PROBABILITY OR POSSIBILITY OR JUST IMPOSSSIBLE

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Your Argument is totally specious.

A vast majority of evolutionary changes lead absolutely nowhere. They are happening all the time and most are dead ends.
Sometimes such a change is very beneficial and is therefore is likely to increase the chances of survival of both the change and the species.

The mathematics of the change between two stages of evolution is always 100% because it "Happened"
The chances of it happening again, are as you say perhaps astronomical, but irelavent.

All we ever see is a completed chain of events.
Failures do not survive.
Genetic variation can mean they remain much as they are, take a genetic fork or lead to dead ends.

This is the process we see in practice. namely numerous family branches that we call species, with a similar number of extinctions.

It doesn't work, it requires decisionmaking. And since freedom is obviously real and relevant in the universe, there is no reason to assume it would not be decided.

You cannot get a movie from arbitrarily changing bits on a dvd. You are underestimating the number of theoretically possible mutations that lead to disorganization, relative to the number of mutations that function together with the whole of the organism. You cannot get efficient clean up of the theorized deleterious mutations by natural selection. Just as well as in evolution theory it takes millions of years to gather up the beneficial mutations to form a new specie, also it takes many years to clean up the deleterious mutations, and the sums don't come out right for evolution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It doesn't work, it requires decisionmaking.

Can you demonstrate that evolution requires "decision making"?

And since freedom is obviously real and relevant in the universe, there is no reason to assume it would not be decided.

This sentence makes no sense.

You cannot get a movie from arbitrarily changing bits on a dvd.

Living, biological systems are not DVDs. Do you honestly think that comparison is apt?

You are underestimating the number of theoretically possible mutations that lead to disorganization, relative to the number of mutations that function together with the whole of the organism.

I'm not sure how exactly you are able to quantify the number of "theoretically possible mutations that lead to disorganization".

You cannot get efficient clean up of the theorized deleterious mutations by natural selection.

How do you determine this?

Just as well as in evolution theory it takes millions of years to gather up the beneficial mutations to form a new specie, also it takes many years to clean up the deleterious mutations, and the sums don't come out right for evolution.

Again, please show your working.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It doesn't work, it requires decisionmaking. And since freedom is obviously real and relevant in the universe, there is no reason to assume it would not be decided.

You cannot get a movie from arbitrarily changing bits on a dvd. You are underestimating the number of theoretically possible mutations that lead to disorganization, relative to the number of mutations that function together with the whole of the organism. You cannot get efficient clean up of the theorized deleterious mutations by natural selection. Just as well as in evolution theory it takes millions of years to gather up the beneficial mutations to form a new specie, also it takes many years to clean up the deleterious mutations, and the sums don't come out right for evolution.

As I have explained to you before, and in some detail, the environment and the survivability of given mutations within an environment, is the "decision making" engine.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It doesn't work, it requires decisionmaking. And since freedom is obviously real and relevant in the universe, there is no reason to assume it would not be decided.

You cannot get a movie from arbitrarily changing bits on a dvd. You are underestimating the number of theoretically possible mutations that lead to disorganization, relative to the number of mutations that function together with the whole of the organism. You cannot get efficient clean up of the theorized deleterious mutations by natural selection. Just as well as in evolution theory it takes millions of years to gather up the beneficial mutations to form a new specie, also it takes many years to clean up the deleterious mutations, and the sums don't come out right for evolution.

Your answer lacks any logic
the proof of evolution is all around us
it is a continuing process
The result is demonstrated in where creatures are to day, compared to where they were before.

If you wish to think that these changes are being driven by God. That is certainly a slight posability.
But any involvement by God is more likely to be in the setting up of the initial process.
He certainly does not need to micromanage that process.

the sucess of the process of evolution is there for every one to witness.

 

[George-ananda]

How is not simply a god of the gaps claim?

A 'god of the gaps' claim just says 'god did it' and end of story. I'm positing complex mechanisms which future science may be able to investigate (beyond the purview of our physical senses) working through causation to produce a physical affect.

