I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[Valjean]

I hate to get involved, but I will. Just based on that sentence alone, are you saying that the making of the atomic bomb is natural, unguided and automatic?

You're asking an absurd question. You're disingenuously conflating intentional, human manufacture with natural processes that happen automatically, with no purpose or intention needed.

Water freezing or a tree growing from a seed do not require intentional direction or planning by any outside source. They are the automatic, and the mechanisms of action known. They are not comparable to manufacture.

 

[nPeace]

You're asking an absurd question. You're disingenuously conflating intentional, human manufacture with natural processes that happen automatically, with no purpose or intention needed.

Water freezing or a tree growing from a seed do not require intentional direction or planning by any outside source. They are the automatic, and the mechanisms of action known. They are not comparable to manufacture.

You were talking about baking bread a moment ago.
What's the difference between making a bread and a bomb?

 

[Valjean]

OK, as far as purpose, many people believe there is no purpose to life. And that goes along with the theory of evolution. It just -- is. Humans live several decades -- then they die. Right? They have children in many cases because that's what they are inclined to do naturally and culturally. Many are claiming that the human generation is in peril, even if some believe the earth will continue for a while, they claim the sun will burn up, explode, and of course before that life will be gone on the earth. Is that what you believe? Some say make the best of it (whatever is the best for them)...children born maimed -- people hurting one another -- pollution -- devastation -- horrifying treatment of others -- soup kitchens -- all tied up with the theory of evolution, isn't that the truth?

You didn't address my question. Why do you consider intention, planning and divine intervention necessary for function and complexity to exist?

In re: your question, No. All would be so without any theory of evolution.

What is your point, YT? You give examples of facts, beliefs and attitudes I assume you disagree with. If so, please explain the rationale for your dissent. That would be interesting -- and worth discussing.

"

OK, as far as purpose, many people believe there is no purpose to life. And that goes along with the theory of evolution.

This has nothing to do with the ToE. Some people believed this a thousand years ago. What it's tied up with is lack of evidence for purpose.

they claim the sun will burn up, explode, and of course before that life will be gone on the earth. Is that what you believe?

Sort of... But I take it you do not believe it. Do you understand why science believes it? How do you factually counter their beliefs?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a baseless claim.
That's like saying only men in white lab coats investigate truth. That's ludicrous.

Well perhaps it is going a bit to far to say that all religious beliefs attempt to suppress truth, but it does appear to be the case for fundamentalist beliefs. I can list quite a few Christian examples and I am very sure that other religions have the same failings.

 

[Valjean]

Why would anyone believe your baseless self-opinionated claims presented as though they have some sort of foundation, but which are clearly built on ignorance?

Because they are based on observable, tested facts, and are built on science?

 

[Valjean]

I don't see anyone just saying "stop it" in every post to be responding rationally. Emotional yes. Reason is now totally lost, it seems.

Then address my points. Don't pretend you don't understand them, don't misrepresent them, don't dodge them, and stop construct straw men.

 

[Valjean]

This is a baseless claim.
That's like saying only men in white lab coats investigate truth. That's ludicrous.

Are you contending that religion is an investigational modality? Are you denying religion's historical role in suppressing investigation and alternative views?

 

[Valjean]

You were talking about baking bread a moment ago.
What's the difference between making a bread and a bomb?

Come on. You can't possibly be so obtuse. Did you really miss my point so completely, or are you just intentionally misrepresenting and deflecting?
I was differentiating natural from artificial; a natural biological and chemical process from planned, intentional manufacture.
Can you really not see the difference between fermentation and engineering?

 

[YoursTrue]

You didn't address my question. Why do you consider intention, planning and divine intervention necessary for function and complexity to exist?

I'm not really sure how you define divine intervention, it is beyond human comprehension as to how these things came about. I no longer accept the theory of evolution as true. I do know that DNA can influence the color of one's skin, eyes, hair, height, and the like.
We can dissect a plant in many ways. We realize the different components such as leaves, stems, pollen, etc. That is "fact." We cannot, however, truly say how these things grow beyond the 'fact' that they do grow. If you want to say something, go ahead, I'll be happy to hear it. By 'how things grow' I mean the motivating process that moves the atoms and molecules to their respective positions. I hope I made that clear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not really sure how you define divine intervention, it is beyond human comprehension as to how these things came about. I no longer accept the theory of evolution as true. I do know that DNA can influence the color of one's skin, eyes, hair, height, and the like.
We can dissect a plant in many ways. We realize the different components such as leaves, stems, pollen, etc. That is "fact." We cannot, however, truly say how these things grow beyond the 'fact' that they do grow. If you want to say something, go ahead, I'll be happy to hear it. By 'how things grow' I mean the motivating process that moves the atoms and molecules to their respective positions. I hope I made that clear.

Why do you say that it is "beyond human comprehension"? When you make such a claim you put a burden of proof upon yourself and I am pretty sure that you cannot support that claim at all. Instead you should be demanding evidence from others.

Of course people whose beliefs are supported by evidence will gladly support their claims. People whose beliefs are not supported by evidence tend to ignore the evidence that is presented to them.

