Just Accidental?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm curious (and I really am curious, rather than being argumentative)......

Someone says "X doesn't exist".

You show them multiple examples of X.

They ignore you.

A few days later they repeat "X doesn't exist" and add in "I've challenged people to show me X for years and no one has ever shown X".​

How do you characterize that?

In creationists, I see that as a faith based confirmation bias filtering what can be seen and what cannot. I base that assessment on the testimony of Old Earth Creationist and geologist Glenn Morton, who had earlier been a Young Earth Creationist:

"Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon, Morton''s demon < Creation Science, Morton's Demon >, on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.

[snip]

"The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it

[snip]

"But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen."
I find Morton sincere and credible. If he says that he was blind to this process, as counterintuitive as that claim may seem, I believe him. And that is how I see the creationists - not as liars, but as people under the sway of a powerful cognitive bias.

This process, as you may know, also goes by the name "antiprocessing."

You also have to factor in how she taunts and goads the science advocates into posting science to her, only to have her do what you describe above, followed by more taunts, which triggers more science posts to her

That's the creationist two-step.

There is never a duty to provide evidence to a faith based thinker. They didn't use it to arrive at there present position, they reject it out of hand without even looking at it, and cannot be budged by it. It's sufficient to advise them to believe in evolution by faith. Simply choose to believe it. There is no other means by which they could or would.

 

[Sapiens]

No apologies necessary.



A story of life evolving from non-life, intelligence evolving from non-intelligence, accidents evolving from accidents, altruism evolving from non-altruism, logic evolving from non-logic, is a religious explanation as well. ...

You need to get down from your Platonic high horse and lose your assumption that life from non-life and intelligence from non-intelligence, etc. was a single step.

 

[Profound Realization]

In creationists, I see that as a faith based confirmation bias filtering what can be seen and what cannot. I base that assessment on the testimony of Old Earth Creationist and geologist Glenn Morton, who had earlier been a Young Earth Creationist:

"Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon, Morton''s demon < Creation Science, Morton's Demon >, on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.

[snip]

"The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it

[snip]

"But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen."
I find Morton sincere and credible. If he says that he was blind to this process, as counterintuitive as that claim may seem, I believe him. And that is how I see the creationists - not as liars, but as people under the sway of a powerful cognitive bias.

This process, as you may know, also goes by the name "antiprocessing."



That's the creationist two-step.

There is never a duty to provide evidence to a faith based thinker. They didn't use it to arrive at there present position, they reject it out of hand without even looking at it, and cannot be budged by it. It's sufficient to advise them to believe in evolution by faith. Simply choose to believe it. There is no other means by which they could or would.

It's easy to point this out in someone else's worldview's, but when it's our own worldview... one is also engulfed in comfort to the point they cannot see/be aware of contradictory data in their views. Also under the sway of a strong cognitive bias. Anything also contradictory, is rejected without even looking it at.

There is a saying, of a person with planks in their own awareness, being critical and judgemental of another's own awareness.

 

[Profound Realization]

You need to get down from your Platonic high horse and lose your assumption that life from non-life and intelligence from non-intelligence, etc. was a single step.

Quote mine much?

Where, outside of your imagination... did I ever infer or assume a single step?

Besides the point, but the source/mechanism in which life arose from non-life is unknown in the "scientific" world. According to the "scientific" world, life from not life was a single step.

 

[Sapiens]

Quote mine much?

Where, outside of your imagination... did I ever infer or assume a single step?

Besides the point, but the source/mechanism in which life arose from non-life is unknown in the "scientific" world. According to the "scientific" world, life from not life was a single step.

Actually I do not quote mine at all, do you even know what "quote mining" is or do you need to google it?

Nor do you appear to be au courant with how the "scientific" world views abiogensis, rescue yourself with google on this one too.

 

[Sapiens]

...

There is a saying, of a person with planks in their own awareness, being critical and judgemental of another's own awareness.

Maybe there is, but I've never heard it and I can't find it. Perhaps you've got it wrong?

 

[Profound Realization]

Not in the way that I use the word religious. Evolutionary theory is a scientific explanation. These are as radically different as faith based thought and reason and evidence based thought. Religious explanations need no empirical basis to be acceptable to the religious. They need no confirmation. They don't need to be falsifiable. They need make no useful predictions, or have any utility whatsoever.

The Genesis creation story is a religious explanation for the origins of the universe and life. It meets my definition - it is based on nothing, predicts nothing, are untestable, and is useful for nothing.

Scientific explanations are the opposite. They are based on observation, they predict outcomes, and as such can be used to make decisions to effect desired outcomes. Climate science is an example of such.