 

[George-ananda]

Well, science doesn't really understand how life formed. It's still a bit of a mystery. Given how remarkable humans are I think the most reasonable belief is that we are getting closer and will probably be able to explain it one day through processes understood by science, but it's fine to disagree here.

Since it did physically happen science (at it exists today; physical only) I don't doubt will be able to describe the events that most likely occurred. But that will still leave the WHY? question on the table (chance vs. design) and it would still be consistent with my theory of creative intelligence through nature spirit beings.

 

[McBell]

A 'god of the gaps' claim just says 'god did it' and end of story. I'm positing complex mechanisms which future science may be able to investigate (beyond the purview of our physical senses) working through causation to produce a physical affect.

God of the gaps is creating a gap to put god into.
How is what you doing not exactly that?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Since it did physically happen science (at it exists today; physical only) I don't doubt will be able to describe the events that most likely occurred. But that will still leave the WHY? question on the table (chance vs. design) and it would still be consistent with my theory of creative intelligence through nature spirit beings.

I can have a theory that is consistent as well. However where is the evidence supporting your theory?

 

[George-ananda]

God of the gaps is creating a gap to put god into.
How is what you doing not exactly that?

From Wikipedia:

"God of the gaps" is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.

I am not doing that. I am just arguing for a hypothesis that includes elements beyond science's current ability to test.

 

[George-ananda]

I can have a theory that is consistent as well. However where is the evidence supporting your theory?

Well, not being a student of 'scientism', I also consider (neither blindly accept nor blindly dismiss) evidence and argumentation from other wisdom traditions (i.e. eastern systems) and the experiences and observations of people I hold in respect.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, not being a student of 'scientism', I also consider (neither blindly accept nor blindly dismiss) evidence and argumentation from other wisdom traditions (i.e. eastern systems) and the experiences and observations of people I hold in respect.

You cannot neither accept nor reject a claim, you have to do one or the other. If you do not yet believe a claim is true, then you reject it by definition. You either hold that the claim is true, or you reject the claim until such a time as you have sufficient reason to accept it as true. You do not "blindly" reject a claim if the claim has no evidence, as a lack of evidence is sufficient rational justification for rejecting a claim. What evidence do you have to support your claims?

 

[George-ananda]

You cannot neither accept nor reject a claim, you have to do one or the other. If you do not yet believe a claim is true, then you reject it by definition. You either hold that the claim is true, or you reject the claim until such a time as you have sufficient reason to accept it as true. You do not "blindly" reject a claim if the claim has no evidence, as a lack of evidence is sufficient rational justification for rejecting a claim. What evidence do you have to support your claims?

I think you misunderstood. All I was saying is I consider other traditions, Christianity, Hinduism, Spiritual/Metaphysical Teachers, etc. and neither blindly accept nor blindly dismiss everything they say. I objectively consider each issue for myself using all the evidence and argumentation available and reach the most reasonable position. How else do we form our beliefs?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

You cannot neither accept nor reject a claim, you have to do one or the other. If you do not yet believe a claim is true, then you reject it by definition. You either hold that the claim is true, or you reject the claim until such a time as you have sufficient reason to accept it as true. You do not "blindly" reject a claim if the claim has no evidence, as a lack of evidence is sufficient rational justification for rejecting a claim. What evidence do you have to support your claims?

I strongly disagree.

One may accept a claim, reject a claim, or suspend a claim.

In suspending a claim, one says, "I don't yet know"; then, likely, proceed to process the information in regards to that claim or conduct an investigation and research into the claim. If there is insufficient evidence to either reject or accept the claim, then the claim remains suspended until there is sufficient evidence to either accept or reject.

I have been interrupted so I have to go for now; but I will expound on this later with specific examples of "suspending a claim".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think you misunderstood. All I was saying is I consider other traditions, Christianity, Hinduism, Spiritual/Metaphysical Teachers, etc. and neither blindly accept nor blindly dismiss everything they say. I objectively consider each issue for myself using all the evidence and argumentation available and reach the most reasonable position. How else do we form our beliefs?