 

[Valjean]

I'm not really sure how you define divine intervention,

I'm thinking of manipulation, the finger of God, placing one stone upon the other, intentional intervention.

it is beyond human comprehension as to how these things came about. I no longer accept the theory of evolution as true.

But it is not. The mechanisms are understood, they've been observed, described and put to human purposes. I don't understand how you missed all this in school

I do know that DNA can influence the color of one's skin, eyes, hair, height, and the like.
We can dissect a plant in many ways. We realize the different components such as leaves, stems, pollen, etc. That is "fact." We cannot, however, truly say how these things grow beyond the 'fact' that they do grow.

But we can, and again, how did you miss these processes in Biology classes?

If you want to say something, go ahead, I'll be happy to hear it. By 'how things grow' I mean the motivating process that moves the atoms and molecules to their respective positions. I hope I made that clear.

Yes, I understand. You presuppose some sort of conscious, microscopic motivation, or an intentional consciousness 'motivating' things. This, you have no evidence of, nor is there any need for such a motivating force. It all appears automatic, intentionless, and purposeless. Chemistry and physics can explain it all. Not understanding the chemistry and physics is not evidence supporting a magical and unnecessary alternative.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I do not think not being able to identify an ancestor is the same as declaring the existence of a Creator out of lack of evidence for that Creator.

Do you doubt that you had ancestors 3,000 years ago simply because you cannot identify them?

What do you think?

I mean, if you think it’s a possibility that you won’t need food and water to continuously survive, then maybe by your parameters I didn’t.

But the evidence indicates that you would, and I did.

And there’s all kinds of evidence for a designer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you think?

I mean, if you think it’s a possibility that you won’t need food and water to continuously survive, then maybe by your parameters I didn’t.

But the evidence indicates that you would, and I did.

And there’s all kinds of evidence for a designer.

Okay, forget the side argument. What is the the evidence for a designer? Don't do a Gish Gallop. Give us your one best piece of evidence. If that fails it is not a good sign for others.

Frankly I have doubts about your claim. ID believers do not appear to understand the concept of evidence. That was demonstrated by the people that were supposed to be experts in the field in the Dover Trial where they could not provide any evidence and as a result the judge wrote a scathing statement about how ID is just religion. If anyone is an expert in evidence a well respected judge should be.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

it is beyond human comprehension as to how these things came about.

But it is not. The mechanisms are understood, they've been observed, described and put to human purposes.

Understood currently how they arose? No, they are not.
Be honest. How they change, yes; but how they began? No!
The current understanding is full of “explanatory deficits.”

You’ve been indoctrinated, supposing facts where there’s only speculation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Understood currently how they arose? No, they are not.
Be honest. How they change, yes; but how they began? No!
The current understanding is full of “explanatory deficits.”

You’ve been indoctrinated, supposing facts where there’s only speculation.

Can you support this claim? If not it only looks like a personal attack.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

as a result the judge wrote a scathing statement about how ID is just religion. If anyone is an expert in evidence a well respected judge should be.

Judge Jones wrote in his decision:

“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”

He wasn’t concerned with what the truth is, he was only interested in keeping Church & State separate. That was his agenda.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Can you support this claim? If not it only looks like a personal attack.

Yes…

Look up

Explanatory Deficits of the MS, i.e., Mendelian genetics with Natural Selection
by Gerd Müller
“Why an EES is necessary”
18 Aug 2017

 

[Subduction Zone]

Judge Jones wrote in his decision:

“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”

He wasn’t concerned with what the truth is, he was only interested in keeping Church & State separate. That was his agenda.

False. He was concerned with what the truth was. You are conflating honesty and an agenda. By the way, in the sciences one must be ready to admit that there is a possibility that one was wrong. That is all that he did. Those not interested in the truth were shown to be the ID believers. They were not using evidence for their conclusions.

This is why I am always hammering the concept of evidence. I have yet to see a creationist that understands the concept of evidence, much less embraces it. The judge understood evidence. This IDists could not provide any.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes…

Look up

Explanatory Deficits of the MS, i.e., Mendelian genetics with Natural Selection
by Gerd Müller
“Why an EES is necessary”
18 Aug 2017

Your claim. Your burden of proof. Why do you ask others to do your homework for you? First off where was it published? Was it a well respected professional journal? Second, did you understand it or merely quote mine the title?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But we do not see purpose, we see function. You assume purpose.

You assume complexity and purposive function indicate intentional design, yet the mechanisms that produced the complexity and function have been described by science. They don't rely on planning or intention. They're automatic, like water running downhill.

We see purpose, by their interaction.

Amazing y’all miss this.

Just by observing interactions between organisms… there is a balance that’s quite obvious.
There is always prey for the predator. Why? Since survival is the best pressure, prey animals should quickly evolve fangs, talons, poison their flesh, whatever is needed to stop those hunters.

But we don’t see that. The balance is maintained. Rodents have been around for eons.

If the ‘gene is selfish’, it’s mutations wouldn’t maintain the equilibrium we observe.

Selfishness does nothing but disrupt, and brings disorder & chaos.

You won’t want to believe this, but the evolution of the genome that we do observe, is of Divine origin, and has Divinely-set limits. IMO.

I will explain my thoughts, later… I’m tired.

@nPeace , @YoursTrue , y’all might like this, too.