No, not if you mean the emergence of intelligence on earth. If you mean the evolution of thought and ideas, yes, that is separate from biological evolution.

Of course, it is clear that we don't mean the same thing by intelligence, either, but that doesn't matter to the purpose of this point.



Biological does not mean living-logic. It means related to the scientific study of life and living things.



I indulged the pathetic fallacy as a choice in writing style. If you prefer, substitute "emerged as a result of the evolutionary process"



You have a tendency to put words in my mouth preceded by the world's "I agree." You are not agreeing with me. You are speaking for me.

There is no use in needing an "explanation" from others as to how I evolved. Whether it's from primates, the hand of "God," or both. I am here, in the present and have all that I need equipped within me to discover/know for myself... not what anyone else tells me what "could" or "may" or is "believed" to have happened. To surrender my life over to others for theoretical answers is slavery. I came from my human parents, not primates.

For anyone to say "God did it" and carry on with their simple lives not being overly needy, is this offensive to you? Will they not survive if they don't endulge in excessive neediness for material explanations for everything? However will one survive and tarry on without?

Also, what is reason to you may not be the same reasoning to another. There are many very simple people who aren't overly needy and require great amounts of physical/material evidence in order to become aware or know anything. Intelligence, logic, truth, thoughts, knowledge, consciousness, source of life..... there are no physical/material evidence for any of these yet we know they exist. By your reasoning.... it is unreasonable to use reason, intelligence, consciousness, think, because these all themselves have not been physically/materially seen in a lab. Also, to some, this source/mechanism has revealed itself in some who have received confirmation. If it hasn't in you, there isn't a need to speak for others and their experience. It's available to anyone.

I am an observer, experiencing, acquiring knowledge, make my own predictions, learn, discover desirable outcomes.

When you take "biological" and make it relate to the "scientific" study of life and living things the way that you do..it is a control attempt. There is no study without logic/information and there is no life without logic/information. Every organism is a scientist.... each with its own unique experience and the same source/mechanism for the ability of life/experience. To deduce all organisms into a theory in the hands of other scientists is silly and useless.
True of false: life and logic have evolved just fine without the need for evolution theory?

How are thoughts and ideas separate from biological evolution? Was this a one step process in human beings only where a switch were flipped from off to on and thinking and ideas started generating? But then there are those who add the words "emerged." Emerged from what?

How have I spoken for you? It is easy to invoke intelligence into evolution theory without being aware of it. If anything, to me, you seem to be disagreeing with many aspects of evolution theory.

 

[Profound Realization]

Actually I do not quote mine at all, do you even know what "quote mining" is or do you need to google it?

Nor do you appear to be au courant with how the "scientific" world views abiogensis, rescue yourself with google on this one too.

Please elaborate then on the quote you used from me, and where other than outside of your imagination, did I infer/assume one-step processes from the rest of what I said.

The source/mechanism for which non-life becomes life is not known in the "scientific" world. On one hand, the complexity of a cell is a gradual process and on the other hand, in a one-step process, lightning strikes the non-living cell and it becomes a living cell.

 

[Sapiens]

There is no use in needing an "explanation" from others as to how I evolved. Whether it's from primates, the hand of "God," or both. I am here, in the present and have all that I need equipped within me to discover/know for myself... not what anyone else tells me what "could" or "may" or is "believed" to have happened. To surrender my life over to others for theoretical answers is slavery. I came from my human parents, not primates.

You are a primate. Your parents are primates. Your entire family, as far back as you can name them and well beyond are primates. Sorry, but that is reality.

...
I am an observer, experiencing, acquiring knowledge, make my own predictions, learn, discover desirable outcomes.

... and all you can come up with is unsupported poppycock? That's pretty weak as an observer.

When you take "biological" and make it relate to the "scientific" study of life and living things the way that you do..rit is a control attempt. There is no study without logic/information and there is no life without logic/information. Every organism is a scientist.... each with its own unique experience and the same source/mechanism for the ability of life/experience. To deduce all organisms into a theory in the hands of other scientists is silly and useless.

You've a propensity for spewing word salad.

True of false: life and logic have evolved just fine without the need for evolution theory?

You have it backwards, typical. Phenomena do not depend upon theories, rather theories explain phenomena.

How are thoughts and ideas separate from biological evolution?

Now you're getting into Dawkins Theory of Memes. You're making progress, maybe there's hope for you. Meme - Wikipedia

Was this a one step process in human beings only where a switch were flipped from off to on and thinking and ideas started generating?

Clearly not since other primates and other animals clear think and have ideas.