Oh, I see. So your point was that you don't blindly accept or reject - not that you don't accept or reject in general. You're just more willing to accept evidence that wouldn't traditionally be considered by the scientific method - is that right?

My apolgies.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I strongly disagree.

One may accept a claim, reject a claim, or suspend a claim.

In suspending a claim, one says, "I don't yet know"; then, likely, proceed to process the information in regards to that claim or conduct an investigation and research into the claim. If there is insufficient evidence to either reject or accept the claim, then the claim remains suspended until there is sufficient evidence to either accept or reject.

But surely "to reject" simply means "to not accept", and to "suspend" a claim requires you to not yet accept it. You are rejecting the claim until such a time as you can determine a claim as worth believing - this is essentially the null hypothesis.

 

[George-ananda]

Oh, I see. So your point was that you don't blindly accept or reject - not that you don't accept or reject in general. You're just more willing to accept evidence that wouldn't traditionally be considered by the scientific method - is that right?

Yes, that's better.

My apolgies.

No problem, I've misunderstood people before myself.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

But surely "to reject" simply means "to not accept", and to "suspend" a claim requires you to not yet accept it. You are rejecting the claim until such a time as you can determine a claim as worth believing - this is essentially the null hypothesis.

Not necessarily. Now on with an example.

A claim is made, for instance that "there is life on Europa and Io".

Is there? All evidence suggests that Io and Europa are capable of supporting life under their ice. Available evidence supports that under that ice is H2O; that the conditions and elements necessary for aquatic life exists on Io and Europa.

So, the claim that "there is life on Europa and Io" is supported by evidence that this is a possibility. In fact, a very real and tantalizing possibility. Moreover, we have evidence that strongly suggests at least microbial life once existed on Mars. Thus, extraterrestrial life within our solar system, according to available evidence, is a claim worthy of acceptance.

But we have no evidence that there that life actually exists on Europa and Io.

As a result, the conclusion is suspension; the claim can not be rejected as the conditions seem to exist for the supporting of life; but neither is there sufficient evidence to support that claim.

To say that I have "rejected" that claim because I have not "accepted" that claim, in my opinion, is in error; as to reject that claim, to me, means to hold that "there is no life on Europa and Io". That is not a claim that one can make; as evidence suggests the same is a possibility.

"Accept" and "Reject" in terms of claims, with no other option in between, is too "black and white"/"all or nothing" for my taste. While I agree with you that these are two viable options with which once can exercise in terms of a claim, I do not agree that these are the only two options.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well, not being a student of 'scientism', I also consider (neither blindly accept nor blindly dismiss) evidence and argumentation from other wisdom traditions (i.e. eastern systems) and the experiences and observations of people I hold in respect.

Can you explain to me your evidence then?

 

[George-ananda]

Can you explain to me your evidence then?

Millions of words have been said and written, so don't expect details in a short post. Basically it comes from my belief from the study of the paranormal that dramatic things exist that are unknown to science. From there, I look at hypothesis from various sources that might have an understanding of what this 'more to the universe' is. Reading Spiritual/Metaphysical Teachers and other things based on eastern (Indian) spiritual wisdom that explains how these 'beyond the normal' things are really just part and parcel of an expanded view of the natural, the wisdom dovetailed to a view I hold. The seers and the sages of these tradition have convinced me through quantity, quality and consistency of the worldview I hold. Plus for me, I believe certain figures with the ability for expanded awareness have demonstrated mastery over the material realm (miracles).

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Millions of words have been said and written, so don't expect details in a short post. Basically it comes from my belief from the study of the paranormal that dramatic things exist that are unknown to science. From there, I look at hypothesis from various sources that might have an understanding of what this 'more to the universe' is. Reading Spiritual/Metaphysical Teachers and other things based on eastern (Indian) spiritual wisdom that explains how these 'beyond the normal' things are really just part and parcel of an expanded view of the natural, the wisdom dovetailed to a view I hold. The seers and the sages of these tradition have convinced me through quantity, quality and consistency of the worldview I hold.

Why is it that your signature states "Brahman Alone is Real"? It seems you are very specific about your beliefs on the subject.