Irony of the evolutionary belief

[F1fan]

Who is better qualified to critique any science than a philosopher or a metaphysician?

Other scientists who are familiar with the work and methods. I don't see you offer any actual critique.

I am a metaphysician.

Is this your actual job? Where do you work? How much does it pay?

I like all boats except those that sink while I am on them.

From what I've learned about metaphysics it's a sinking boat.

Evolutionary beliefs are a sinking boat so I am not on board.

See how you can't get science right? And notice once again you make a critical claim but offer no reason why you made it. It's like you are making it up. Can you understand why we don't take you seriously?

I'm quite aware of my biases.

Yet you don't avoid them. Bad character for a person claiming to be a metaphysician.

The chief one is that belief and assumption have no meaning in science though they drive interpretation of experiment. Definitions and axioms underlie the meaning of experiment but every interpreter sees it in terms of his prejudice called the prevailing paradigm.

Notice no clarification or examples, so I reject this claim. i will reject all your claims that you do not explain with evidence and and explanation that is true.

This is simple logic. If you don't see it then I'd be happy to lead you through but not if you expect some proof or a link.

You are in no position to tell others they don't see something. You are the master of being vague and unable to explain that you have clarity on anything you mention.

Do you realize all argument, all, belief, and all perception is founded in assumptions? If you don't understand this it is far more basic than the statement you rejected for no reason.

There are basic assumptions that we all make to nagigate breakfast in the morning. These never change and we are never surprized. Apart from that, no. We can reason through evidence with certainty. I see many theists and "philosophers" make statements that insist that we can't know anything and that everything is a mystery. yet these same folks have no problem stating things as if certain, hypocritically. It's an indication that they are frauds, as they only apply their arguments against those they argue against, but not themselves. Special pleading at its finest.

I started with one simple assumption. All people make perfect sense all the time in terms of their premises.

That's generous. Hamas makes perfect sense given your simple assumption. Your simple assumption is unnecessary, and actually sabotages any way to assess and challenge anyone's claim. Yet you do. So you don't follow your own simple assumption.

Obviously this does not include insane people but it does include all life and all individual life though I didn't know that when I started. If my assumption is wrong then I might be wrong as well. Even if my assumption is exactly correct I might be wrong.

Did you know that premises have to be true? So that a person has made a judgment based on their own "premises" isn't logic when the premises are false.

 

[danieldemol]

What atheists say:

NOTHING -:> something -:> life w/o conscience -:> rational human brain (consciousness)

in short: from nothing to intelligence. and this was just after the BigBang.

I'll leave atheists to comment on whether they believe there was ever a point in time when nothing existed (although it smells of a strawman to me).

That aside, according to you a lapse between 13.8 Billion years ago and 300 thousand years ago is "just after"? Talk about spin in my view.

We, believers, say that the beginning was not after the BigBang ... that is what we are allow to know ... so, before the BigBang>

First of all you dont speak on behalf of all believers. Second of all it is unknown to humans if there was a before the big bang. Some people believe there is a before the big bang, but until those beliefs can be justified using reliable evidence they remain beliefs in my view.

Intelligent Designer -:> something -:> life -:> BigBang and another universe.

Since no one can say there was not a BEFORE the BigBang, it is not impossible, logically talking, that there already was God before our beginning.

It is not impossible but that doesn't make it probable. Besides, you don't believe in some generic God, you believe in the God of the Bible taken literally which is supposed to have done its creation according to the Genesis narrative. This narrative has been refuted as not scientifically factual if read literally in my view. So your God can safely be discarded as a false God as I see it.

. Nevertheless some theorists are SPECULATING about many universes, many dimensions, and even many beginnings and endings of those universes .

Give me a break.

If you need a break from speculation don't read it, it has little to do with what the majority of atheists believe anyway according to my understanding.

 

[F1fan]

What atheists say:

NOTHING -:> something -:> life w/o conscience -:> rational human brain (consciousness)

in short: from nothing to intelligence. and this was just after the BigBang.

False. There was something at the Big Bang event. No atheists (educated person) says "from nothing" in the way you refer to it. You're not referring to the Kraus meaning.

Intelligence is a property of brains, and it is an electrochemical process. Notice there's no intelligence in new borns, it is something that develops over many years. Brains are not fully depeloped in humans until about 27.

We, believers, say that the beginning was not after the BigBang ... that is what we are allow to know ... so, before the BigBang>

Intelligent Designer -:> something -:> life -:> BigBang and another universe.

Where is this intelligent designer, and where did it come from? Where did its intelligence come from? If you say nothing, then intelligence can emerge in the universe by itself.

Since no one can say there was not a BEFORE the BigBang, it is not impossible, logically talking, that there already was God before our beginning.

