Interesting video about evolution and origins.

[PureX]

"Design" implies conscious intention. Noöne views evolution as a conscious process, or a conscious goal.

Many people do, because the implication is clearly there. Atheists don't. But they aren't "noone".

Huh? Who's seeing design in nature, or futility in science?

Scientists are seeing design in nature. It's what science is all about exploring.

I think he made it pretty clear why he believes in God and magic in the original link.

I don't care. I am speaking for or defending him.

But it's not a goal. The process is blind.

Only for you. Because you're so intent on making sure there can be no theistic implication. But unfortunately for you, that implication is there for anyone with eyes to see.

I'm all for awe, but inventing a facile, Goddidit! "explanation" is an abdication of the search for explanation.

Or it actually IS the explanation. That is still a possibility for an open mind. And it does not contradict the design of nature.

 

[PureX]

You're making the claim. You have the burden. Explain how a mushroom can consciously formulate goals or plan.

I'm not interested in playing 'kangaroo court' with you.

Please stop it with this "design." The intricacy is the result of a blind, automatic mechanism.

Well, there is no way for you to know that. Just as there is no way for theists to know that "God did it". So your proclamations are exactly as empty of proof as anyone else's. The fact remains, however, and existence as we experience it is designed. And that does imply intent.

If the outcome is the intent, who is the intender?

Or what? No one knows.

There's neither need nor evidence of an intender.

Logic dictates otherwise.

 

[ratiocinator]

Many people do, because the implication is clearly there.

Baseless, unargued assertion.

Scientists are seeing design in nature. It's what science is all about exploring.

Nonsense.

Only for you. Because you're so intent on making sure there can be no theistic implication.

Not only for him at all. The process, as currently understand, is blind. Evolution manifestly does not need any goal or direction. It is those who insist on adding an unnecessary goal, without a shred of evidence, who are intent on imposing their own views on nature.

But unfortunately for you, that implication is there for anyone with eyes to see.

Another baseless, unargued assertion.

Or it actually IS the explanation. That is still a possibility for an open mind.

Of course it's possible, but there is no evidence or any other reason (that I've ever seen) to take the idea at all seriously.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well, there is no way for you to know that. Just as there is no way for theists to know that "God did it".

What we do know is that there is no need for anything but a blind, automatic mechanism, so "God did it" is evidence-free wishful thinking.

The fact remains, however, and existence as we experience it is designed.

Yet another baseless assertion.

Logic dictates otherwise.

Please feel free to post the logical argument....

[Not holding my breath.]

 

[Valjean]

Since atheists/skeptics like using science to show it points to no God, then that pointing must be in science.
But that pointing can be easily dismissed because God is a spirit and science cannot study or test God or for God.
That however does not stop or slow down the atheist insistence on verifiable evidence.
It looks rational and scientific even but is really philosophy pasted over the top of science and wanting to discredit theology.
Belief in God, who is a spirit, is a faith and God's existence is not proven by science, as I have said, but if you did listen to the video then you should have heard a couple of places that point to the existence of a designer, and so away from the idea that there is no designer. BUT whichever way you want to go, towards or away from God, it is opinion about the evidence.

No! The foundation of most atheist apology is lack of evidence. Without evidence for God, no God is the logical default.
There is no need for atheists to defend a non-position. There slate is already blank. No God is the starting point for the dispute.

Most people lack belief in leprechauns, Odin, or Cthulu. Why? -- because there's no evidence for them, not because anyone's disproved them, or even produced evidence against their existence.

I lack belief in God for the same reason you, Brian, lack belief in Cthulu.

 

[Valjean]

Which parts of science show that the Bible God does not exist?

["Appeal to ignorance is also known as argument from ignorance, in which ignorance represents “a lack of contrary evidence” and becomes “a fallacy in informal logic.” It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven as false."] -- Appeal to Ignorance

Which parts of science show that Quetzalcoatl does not exist?
Do you believe in Quetzalcoatl?