But then there are those who add the words "emerged." Emerged from what?

How have I spoken for you? It is easy to invoke intelligence into evolution theory without being aware of it. If anything, to me, you seem to be disagreeing with many aspects of evolution theory.

You have already exhibited a gross lack of understanding of the ToE and of abiogenesis so I do not take your pronouncements seriously.

Please elaborate then on the quote you used from me, and where other than outside of your imagination, did I infer/assume one-step processes from the rest of what I said.

The source/mechanism for which non-life becomes life is not known in the "scientific" world. On one hand, the complexity of a cell is a gradual process and on the other hand, in a one-step process, lightning strikes the non-living cell and it becomes a living cell.

I don't need to, you just said it again and got it wrong again ... there is no scientific hypothesis that suggests a one-step process wherein lightning strikes a non-living cell and it becomes a living cell.

 

[savagewind]

other primates and other animals clear think and have ideas.

wow

 

[savagewind]

I don't think that anyone but humans can look at their own thoughts and idea.

 

[savagewind]

I think I have just had a revelation! Some humans can't look at their thoughts and ideas either.

 

[Deeje]

These photos of animals you posted up, provided no context whatsoever that Intelligent Designer was ever involved for their existence, because you cannot provide a single shred of evidence for Designer’s existence.

I have not one shred of real evidence that a man named Leonardo DaVinci painted this portrait. People believe that he did, but there is not a single person alive today who saw him do it. Should I assume that the paint just applied itself to the canvas and this person's face just happened to be the result? The other image is supposed to be a self portrait of the artist.....I didn't see him draw it, yet I believe what other say due to the production of real evidence rather than imagined propositions and hear-say.

Posting up pictures without context, are not evidence for anything, except you repeating the same false claims as did with the very first post at the OP.

What context do you need? The pictures speak for themselves...no words or explanations are necessary..unless.....

All you are doing is conjecturing that Intelligent Designer exist, and that’s merely your personal opinion, where you use logical fallacies of circular reasoning, argument of ignorance and false equivalency.

Wow! Is that what they are called? I thought it was just plain commonsense that what exhibits design, requires a designer.....?

Is it just accidental that hexagonal shapes are the most efficient structures?
How did bees know this?

"The honeycombs in which they store their amber nectar are marvels of precision engineering, an array of prism-shaped cells with a perfectly hexagonal cross-section. The wax walls are made with a very precise thickness, the cells are gently tilted from the horizontal to prevent the viscous honey from running out, and the entire comb is aligned with the Earth’s magnetic field. Yet this structure is made without any blueprint or foresight, by many bees working simultaneously and somehow coordinating their efforts to avoid mismatched cells."

How Physics Gives Structure to Nature

So precision engineering is just a product of chance? The tilt and alignment are just a fortunate co-incidence?

No engineering here either? Just another fluke?

Please provide evidence that all of those creatures in my other post, just designed themselves by chance.

And you really don’t understand the concept of speciation. You never have.

Oh good grief Gnostic...that has been done to death......it wasn't convincing the first time it was brought up. What were the speciation experiment results? That all of the organisms tested remained within their taxonomic family. Not once did a species develop that was something other than a new variety of what already existed. The flies were still flies....the fish w ere still fish and the bacteria were still bacteria and still are to this very day. Darwin's finches were still finches and still are now....the marine iguanas are still iguanas....you can visit them...they are a tourist attraction.

.

 

[Sapiens]

I have not one shred of real evidence that a man named Leonardo DaVinci painted this portrait.

Sure there is, the choice of pigments, the brushstrokes, and Vasari's account of the Mona Lisa in his biography of Leonardo published in 1550.

It appears you art history is a bad as your biology. Don't you ever get embarrassed?

...

Is it just accidental that hexagonal shapes are the most efficient structures?
How did bees know this?

"The honeycombs in which they store their amber nectar are marvels of precision engineering, an array of prism-shaped cells with a perfectly hexagonal cross-section. The wax walls are made with a very precise thickness, the cells are gently tilted from the horizontal to prevent the viscous honey from running out, and the entire comb is aligned with the Earth’s magnetic field. Yet this structure is made without any blueprint or foresight, by many bees working simultaneously and somehow coordinating their efforts to avoid mismatched cells."

Bees do not "know" this but natural selection favored that structure.

...

Oh good grief Gnostic...that has been done to death......it wasn't convincing the first time it was brought up. What were the speciation experiment results? That all of the organisms tested remained within their taxonomic family. Not once did a species develop that was something other than a new variety of what already existed. The flies were still flies....the fish w ere still fish and the bacteria were still bacteria and still are to this very day. Darwin's finches were still finches and still are now....the marine iguanas are still iguanas....you can visit them...they are a tourist attraction.

