Evolution And Bricks

[thesometimesaint]

Bring on the Cockatrices .

[Rob Osborn]

No one seriously doubts that music conductors are intelligent, or at least somewhat so. That is just a variation on the watchmakers fallacy.

I find it interesting that you say the "watchmakers fallacy" and yet life is so extremely more complex than even a highly advanced and perfectly engineered watch. I am going to cry wolf here. This is an atheist argument to discredit God and the Creator as having anything to do with the existence of life. Do you all hear that? Let me spell it out one more time-

Discrediting the watchmaker analogy is a common atheist attack on Christians and their religious beliefs!

Why don't you just call it the "God fallacy" because thats what you are really saying.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, but the theory of men supposing God or any other kind of being evolved from a lower kind of life is still false.

Micro- evolution (and its opposite, which we can refer to as a fall) is possible for each kind of being, but no kind of being can ever become another kind of being.

And yes you can choose to not believe that if you don't want to.

There is no scientific definition of kind.

Macro evolution is almost the exact same thing as micro evolution.

SEE

 

Yes you can believe anything you want including outright falsehoods. But I'll keep you as far away from the sciences as possible. Enjoy living in the caves, being afraid of things that go bump in the night.

[Gray]

Yes, there are "packets" of information in each mutation similar to a brick supporting the Empire State building, but there is more to a building than just bricks.

 

I would be very interested in a the link between a proven link between cause and effect, which is the crux of the issue here, where mutations build upon each other to create multiple co-dependent, complex systems.  In many cases this co-dependency spans multiple organisms which, presumably, evolved independently.  

 

Now that is "intelligent information" -- much more than individual bricks.   Can I assume that this issue is "still under investigation"?

 

Always under investigation, but not in question. 

[thesometimesaint]

I find it interesting that you say the "watchmakers fallacy" and yet life is so extremely more complex than even a highly advanced and perfectly engineered watch. I am going to cry wolf here. This is an atheist argument to discredit God and the Creator as having anything to do with the existence of life. Do you all hear that? Let me spell it out one more time-

Discrediting the watchmaker analogy is a common atheist attack on Christians and their religious beliefs!

Why don't you just call it the "God fallacy" because thats what you are really saying.

 

It is a fallacy.

 

No one has ever stated that life isn't complex. Complexity of itself is no argument for an engineer.

 

Atheism is a claim there is no God. Theism is a claim there is a God. Agnosticism can't claim a God or lack of God.

 

Yet we have scientists that are Theists. Some 40% of all US scientists are Theists.

 

Because that is not what I'm saying. I have said many times that I perfectly content for my God to use Evolution in his Creation of us and our planet.

[Ahab]

There is no scientific definition of kind.

I think you know what I mean, but if you'd like to get together and hash it out with some other definitive words I'm sure we can come up with a reasonable definition.

Macro evolution is almost the exact same thing as micro evolution.

Like how a man is almost the same exact thing as an ape???

You so-called scientists can really be funny when you are serious about those kinds of things.

[thesometimesaint]

I think you know what I mean, but if you'd like to get together and hash it out with some other definitive words I'm sure we can come up with a reasonable definition.

Like how a man is almost the same exact thing as an ape???

You so-called scientists can really be funny when you are serious about those kinds of things.

 

I can only go by what you post. I'm fine with getting together anytime. I'll bring the pizza if you bring the root beer. I prefer to use the dictionary for my definitions.

 

We are almost biologically in the same as the apes. One gene allele separates us.

 

I find it funny too, but not funny Ha Ha. Why should we do research into how our world works. We were so much better off living in caves, afraid of things that go bump in the night.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You so-called scientists....

I think that you should at least show respect were it has been earned. I might not agree with every thing scientists do but they are indeed scientists. No reason for the "so called" comment.

 

Board Nanny mode: off.

[Ahab]

I think that you should at least show respect were it has been earned. I might not agree with every thing scientists do but they are indeed scientists. No reason for the "so called" comment.

Board Nanny mode: off.

They are indeed called scientists but that doesn't mean their explanations are scientifically true.