 

[exchemist]

Reliable replication presumably did not exist way back at the start of evolution.
And these reliable replication mechanisms appears to be targetted specifically on reliability for some reason.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Certainly it seems reasonable to imagine that replication originally was rough and ready and led to all manner of changes and ineffective variants that rapidly failed.

Two things it seems to me one needs to keep in mind, though, are the lack of competition, and the lack of predation, back at the start of life. Suboptimal or inefficient replicating biochemical structures would have had a far easier time surviving than they would now.

A third, and vastly bigger, issue to keep in mind as well is the enormous span of time we are dealing with here. The number of replicating cycles involved is unimaginably vast. So for a trial and error process, the opportunities for optimising (via natural selection) would also have been vast.

P.S. You never got back to me on my post 78, in which I ask you where in the video Garte claims the idea of a biochemical origin of life is "not scientifically sound", as you put it. I'd be interested to watch that specific bit, as from his Biologos paper I doubt he really means that. I think he is more subtle than to make such a statement.

 

[PureX]

Baseless, unargued assertion.


Nonsense.


Not only for him at all. The process, as currently understand, is blind. Evolution manifestly does not need any goal or direction. It is those who insist on adding an unnecessary goal, without a shred of evidence, who are intent on imposing their own views on nature.


Another baseless, unargued assertion.


Of course it's possible, but there is no evidence or any other reason (that I've ever seen) to take the idea at all seriously.

No one cares about the kangaroo court going on in your mind, but you.

 

[PureX]

What we do know is that there is no need for anything but a blind, automatic mechanism, so "God did it" is evidence-free wishful thinking.

The question is about the origin and intent of that mechanism. Because it's a very complex mechanism that results in a very specific outcome.

Yet another baseless assertion.


Please feel free to post the logical argument....

[Not holding my breath.]

Sorry, but your kangaroo court has no sway, here.

 

[Valjean]

Reliable replication presumably did not exist way back at the start of evolution.
And these reliable replication mechanisms appears to be targetted specifically on reliability for some reason.

Huh?

 

[ratiocinator]

No one cares about the kangaroo court going on in your mind, but you.

It's a debate forum. You don't get to dictate that reality is as you claim by just asserting it, without getting challenged.

The question is about the origin and intent of that mechanism. Because it's a very complex mechanism that results in a very specific outcome.

The basic process of natural selection is an astoundingly simple process, actually. Pretty much a truism, in fact. And there is still no evidence that there is any intention involved. Intent does not appear just because you say it does.

 

[Valjean]

The question is about the origin and intent of that mechanism. Because it's a very complex mechanism that results in a very specific outcome.

Sorry, but your kangaroo court has no sway, here.

Stop it with the intent, already.
Anatomy and physiologic mechanisms develop by blind natural selection. Novel complexity that proves useful is automatically conserved. It is conserved because the outcome increases reproductive success and, thereby, it's frequency in populations.
Why do we keep having to explain natural selection over and over?

How do you come up with "kangaroo court?" Did you just pull that out of a hat?

 

[Valjean]

Many people do, because the implication is clearly there. Atheists don't. But they aren't "noone".

Apparently only creationists do. It supports their bias.

Scientists are seeing design in nature. It's what science is all about exploring.

Science sees order and complexity, and automatic processes, not intention.

I don't care. I am speaking for or defending himOnly for you. Because you're so intent on making sure there can be no theistic implication. But unfortunately for you, that implication is there for anyone with eyes to see.

Only theists see it. It isn't there.

Or it actually IS the explanation. That is still a possibility for an open mind. And it does not contradict the design of nature.

"Goddidit!" explains nothing, it asserts an unnecessary and unevidenced agency.
Uncritical acceptence of the unevidenced does not equate to an open mind.

 

[PureX]

It's a debate forum. You don't get to dictate that reality is as you claim by just asserting it, without getting challenged.

I don't care about your challenge. You want to play the biased judge, go ahead. It has nothing to do with me.

The basic process of natural selection is an astoundingly simple process, actually.