.

Now you're just playing "species of the gaps." A decent course in embryology and one in comparative anatomy and you might understand that you truly are just a specialized fish.

 

[Profound Realization]

You are a primate. Your parents are primates. Your entire family, as far back as you can name them and well beyond are primates. Sorry, but that is reality.
... and all you can come up with is unsupported poppycock? That's pretty weak as an observe.
You've a propensity for spewing word salad.
You have it backwards, typical. Phenomena do not depend upon theories, rather theories explain phenomena.
No your getting into Dawkins Theory of Memes. You're making progress.
Clearly not since other primates and other animals clear think and have ideas.

You have already exhibited a gross lack of understanding of the ToE and of abiogenesis so I do not take your pronouncements seriously.
I don't need to, you just said it again and got it wrong again ... there is no scientific hypothesis that suggests a one-step process wherein lightning strikes a non-living cell and it becomes a living cell.

If you wish to be dense on your need for labeling and classifying everything in a way you prefer and invoke that on all others, feel free to. When scientists treat all primates as humans, I will begin to respect their classifications. Perhaps when scientists throw themselves and families in cages at zoos. Perhaps when scientists submit themselves to involuntary breeding/torture/testing/and then being killed. I prefer to call my parents humans, and not primates, if this offends that is not my intent.

Phenomena don't depend upon theories, correct. That's my point. Logic as in information... it instrinic within life.

Stories keep changing all of the time, it's quite hard to keep up. First, apes and monkeys and the like aren't allowed to think and generate ideas in evolution theory... what appears as them thinking is nothing more than instinct/indirectly reproducing with no intent/purpose to reproduce.
Then others believe/know that they do.
When someone catches their contradictions, complete avoidance and neglect of these, and points them out... it's quite humorous seeing the responses.

Not everyone follows Reverand Dawkins. Is there value in getting closer/progressing to Dawkins theory? Is it a source of which our lives depend on for our existence?

Abiogenesis has an array of varying hypothesis. You took out the part where I mentioned gradual progression of material, and how there is no known source/mechanism as to where non-life becomes life.... another quote mine attempt? A one-step lightning strike has very much been thought of/hypothesized in combination of the gradual.

 

[gnostic]

You also have to factor in how she taunts and goads the science advocates into posting science to her, only to have her do what you describe above, followed by more taunts, which triggers more science posts to her......

.....and you end up with an outrageously repetitive thread that's over 250 pages long.

That sounds about right.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

For anyone to say "God did it" and carry on with their simple lives not being overly needy, is this offensive to you?

I don't care what anyone believes about the supernatural. I often disagree with those asserting its reality. Do you think that is cruel or unkind?

Also, what is reason to you may not be the same reasoning to another.

What constitutes valid reasoning isn't in dispute, which is why people schooled and experienced in reasoning can agree among themselves what comprises a valid chain of reasoning. You're welcome to employ other systems of thought if you desire, but you more or less disqualify your opinions thereafter when you do.

By your reasoning.... it is unreasonable to use reason, intelligence, consciousness, think, because these all themselves have not been physically/materially seen in a lab.

That is your reasoning - once again. I have no such opinions, and have posted nothing like that.

When you take "biological" and make it relate to the "scientific" study of life and living things the way that you do..it is a control attempt.

I am trying to keep the discussion cogent. When you define words in personal and idiosyncratic ways without defining just what you mean, communication breaks down. How could I guess that you would see the "-logical" in "biological" and think you thought it meant that all life had intellignce.

There is no study without logic/information

I'd say that astrology and theology would be counterexamples to your claim. What logic or information is in either of those two?

Every organism is a scientist.

And here's yet another word for which you have an idiosyncratic definition. I'm having trouble viewing E. coli as scientists in the colon.

True of false: life and logic have evolved just fine without the need for evolution theory?

Logic didn't evolve. Man's understanding of it did.

Life evolved with the help of variation in populations over generations under the influence of natural selection. No theory was necessary for that to occur, and none developed until the mid-19th century.

How are thoughts and ideas separate from biological evolution?

Have you studied any of this in the past? If your interest is sincere, there are online educational modules available to you free of charge. You'll need to pursue an education in a more comprehensive way than asking questions on a message board. You'll want to start with the fundamentals and build upon them - not ask scattered questions. I'll help you find resources if you want. But you'll need to do the work as I did.