The theory of evolution is a reasonable explanation for why there are some similarities in different kinds of beings, but the fact that it is a reasonable explanation doesn't mean the theory is true. And a true scientist should be interested in discovering the truth about why there are similarities rather than just settling for a reasonable explanation. As if any reasonable explanation is necessarily true.

For example, another reasonable explanation for the similarities is that is just the way life is, and always has been, and always will be. With no evolution needed or involved in making each kind of living being the way it is, on the macro level. Just that each kind of living being begets after its own kind.

Both of those explanations are scientifically valid, with the latter having more evidence to support it than the former, and yet the former explanation is the one more commonly accepted by the so-called scientists.

There is something kinda funny about that.

[cdowis]

No one seriously doubts that music conductors are intelligent, or at least somewhat so. That is just a variation on the watchmakers fallacy.

 

I think you deliberated missed my point.  It is an ANALOGY, and has nothing to do with intelligence of musicians and conductors.

 

The "musicians" represent the nuts and bolts of an orchestra -- and that is what science is all about, nuts and bolts.    One can hear, can measure what they product.  In science, the conductor is "invisible", because you cannot hear him, so to speak, he is not subject to measurement.

 

But I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you since you are a smart person and can figure out the analogy yourself.

 

"watchmaker analogy".  The OP is a replacement for that analogy.   If my analogy is a "logical fallacy", please address that specifically rather than throwing out words without substance.

Edited April 9, 2014 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

They are indeed called scientists but that doesn't mean their explanations are scientifically true.

The theory of evolution is a reasonable explanation for why there are some similarities in different kinds of beings, but the fact that it is a reasonable explanation doesn't mean the theory is true. And a true scientist should be interested in discovering the truth about why there are similarities rather than just settling for a reasonable explanation. As if any reasonable explanation is necessarily true.

For example, another reasonable explanation for the similarities is that is just the way life is, and always has been, and always will be. With no evolution needed or involved in making each kind of living being the way it is, on the macro level. Just that each kind of living being begets after its own kind.

Both of those explanations are scientifically valid, with the latter having more evidence to support it than the former, and yet the former explanation is the one more commonly accepted by the so-called scientists.

There is something kinda funny about that.

 

SEE http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/09/i-can-tell-you-how-lawrence-krauss-ended-up-in-our-film-he-signed-a-release-form-and-cashed-a-check/

[thesometimesaint]

I think you deliberated missed my point.  It is an ANALOGY, and has nothing to do with intelligence of musicians and conductors.

 

The "musicians" represent the nuts and bolts of an orchestra -- and that is what science is all about, nuts and bolts.    But I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you since you are a smart person and can figure out the analogy yourself.

 

BTW, please tell us about the "watchmaker fallacy".  Look up logical fallacies, and exactly which classification does it fall.  I have the feeling that the "watchmaker analogy" is an invention from your imagination, and you are just mouthing words without any real substance.  "Fallacy" simply means to you, "I disagree with it."

 

Please prove me wrong.

 

SEE

 

SEE Teleological fallacy: the claim that some object or idea has a purpose or necessary end point in the absence of evidence for that end point.

[katherine the great]

I think you know what I mean, but if you'd like to get together and hash it out with some other definitive words I'm sure we can come up with a reasonable definition.

Like how a man is almost the same exact thing as an ape???

You so-called scientists can really be funny when you are serious about those kinds of things.

No organism ever gives birth to an organism of a different species.  I don't think you understand how speciation works.

[thesometimesaint]

No organism ever gives birth to an organism of a different species.  I don't think you understand how speciation works.

 

Actually such an event would disprove evolution.

[ERayR]

2 Nephi 2:22

Now you can't say nobody ever gave you a scripture reference stating there was no death (on this planet) before the fall of Adam and Eve.

You can still choose to not believe it, though.

 

 22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

 

Note this does not say (on this planet).  It says in the Garden of Eden.  The Garden of Eden was not the whole planet.

[ERayR]

There is no scientific definition of kind.

Macro evolution is almost the exact same thing as micro evolution.

SEE

 

Yes you can believe anything you want including outright falsehoods. But I'll keep you as far away from the sciences as possible. Enjoy living in the caves, being afraid of things that go bump in the night.