Guesswork. We throw it out, unless you have evidence.

Atheists believe in from nothing to intelligence,

False. Intelligence evolved as brains evolved as an advantage, just like any other biological advantage.

but don't want to believe from Inteligence to intelligence.

There's no observed intelliegnce outside of brains. Unless you have evidence to the contrary. Notice you offer none.

It doesn't make any sense to me.

You're a believer with bias. You wants your beliefs to have credibility, but they lack evidence. You are motivated to create a flawed claim that a God must exist to account for bigger brains evolving with higher intelligence. Where is your God? Where's the evidence that brains are intelligently designed by a supernatural, and not natural causes?

Nevertheless some theorists are SPECULATING about many universes, many dimensions, and even many beginnings and endings of those universes .

Give me a break.

Oh boy the irony, accusing others of speculation. Notice that experts in cosmology have math and other factual frameworks to speculate about the nature of the universe. Theists have what? Their interpretation of ancient books. Not good enough.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What atheists say:

NOTHING -:> something -:> life w/o conscience -:> rational human brain (consciousness)

in short: from nothing to intelligence. and this was just after the BigBang.

We, believers, say that the beginning was not after the BigBang ... that is what we are allow to know ... so, before the BigBang>

Intelligent Designer -:> something -:> life -:> BigBang and another universe.

Since no one can say there was not a BEFORE the BigBang, it is not impossible, logically talking, that there already was God before our beginning.

LOL! Someone does not know how logic works.

Atheists believe in from nothing to intelligence, but don't want to believe from Inteligence to intelligence. It doesn't make any sense to me. Nevertheless some theorists are SPECULATING about many universes, many dimensions, and even many beginnings and endings of those universes .

Give me a break.

If you did it, it would be speculating. If I did it, it would be speculating. And to some extent it is even speculation when astrophysicists do it. But it is not speculation to nearly the same degree. Why don't you do the wise thing to do? Why didn't you ask why they think that is possible?

 

[F1fan]

Let's make it simple: is it totally impossible that there were pre-BigBang intelligences?

Nice trap. Let's play this out. Smart atheists know they can't say this isn't possible, and they will say so. The unethical theist will take this as a form of support that an intelligence is possible, and then jump to likely, and then jump to existing.

PS: Some militant atheists don't like to think about certain things ...

Like prostate exams. I know.

They are just so busy attacking different points of view that they just don't have time to think better.

Bad points of view are open for critique, and those who hold the bad points of view for non-rational resons get upset. This is due to a lack of discipline, and a lack of skilled thinking. Both avoidable errors.

 

[McBell]

What atheists say:

NOTHING -:> something -:> life w/o conscience -:> rational human brain (consciousness)

in short: from nothing to intelligence. and this was just after the BigBang.

We, believers, say that the beginning was not after the BigBang ... that is what we are allow to know ... so, before the BigBang>

Intelligent Designer -:> something -:> life -:> BigBang and another universe.

Since no one can say there was not a BEFORE the BigBang, it is not impossible, logically talking, that there already was God before our beginning.

Atheists believe in from nothing to intelligence, but don't want to believe from Inteligence to intelligence. It doesn't make any sense to me. Nevertheless some theorists are SPECULATING about many universes, many dimensions, and even many beginnings and endings of those universes .

Give me a break.

Nope.
No breaks given for your strawman

 

[cladking]

Is this your actual job? Where do you work? How much does it pay?

So far as I know there are no professional jobs for metaphysicians. If there were I would probably be considered unqualified because I still wouldn't have taken any courses in metaphysics.

Notice no clarification or examples, so I reject this claim. i will reject all your claims that you do not explain with evidence and and explanation that is true

You obviously don't know the meaning of the word "metaphysics" (or at least what I mean by it). Do you know what "paradigm" means?

There are basic assumptions that we all make to nagigate breakfast in the morning. These never change and we are never surprized.

Indeed. I believe many of them are wrong. And then science changes one funeral at a time.

I see many theists and "philosophers" make statements that insist that we can't know anything and that everything is a mystery.

All true knowledge is visceral.

Did you know that premises have to be true?

No. There is no certainty any assumption is true or any definition is the best.

 

[McBell]

You obviously don't know the meaning of the word "metaphysics" (or at least what I mean by it).

what do you mean by it?

Do you know what "paradigm" means?

What do you mean by "paradigm"?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If, according to evolutionists,

What is an evolutionist? I've never really heard someone give it a definition. At first blush a person might think it refers to scientists. But a scientist that studies evolution is an evolutionary biologist. Besides the claim attributed to them isn't science or correct. More likely evolutionist is just a pejorative intended to draw false equivalence between accepting science on reason and evidence and belief without evidence.

human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years...

