Why I am not an atheist.

[Subduction Zone]

Its unlikely in the extreme that any of our
heros of the faith do any research, like
actually reading books or cross referencing.

For one-
If they did they'd know they have no argument
against ToE. It may yet still prove rotten root to
stem, but as yet nobody has found the flaw.

As it is, the vast majorities go to creo-sitee
where they find predicated quotes and arguments.
To be charitable- why not, dress are not bad people, few are intentionally dishonest,
so I expect they don't even know they are being
scammed with quote mined material,
and present it in good, um, faith.

I agree. They are lying by proxy, but do not know that they are lying. They are advancing the false claims of people that had to know that they were false when they wrote them.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Are you aware that you appear to be personifying "Intelligence"?




John

I thought you did that earlier - about the probabilities of dirt turning into human brains, as if any process without an injection of design was impossible. I was merely stating that intelligence seems to occur in multiple species. But I suppose your explanation would be that they are all designed. We don't know how life formed so there is little point in discussing that.

 

[Tiberius]

. . . I think semantics might be getting in the way of our discussion? Technically speaking, or at least the way I'm using the words, all experience of reality is "subjective" since it's the world as experienced by the subject. As Schopenhauer insightfully pointed out, the world is my world.

The "objective" world would be the world as it exists prior to being colored and interpreted by a living subject. As Immanuel Kant pointed out, if we eliminate every quality added to the impulses received from the outside world by our own body, what would be left would be utterly unrecognizable to the subject.



John

However...

What we see as the subjective world is coloured by our own selves. The real objective world that exists separately to that is not so influenced. And since no two people will share the same subjective world, the things that all people can agree upon are likely to be accurate views of the real objective world and not simply artifacts of the subjective world we all see.

 

[Tiberius]

What does the word "selection" mean to you?



John

In the case it is a difference in outcome. Different individuals have different rates of reproductive success due to the differing nature of the variations their bodies have developed.

 

[John D. Brey]

In the case it is a difference in outcome. Different individuals have different rates of reproductive success due to the differing nature of the variations their bodies have developed.

I don't think I would find a definition like that for the word "selection" in any respectable dictionary. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction?


John

 

[John D. Brey]

What we see as the subjective world is coloured by our own selves. The real objective world that exists separately to that is not so influenced. And since no two people will share the same subjective world, the things that all people can agree upon are likely to be accurate views of the real objective world and not simply artifacts of the subjective world we all see.

On one level of conceptualism your statement is ok. But on a more precisely level we could say that the fact that people share subjective experience might clearly imply some objective or communal relationship between such experiences; nevertheless, more precisely, they're shared subjective experience, and not true experiences of the objective world outside creature-experience.



John

 

[Audie]

I don't think I would find a definition like that for the word "selection" in any respectable dictionary. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction?


John

I spent quite a while explaining thevterm of art,
" natural selection ".

Maybe you could Google it and maybe yiu can quit this rather silly game of taking one word from a two word phrase and acting as if its clever.

Do the same with German silver, why don't you?

No definition of silver will match that metal.

It accomplishes nothing to make a big deal of it.

 

[John D. Brey]

It would be well for @John D. Brey to state that he made an honest mistake, having failed to read the quote in context. Deliberate misrepresentation is, after all, highly dishonest,
and few here care for that kind of discussion.

Although short strings of RNA can replicate themselves without enzyme assistants, longer strings need a retinue of helpers, and specifying them requires a very long sequence—longer than could be replicated with high-enough fidelity until those very enzymes were already present. We seem to face paradox once again, in a vicious circle succinctly described by John Maynard Smith: "One cannot have accurate replication without a length of RNA of, say, 2000 base pairs, and one cannot have that much RNA without accurate replication" (Maynard Smith 1979, p 445.)​

Dennett is agreeing with John Maynard Smith concerning the paradox.



John

 

[Subduction Zone]

Although short strings of RNA can replicate themselves without enzyme assistants, longer strings need a retinue of helpers, and specifying them requires a very long sequence—longer than could be replicated with high-enough fidelity until those very enzymes were already present. We seem to face paradox once again, in a vicious circle succinctly described by John Maynard Smith: "One cannot have accurate replication without a length of RNA of, say, 2000 base pairs, and one cannot have that much RNA without accurate replication" (Maynard Smith 1979, p 445.)​

Dennett is agreeing with John Maynard Smith concerning the paradox.



John

All that you have here is an argument from ignorance in regards to abiogenesis. That proves nothing. It only means that there are unsolved problems. And this of course has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Where is there a need for a god?

 

[Left Coast]

This thread turned into an evolution debate?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This thread turned into an evolution debate?

The OP thinks that he can refute evolution. Worse yet he thinks that "proves God".

 

[ppp]

Although short strings of RNA can replicate themselves without enzyme assistants, longer strings need a retinue of helpers, and specifying them requires a very long sequence—longer than could be replicated with high-enough fidelity until those very enzymes were already present. We seem to face paradox once again, in a vicious circle succinctly described by John Maynard Smith: "One cannot have accurate replication without a length of RNA of, say, 2000 base pairs, and one cannot have that much RNA without accurate replication" (Maynard Smith 1979, p 445.)​

Dennett is agreeing with John Maynard Smith concerning the paradox.