But there is a great deal more to the theory of evolution than natural selection. And ultimately, there remains the question of the origin of the physical laws that enabled that whole process to develop. You keep squinting your eyes so you won't have to look at the bigger picture, and recognize that existence, itself, is ordered. And we don't know how or why.

Pretty much a truism, in fact. And there is still no evidence that there is any intention involved. Intent does not appear just because you say it does.

No one cares about your obsession with "evidence" but you. I know it's all just a ploy to keep yourself in your imaginary judge's seat. The intent is logically implied. You want it not be. Too bad for you.

 

[ratiocinator]

And ultimately, there remains the question of the origin of the physical laws that enabled that whole process to develop. You keep squinting your eyes so you won't have to look at the bigger picture, and recognize that existence, itself, is ordered. And we don't know how or why.

And....? If you posit something that ordered it, then you don't explain anything, you just move the problem.

No one cares about your obsession with "evidence" but you.

Another baseless assertion. Lots of people care about evidence when it comes to what they're prepared to believe.

You want it not be.

And you want it to be. The problem is that you only have empty assertion to back up your view.

 

[Valjean]

But there is a great deal more to the theory of evolution than natural selection. And ultimately, there remains the question of the origin of the physical laws that enabled that whole process to develop. You keep squinting your eyes so you won't have to look at the bigger picture, and recognize that existence, itself, is ordered. And we don't know how or why.The origin of the physical laws is the purview of theoretical physics, not biology.
No one cares about your obsession with "evidence" but you. I know it's all just a ploy to keep yourself in your imaginary judge's seat. The intent is logically implied. You want it not be. Too bad for you.

Evidence underlies all of consciousness, and all of science. How are we to distinguish fact from fantasy or dream from reality without a method of evaluation?
What alternative assessment tool is there?

 

[PureX]

And....? If you posit something that ordered it, then you don't explain anything, you just move the problem.

The "problem" is real. The question of origin is real, and logical, and legitimate. You're the one trying to pretend it doesn't exist because you're so freaked out by the notion that the solution might be sentient. You want the ordered universe to just somehow spontaneously have happened. Which is quite illogical.

Another baseless assertion. Lots of people care about evidence when it comes to what they're prepared to believe.

I don't care about what lots of people pretend to care about. They are demanding evidence because they want to play judge and disqualify anything anyone presents as evidence. They can play judge all they want. It has nothing to do with anything. I just ignore it.

And you want it to be. The problem is that you only have empty assertion to back up your view.

I don't want anything one way or another. I'm just being honest about what it is. Existence is ordered and highly organized; by some innate metaphysical design. I have no idea what the source or possible purpose of that design is. "God" is as good a word to give it as any. Call it whatever you want. But don't pretend the mystery doesn't exist.

 

[PureX]

Evidence underlies all of consciousness, and all of science. How are we to distinguish fact from fantasy or dream from reality without a method of evaluation?
What alternative assessment tool is there?

Sure. But you aren't in charge of it. And I will not cede you that position.

 

[Valjean]

Sure. But you aren't in charge of it. And I will not cede you that position.

Huh?

 

[ratiocinator]

The "problem" is real. The question of origin is real, and logical, and legitimate. You're the one trying to pretend it doesn't exist because you're so freaked out by the notion that the solution might be sentient.

There is a problem, although to call it 'origin' is probably wrong because it suggests a temporal problem and time cannot be assumed because of what we know about it from relativity. However, a sentient 'answer' would not be an answer. Some sentient being making it all would just add to the problem of order, not solve it. It would have to be even more ordered than the universe.

You want the ordered universe to just somehow spontaneously have happened.

'Have happened' again suggests a pre-20th century view of time. We have the space-time manifold that appears to 'just be'. We can ask why but the problem with your preferred answer remains.

I don't want anything one way or another. I'm just being honest about what it is.

Hilarious! You want it so bad you have to pretend that it just is.

Existence is ordered and highly organized; by some innate metaphysical design.

So you assert, without the first hint of reasoning or evidence.