Science says no such thing. The evidence indicates that human intelligence evolved in an environment that had pre-existing life for 3.7 billion years.

what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?

What does "another INFINITE number of years" mean? I'm not sure I can make any sense out of that. Are you suggesting parallel dimensions?

What is ironic here? Another creationist making claims about science that are inaccurate, incorrect and don't reflect any understanding of the subject that is being attacked or the difference between accepting scientific explanations based on reason and evidence and believing something without evidence. Yeah, that must be it.

 

[cladking]

what do you mean by it?

It is the basis of science including premises, definitions, axioms, and experimental results.

This is just the old definition from the 1950's. https://www.amazon.com/Metaphysical-Foundations-Modern-Science/dp/0486425517

What do you mean by "paradigm"?

"Paradigms" are systems to interpret experiment and understand reality. Changes in science are usually quite nominal until everything is stood on its head when new paradigms arise. Most people believe science is a stead march toward truth but the reality is there are a few steps forward and then a few back when it is discovered we were on the wrong road. Since everyone knows everything few people notice when it's discovered we really don't know much of anything.

It is changing paradigms that most require funerals.

 

[F1fan]

So far as I know there are no professional jobs for metaphysicians.

That's bad luck.

If there were I would probably be considered unqualified because I still wouldn't have taken any courses in metaphysics.

That's bad luck too.

You obviously don't know the meaning of the word "metaphysics" (or at least what I mean by it). Do you know what "paradigm" means?

So you decide to attack me personally instead of clarifying any of your many vague statements. This sort of response indicates you are overly emotional, and lack answers to questions. Look at your set of brief answers. It's as if you can't defend your position in any way. That's the liability of a superficial set of beliefs.

Indeed. I believe many of them are wrong. And then science changes one funeral at a time.

This rebuts nothing, and only illustrates you have beliefs, not that they are correct.

All true knowledge is visceral.

Which is what the poorly informed and educated would say. If you don't have intellect, all that's left is emotion.

No. There is no certainty any assumption is true or any definition is the best.

Assumptions are what they are, but they have to be consistent with what is observed and experienced. You wake up in the morning assuming you will wake up in your own house. That is always the case (assuming you aren't a government agent that gets drugged and kidnapped by the bad guys). As for valid definitions, they are selected for their utility and precision. Those who want confusion and chaos will switch definitions in debate, which is a logical no no.

 

[Valjean]

Didya notice that when it was found the universe is accelerating it had no real effect on the belief in the big bang?

So? Why would it? It had no real effect on my car's gasoline mileage, either.

Didya notice that 150 years of failure to support Darwin has had very little effect on peoples' beliefs in Evolution?

I haven't noticed any failure to support Darwin. The ToE is maybe the most extensively and consiliently supported theory in all of science.
Where are you seeing any failure to support it?

 

[Valjean]

Certainly modern understanding of Evolution is far better than Darwin but it is still based on several Darwinian notions that have not been shown by experiment.

What notions are these?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What notions are these?

@cladking has stated that real experiments have to be done in the laboratory in the past. Probably by men (no women girls can't do science) wearing lab coats. He does not understand that every new fossil find is in fact an experiment that could conceivably refute the theory of evolution.

 

[Valjean]

It would be far more accurate to say I have a very high opinion of logic, experiment, and physical evidence. I also have a great deal of respect for science including 40,000 years of natural human science that failed at the "tower of babel".

How can you hold a high opinion of logic, experiment, and evidence yet not respect their conclusions?

I have zero respect for expert opinion or my own opinion. I defer to expert opinion usually but this doesn't mean I believe in it or in experts.

Why not, if, as you say, you respect their methodology?

I have a great deal of respect for experts, the work required to become expert, and the et als upon whose shoulders they stand. But their opinions are still just opinion. People need to separate fact and experiment from opinion.

You respect the experts but not their opinions?
Their opinions are the experimental results and facts. How are you defining "just opinion?"

Believing in experts and Peers is a defining characteristic of scientism.

Haven't we talked about this before? "The peers" aren't a committee or organization. The peers are the other scientists themselves.

Normally real scientists don't go that far. But all scientists and all homo omnisciencis take reality as a given and at face value. In a sense we all believe we poofed into existence; I think therefore I am. The universe apparently poofed from a really big bang.

???? Who believes any of this?

What did you want me to say; that science has gotten worse since Darwin. In many ways it has but there is far more progress than the nonsense still based on Darwin's assumptions.

Was there science before Darwin? Precious little of it, I'd say. The predominance of the scientific method is a relatively new thing.
What is this Darwin-based nonsense, and what were these problematic 'assumptions'?

It hasn't gotten worse so I said the opposite. You have your beliefs and I have mine. The difference is I try not to have any beliefs and am vaguely ashamed of all each of them.

