don't agree with them?

Would it be so bad?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are some things that even science cannot adequately explain or duplicate.

At some point, that was true for EVERYTHING science today can adequately explain or duplicate.
So that doesn't mean anything.

I'm not saying that means God exists, but then it doesn't mean that God does not exist.

Nothing means that god doesn't exist, because god is an unfalsifiable entity. You can't falsify (or confirm) the unfalsifiable.
In the same way, nothing means that there is no undetectable dragon living in your basement.

 

[Brian2]

What definition of "evidence" do you use?

From this site: Evidence - Wikipedia I got the following quotes.

The guiding intuition within epistemology concerning the role of evidence is that it is what justifies beliefs.

Evidence for a proposition is what supports the proposition. It is usually understood as an indication that the supported proposition is true. What role evidence plays and how it is conceived varies from field to field.

I hope that helps.

 

[Brian2]

Emotions and feelings are not useful epistemic tools. They aren't testable, reproducible or falsifiable. They yield inconsistent conclusions.

Emotions and feelings are useful epistemic tools for me.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, you can artificially select for desired traits, but nature also selects -- unguided and unintentionally. No pre-planning or design is needed.
This is well evidenced and easily observable.

Yes we can see things happening but not see the planner and designer, but this does not point to there being no designer of the system and planner who ensures the environments take the end products where He wanted them to go.
If you say that no pre-planning or design is needed, that is a statement of faith, as you don't know it to be so.

 

[Brian2]

Multiple online dictionaries are pretty clear with a definition of evidence, it appears to be one of the few English words that doesn't have numerous multiple meanings. The only difference seems to be when used as a legal term.

Maybe you should define what it means to you so we can understand what you're getting at.

See post 1227.

 

[Brian2]

Just to be clear, popular dictionaries tend to be descriptive, nor proscriptive. In these epistemic discussions we're using the word in a more technical sense.

You want me to use the definition you use, the one that makes it easy to say that evidence for God or the Bible etc, which I see as evidence, is not really evidence and so can be ignored by you.

 

[Brian2]

Your post demonstrates that you do not understand the concept of evidence. What you are talking about are observations and observations are not necessarily evidence.

This is why you should try to understand what is and what is not evidence. An ad hoc argument has no evidence and mistakenly thinks that observations are evidence. To have evidence you first need a rational explanation. Observations will either support that explanation or refute it. And if you cannot think of a possible refutation of your argument it probably is not an explanation, it is just a worthless ad hoc argument.

If you can think of possible refutations of my argument then it can be refuted in the eyes of those who do not believe the argument. That does not mean that it is not good evidence in my view or that it has been refuted in my view.
If there is no refutation then my belief is that it is, a faith, not something that is proven or disproven.
But many historians etc have tried and think they have succeeded in disproving the Bible, but that is an understanding of faith and ignorance on their part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you can think of possible refutations of my argument then it can be refuted in the eyes of those who do not believe the argument. That does not mean that it is not good evidence in my view or that it has been refuted in my view.
If there is no refutation then my belief is that it is, a faith, not something that is proven or disproven.
But many historians etc have tried and think they have succeeded in disproving the Bible, but that is an understanding of faith and ignorance on their part.

It is child's play to refute your argument. Your own source that you linked earlier, that you did not read fully, shows that you do not understand the concept of evidence. You have no valid evidence for your beliefs. Different disciplines have different standards for what is and what is not evidence. From the source that you linked yourself:

"In the sciences, evidence is understood as what confirms or disconfirms scientific hypotheses"

Without a testable hypothesis you cannot have any evidence at all. You are just spouting unsupported nonsense when you try to claim that the flood story happened. There are countless personal versions of the myth. I cannot refute all of them in one sitting, but I can tell you that no one has ever been able to provide a version that can accomplish the claimed goals in the Bible and at the same time have any chance of happening.

What you are trying to do now is to shift the burden of proof. And even though it is not my burden of proof, I am more than willing to go half way if you can only give a clear version of the story and explain how it accomplished the goals of the story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes we can see things happening but not see the planner and designer, but this does not point to there being no designer of the system and planner who ensures the environments take the end products where He wanted them to go.
If you say that no pre-planning or design is needed, that is a statement of faith, as you don't know it to be so.

If you want to claim that there is a designer once again the burden of proof is upon you. Anybody can claim anything. I could claim to be the Queen of England. It is not your burden of proof to show that I am not the Queen of England. It is my burden of proof to prove that I am the Queen of England.

 

[Valjean]

Yes we can see things happening but not see the planner and designer, but this does not point to there being no designer of the system and planner who ensures the environments take the end products where He wanted them to go.
If you say that no pre-planning or design is needed, that is a statement of faith, as you don't know it to be so.

No, it's a well-evidenced, factual claim. If there's a familiar, well-evidenced mechanism explaining a particular phenomenon, making up magical folk tales about it is just silly.

 

[Valjean]

You want me to use the definition you use, the one that makes it easy to say that evidence for God or the Bible etc, which I see as evidence, is not really evidence and so can be ignored by you.

No. This is a technical discussion. Use the technical definition. Avoid misunderstandings.

 

[McBell]

You want me to use the definition you use, the one that makes it easy to say that evidence for God or the Bible etc, which I see as evidence, is not really evidence and so can be ignored by you.

You brightened that Irony right up nice and pretty.

 

[Watchmen]

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?

Isn’t it amazing what BILLIONS of years can accomplish!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes we can see things happening but not see the planner and designer, but this does not point to there being no designer of the system and planner who ensures the environments take the end products where He wanted them to go.

Yeah. Just like we can see things falling but not see the undetectable graviton pixies, but this does not point to there being no graviton pixies as regulators of gravity who ensure things with mass fall in the directions they want them to go.

If you say that no pre-planning or design is needed, that is a statement of faith, as you don't know it to be so.

If you say that no undetectable graviton pixies are needed, that is in fact NOT a statement of faith, just like it is not a statement of faith that there is no designer needed.
Why? Well, because we have explanations that are sufficient that don't require these additional entities. Therefor they are not needed.

 

[ppp]

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?

A god would be infinitely more complex