 

Is this the one where the moths evolve to a different color?  The important thing is they were still the same moths only a different color. 

[ERayR]

It is a fallacy.

 

No one has ever stated that life isn't complex. Complexity of itself is no argument for an engineer.

 

Atheism is a claim there is no God. Theism is a claim there is a God. Agnosticism can't claim a God or lack of God.

 

Yet we have scientists that are Theists. Some 40% of all US scientists are Theists.

 

Because that is not what I'm saying. I have said many times that I perfectly content for my God to use Evolution in his Creation of us and our planet.

 

Yep I've got it.  Throw a few parts in a box and shake it enough times and I have a Rollex.  Yep I've got it.

[Ahab]

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

Note this does not say (on this planet). It says in the Garden of Eden. The Garden of Eden was not the whole planet.

The story God tells us of the creation in the beginning when our planet and the heavens above it were created along with the various kinds of living beings put upon it was not limited to the creation of the garden of Eden.

That's what I was talking about.

I just didn't want to convey the idea that Nephi was saying there was and had been no death anywhere else in the universe when it came as a result of the fall of Adam and Eve (on this planet).

[cdowis]

SEE

 

SEE Teleological fallacy: the claim that some object or idea has a purpose or necessary end point in the absence of evidence for that end point.

 

 Actually your argument boils down to:

 

"God does not exist, so any argument based on the existence of God is a fallacy.  Let's call it..... a teleological fallacy  -- that's sounds pretty cool."

 

"I don't understand, so it must be false", "I have no evidence for your belief, so it must be false", "You cannot convince me of your argument, so that makes it false",  which, in your mind, makes it a fallacy.  You gave a name to your disbelief, calling it a fallacy.

 

Actually **I** do understand, but I have neither the interest nor the ability to convince you.  And that, of course, makes my belief false.

Edited April 9, 2014 by cdowis

[DJBrown]

Yes, there are "packets" of information in each mutation similar to a brick supporting the Empire State building, but there is more to a building than just bricks.

 

I would be very interested in a the link between a proven link between cause and effect, which is the crux of the issue here, where mutations build upon each other to create multiple co-dependent, complex systems.  In many cases this co-dependency spans multiple organisms which, presumably, evolved independently.  

 

Now that is "intelligent information" -- much more than individual bricks.   Can I assume that this issue is "still under investigation"?

 

 

Throughout my years in college and graduate school in the sciences, I could never get anybody to really explain the hard evidence that supports macro-evolution.  What I got was circular reasoning at its finest.  The nature of the answers I got were as dogmatic as any medieval church edict I can imagine.

 

In my perspective, evolutionary science has established 3 main truths:

1) planet earth is a lot older than we thought

2) planet earth is home to a greater diversity of organisms than we thought

3) these organisms found on planet earth have similar structures and design (and DNA sequences)

 

I can think of several possible explanations for these three fundamental truths that do not include evolutionary processes.

 

I have a very difficult time reconciling my understanding of systems like the coagulation cascade present in the blood coursing through a baby's veins and the evolutionary theory that supposedly explains how that system came to be.

[thesometimesaint]

Is this the one where the moths evolve to a different color?  The important thing is they were still the same moths only a different color. 

 

That is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is at species level.

 

 Actually your argument boils down to:

 

"God does not exist, so any argument based on the existence of God is a fallacy.  Let's call it..... a teleological fallacy  -- that's sounds pretty cool."

 

"I don't understand, so it must be false", "I have no evidence for your belief, so it must be false", "You cannot convince me of your argument, so that makes it false",  which, in your mind, makes it a fallacy.  You gave a name to your disbelief, calling it a fallacy.

 

Actually **I** do understand, but I have neither the interest nor the ability to convince you.  And that, of course, makes my belief false.

 

 

I never said God was false. What I have repeatedly said is that as a scientist I can't posit him into science. Personally believe in God.  God in the Christian religions is omnipotent. To a scientist that just means that ANY answer that involves God is the correct answer. Why does the sun revolve around the earth? Because God did it; Ptolemy Why do the orbits of the planets not fall apart? Because God did it; Newton. Why is there Irreducible Complexity in the bacterial flagella? Because God did it: Behe. Why is it a geocentric universe? Because God did it: Robert Sungenis, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/09/i-can-tell-you-how-lawrence-krauss-ended-up-in-our-film-he-signed-a-release-form-and-cashed-a-check/

Edited April 10, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

It is a fallacy.