Isn't a reasonable person's beliefs based on objective facts, and in agreement with the fact-based 'opinions' of the scientists and experts?

 

[Valjean]

Humans cannot have experimental evidence about anything that exceeds or precedes our spatiotemporal environment. The only thing that can be known about that is what any previous Intelligence reveal about the whole process and so on.

For example: we could never know what exists outside of what came into existence from the BigBang onwards. We cannot know who caused it, where the energy that caused the explosion came from, what kind of infinitesimally small particle exploded, who was manipulating the process to obtain the precise results that emerged later, how many intelligences existed at that moment, what relationship these intelligences may have with what emerged later, how life as we know it in our planet came to be, etc.

But we know a lot about all sorts of things we can't perceive directly.
Intelligences? Why would anyone presume these, absent either need or evidence?
How life came to be? That's a pretty straightforward question of chemistry, isn't it? It seems quite open to investigation.

The results of the process are evident samples of design, although many cannot distinguish that. Those who do not admit design say that human intelligence (which is sometimes indistinguishable from what the concept of science defines) arose from an unguided, chaotic process, which eventually led to this magnificent result that is the rational thought supported on the modern human's brain.

But the mechanisms that produce the design are known. They're observable and easily demonstrated. There's nothing mysterious about them any more.
Why assume there's an invisible, intentional designer operating behind the scenes? There's neither a need nor any evidence of such a personage; nor would a designer explain anything or answer how? It's just a facile way to dismiss the question.

In this context I repeat the initial question:
if they say that human consciousness eventually appear in an autonomous process without designer ... and considering TIME like the number line, with a past infinity and a posterior infinity with 0 in the middle, as we mentally conceive it:

What blocks the minds of some and makes it seem impossible to them that in THE INFINITE pre-bigbang (whatever it may have been), predecessors intelligences already existed?

First, we don't know that there was any infinite before the BB. If time itself, just like matter, came into being at the BB, then there was no "before."
Moreover, why would a timeless designer be an more probable than a finite one? Where's the evidence? What need would such a hypothesis answer?

 

[Valjean]

Let's make it simple: is it totally impossible that there were pre-BigBang intelligences?

It's questionable if there was even a BB "pre."
One could also ask whether there couldn't have been pre-BB leprechaun construction crews creating universes. Why would a timeless intelligence be any more likely than any other fanciful agent? Why would anyone think an agent was involved at all?

PS: Some militant atheists don't like to think about certain things ... They are just so busy attacking different points of view that they just don't have time to think better.

Huh? What don't these atheists like to think about? Do you think they're avoiding some inconvenient questions? Please explain.

 

[Valjean]

What atheists say:

NOTHING -:> something -:> life w/o conscience -:> rational human brain (consciousness)

in short: from nothing to intelligence. and this was just after the BigBang

Huh? What are you talking about?
Where are you coming up with this something from nothing idea? Isn't that a Christian belief?
How is intelligence any different from any other physical or psychological feature? Why would there be anything mysterious about it?

We, believers, say that the beginning was not after the BigBang ... that is what we are allow to know ... so, before the BigBang>
Intelligent Designer -:> something -:> life -:> BigBang and another universe.
Since no one can say there was not a BEFORE the BigBang, it is not impossible, logically talking, that there already was God before our beginning

Do you believe in a magical personage who existed before the BB, who engineered both the bang and the subsequent universe?
Why? What is this belief based on?

Atheists believe in from nothing to intelligence, but don't want to believe from Inteligence to intelligence. It doesn't make any sense to me.
Atheists believe all sorts of things. Atheism isn't a religion, belief system of credo. It has no official doctrine or beliefs.

What is this "intelligence" you speak of? human intelligence, or some kind of supernatural being?
Human intelligence is evidenced and explainable. Supernatural intelligence -- not so much.

Nevertheless some theorists are SPECULATING about many universes, many dimensions, and even many beginnings and endings of those universes Give me a break.

Have you read about why some are speculating about a multiverse or about multiple dimensions? Are you just dismissing these out-of-hand, even though they are better evidenced and explain more than your belief in invisible magicians?

 

[Valjean]

I think therefore I am could mean we thought ourselves into existence very much like abiogenesis that gave us a brain capable of creating ourselves. I see a new religion in our future. Or perhaps this is just a splinter group from scientism.

Huh?
Do you understand what abiogenesis postulates?

 

[ratiocinator]

What atheists say:

NOTHING -:> something -:> life w/o conscience -:> rational human brain (consciousness)

I'm aware of nobody who thinks literally nothing ever became anything. Hint: (space-)time is not nothing.

Intelligent Designer -:> something -:> life -:> BigBang and another universe.

How come the initial intelligent designer existed? Magic? Pure chance? What?