John

This is irrelevant, John. Evolution is not why I don't believe god claims.

 

[Left Coast]

The OP thinks that he can refute evolution. Worse yet he thinks that "proves God".

 

[Audie]

This thread turned into an evolution debate?

Nah. Its cultural anthropology.

 

[Audie]

Although short strings of RNA can replicate themselves without enzyme assistants, longer strings need a retinue of helpers, and specifying them requires a very long sequence—longer than could be replicated with high-enough fidelity until those very enzymes were already present. We seem to face paradox once again, in a vicious circle succinctly described by John Maynard Smith: "One cannot have accurate replication without a length of RNA of, say, 2000 base pairs, and one cannot have that much RNA without accurate replication" (Maynard Smith 1979, p 445.)​

Dennett is agreeing with John Maynard Smith concerning the paradox.



John

You are still stuck on the chicken or egg
argument.
Look, nobody knows how life started.
Research is ongoing.
MEANWHILE, you are ignoring that regardless
of how life started, TOE is unaffected.

You think ToE is wrong?

Now, IF you can present DATA, not misty
mumbo jumbo, please do so. If not, you
are simply full of it.

 

[John D. Brey]

You are still stuck on the chicken or egg
argument.
Look, nobody knows how life started.
Research is ongoing.
MEANWHILE, you are ignoring that regardless
of how life started, TOE is unaffected.

You think ToE is wrong?

Now, IF you can present DATA, not misty
mumbo jumbo, please do so. If not, you
are simply full of it.

The "theory" of evolution isn't speaking of evolution itself or else it wouldn't be called a "theory" (ToE). A "theory" speaks of something like a proposition, or hypothesis.

On the other hand, we know for a fact that evolution occurs, natural selection occurs.

The "theory" of evolution usually speaks of some all-encompassing idea that evolution itself explains the existence of things like brains and eyes and sentience. That's not the case. Another principle is required to go from a single-celled organism to something as complex as a human brain.

Which is not to deny evolution is involved. But something more than chance and random mutations is required.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

This is irrelevant, John. Evolution is not why I don't believe god claims.

I realize that. But questions of God often drift into questions regarding the origins of man. And probably rightly so since as I noted earlier or in another thread, every single property or product man possesses today he possesses because of its survival value. In some sense, belief in God, not withstanding the cost of carrying it around all these years, has survival value.

As my first proposition in the Science of God thread, I propose that God is a real, genuine, physical, niche in the "objective" world (the world before it gets transformed by the dictates of a living organism). As such, adapting to that niche has created the world's most powerful and technologically advanced creature: the Judeo/Christian.

By adapting to the God-niche, Jews and Christians have designed atomic weapons to slay their enemies, I-phones to communicate with one another, and space ships to use as a golden parachute (of sorts) when this planet is spent or the aboriginal barbarians at the gates get too noisy.



John

 

[Audie]

The "theory" of evolution isn't speaking of evolution itself or else it wouldn't be called a "theory" (ToE). A "theory" speaks of something like a proposition, or hypothesis.

On the other hand, we know for a fact that evolution occurs, natural selection occurs.

The "theory" of evolution usually speaks of some all-encompassing idea that evolution itself explains the existence of things like brains and eyes and sentience. That's not the case. Another principle is required to go from a single-celled organism to something as complex as a human brain.

Which is not to deny evolution is involved. But something more than chance and random mutations is required.



John

I will disregard your confusion about the
nature of a theory, other than to say that it is based on / fully consistent with DATA that
does in fact demonstrate the step by step
process involved in the development of life.

Everyone who actually has studied biology knows that.

You claim the theory of evolution is false.
Fine.
Now present at least one fact to support your claim.

Simple challenge: put up or shut up

 

[John D. Brey]

The OP thinks that he can refute evolution. Worse yet he thinks that "proves God".

Evolution can't be refuted since its completely provable through scientific fact, and mere observation. Only a simpleton would deny that evolution occurs.

But there's another kind of simpleton. The one who thinks that because evolution occurs, nothing more is required.



John

 

[ppp]

I realize that. But questions of God often drift into questions regarding the origins of man. And probably rightly so since as I noted earlier or in another thread, every single property or product man possesses today he possesses because of its survival value. In some sense, belief in God, not withstanding the cost of carrying it around all these years, has survival value.

As my first proposition in the Science of God thread, I propose that God is a real, genuine, physical, niche in the "objective" world (the world before it gets transformed by the dictates of a living organism). As such, adapting to that niche has created the world's most powerful and technologically advanced creature: the Judeo/Christian.

By adapting to the God-niche, Jews and Christians have designed atomic weapons to slay their enemies, I-phones to communicate with one another, and space ships to use as a golden parachute (of sorts) when this planet is spent or the aboriginal barbarians at the gates get too noisy.



John

John, one could do a search and replace on your post and replace 'God' with slavery or foot binding or colonialism and it would be just as true and just as false as the original.