As an aside, the rate of people that first enter a phase of scientific study and the development of self-educational skills past age 50 is abysmal in my experience. Those that haven't been interested enough to pursue such an education in university, or through book stores or the Internet, for decades, seldom develop that interest in the last half of life.

The source/mechanism for which non-life becomes life is not known in the "scientific" world.

Nor in the "religious" world.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't think that anyone but humans can look at their own thoughts and ideas.

You're probably correct.

As far as we know, on earth, only human beings can have abstract thoughts using symbols: words and numbers. Any sentient creature can potentially have an implicit sense of "I am," but those that can have such an idea in words, which seem to be humans only, have an explicit sense of the same.

 

[Deeje]

Sure there is, the choice of pigments, the brushstrokes, and Vasari's account of the Mona Lisa in his biography of Leonardo published in 1550.

There are forgers about...very good ones who have studied such things.....and as for Vasari's account of the Mona Lisa in his biography of Leonardo published in 1550. How do you know the information is truthful? Have you met the author or his subject? Would you know a forgery if you fell over one?

The myth of the Mona Lisa

Bees do not "know" this but natural selection favored that structure.

How does natural selection favor a shape it hasn't made yet?

Let me just refresh your memory about the "precision engineering" required for bees to make honeycomb....

"The honeycombs in which they store their amber nectar are marvels of precision engineering, an array of prism-shaped cells with a perfectly hexagonal cross-section. The wax walls are made with a very precise thickness, the cells are gently tilted from the horizontal to prevent the viscous honey from running out, and the entire comb is aligned with the Earth’s magnetic field. Yet this structure is made without any blueprint or foresight, by many bees working simultaneously and somehow coordinating their efforts to avoid mismatched cells."

Those little bee brains can do something that intelligent human engineers and scientists can't....work with others without a blueprint, simultaneously coordinating their efforts to avoid anything being mismatched. None of them went to college to learn engineering either. Isn't it odd?

But you can just wave all that away like it doesn't matter. What object that was "precision engineered" in your experience didn't require an intelligent mind to engineer it? What is "engineering" Sapiens? How do blind forces engineer anything?

Now you're just playing "species of the gaps." A decent course in embryology and one in comparative anatomy and you might understand that you truly are just a specialized fish.

Of course I am

or perhaps I am really a banana....?

......we can all see the logic and the vast scientific research that went into that comment, I'm sure. I know who should be embarrassed.

A decent course in embryology and anatomy would have told me what? That we all look "similar" in utero? What does that prove when we are nothing like what emerges after the cells finish their processing? How do all those cells know how to make a dog's ear or a cat's whiskers or even a human brain? Just clever I guess.

 

[Sapiens]

There are forgers about...very good ones who have studied such things.....and as for Vasari's account of the Mona Lisa in his biography of Leonardo published in 1550. How do you know the information is truthful? Have you met the author or his subject? Would you know a forgery if you fell over one?

The myth of the Mona Lisa

No I would not but I know several experts I can trust. Anyway, your link does not support your view.

How does natural selection favor a shape it hasn't made yet?

The usual way, by maximizing w-bar.

Let me just refresh your memory about the "precision engineering" required for bees to make honeycomb....

"The [in which they store their amber nectar are marvels of precision engineering, an array of prism-shaped cells with a perfectly hexagonal cross-section. The wax walls are made with a very precise thickness, the cells are gently tilted from the horizontal to prevent the viscous honey from running out, and the entire comb is aligned with the Earth’s magnetic field. Yet this structure is made without any blueprint or foresight, by many bees working simultaneously and somehow coordinating their efforts to avoid mismatched cells."

Those little bee brains can do something that intelligent human engineers and scientists can't....work with others without a blueprint, simultaneously coordinating their efforts to avoid anything being mismatched. None of them went to college to learn engineering either. Isn't it odd?

Not in the least, it is exactly what I would expect, The same shape is found in many crystals for the much the same reason, lowest energy state and use of materials.

But you can just wave all that away like it doesn't matter. What object that was "precision engineered" in your experience didn't require an intelligent mind to engineer it? What is "engineering" Sapiens? How do blind forces engineer anything?

Of course I am

or perhaps I am really a banana....?

Natural selection is not blind.

......we can all see the logic and the vast scientific research that went into that comment, I'm sure. I know who should be embarrassed.

Then I accept your apology, but not your apologetics.

A decent course in embryology and anatomy would have told me what? That we all look "similar" in utero? What does that prove when we are nothing like what emerges after the cells finish their processing? How do all those cells know how to make a dog's ear or a cat's whiskers or even a human brain? Just clever I guess.

It would show you, in compressed time, how structures like the fishes' gill arches move and change.