 

No one has ever stated that life isn't complex. Complexity of itself is no argument for an engineer.

 

Atheism is a claim there is no God. Theism is a claim there is a God. Agnosticism can't claim a God or lack of God.

 

Yet we have scientists that are Theists. Some 40% of all US scientists are Theists.

 

Because that is not what I'm saying. I have said many times that I perfectly content for my God to use Evolution in his Creation of us and our planet.

That's the worst video I have ever seen to discredit the watchmaker analogy. So, because he intelligently makes a computer program to do what he designs it to do with parameters he sets up it proves it false? Kind of ironic that in trying to discredit design he actually proves it with design of his own program! Besides all that he really has no idea what the watchmaker analogy is all about and how it relates to life and nature. Its as if he can't actually see the forest because of the trees- he actually realizes and acknowledges intelligent systems even to the point to where he makes sure to everyone he himself is credited with his intelligently designed program but then trys to sell everyone that intelligent designs do not exist...even though he himself is one.

You keep making this claim about God and I honestly believe that you believe in Him, I just can't understand how unwilling you are to place Him in his own designs. Why is that?

[cdowis]

I never said God was false.

 

I understand, but I am pointing out that is the basic assumption or premise behind the so-called teleological fallacy.  IOW, it is a fallacy only if you accept that assumption.

 

What I have repeatedly said is that as a scientist I can't posit him into science.

 

And I agreed when I gave the analogy of the orchestra.  The scientist can "see" each individual instrumentalist, but the conductor of the orchestra is invisible.  ID is not scientific, it is meta science.

 

Personally believe in God.  God in the Christian religions is omnipotent. To a scientist that just means that ANY answer that involves God is the correct answer. Why does the sun revolve around the earth? Because God did it; Ptolemy Why do the orbits of the planets not fall apart? Because God did it; Newton. Why is there Irreducible Complexity in the bacterial flagella? Because God did it: Behe. Why is it a geocentric universe? Because God did it: Robert Sungenis, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/09/i-can-tell-you-how-lawrence-krauss-ended-up-in-our-film-he-signed-a-release-form-and-cashed-a-check/

 

And the LDS view is that God is subject to natural law, and uses it as we use laws to have a TV picture, send a space ship to the moon, etc.  He is the conductor of the orchestra.  The scientist can "see" the spaceship but not the "back office" activities to plan and manage it.

 

We are talking about a serious change in how we view the debate between science and religion because the LDS view is so different from the theology of historic Christianity.

Edited April 10, 2014 by cdowis

[Wanderer7]

They are indeed called scientists but that doesn't mean their explanations are scientifically true.

The theory of evolution is a reasonable explanation for why there are some similarities in different kinds of beings, but the fact that it is a reasonable explanation doesn't mean the theory is true. And a true scientist should be interested in discovering the truth about why there are similarities rather than just settling for a reasonable explanation. As if any reasonable explanation is necessarily true.

For example, another reasonable explanation for the similarities is that is just the way life is, and always has been, and always will be. With no evolution needed or involved in making each kind of living being the way it is, on the macro level. Just that each kind of living being begets after its own kind.

Both of those explanations are scientifically valid, with the latter having more evidence to support it than the former, and yet the former explanation is the one more commonly accepted by the so-called scientists.

There is something kinda funny about that.

 

What evidence are you referring to? The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

The statement that it is scientifically valid that life never changes is patently false. I've observed it firsthand many times in the lab.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Wanderer7

[thesometimesaint]

That's the worst video I have ever seen to discredit the watchmaker analogy. So, because he intelligently makes a computer program to do what he designs it to do with parameters he sets up it proves it false? Kind of ironic that in trying to discredit design he actually proves it with design of his own program! Besides all that he really has no idea what the watchmaker analogy is all about and how it relates to life and nature. Its as if he can't actually see the forest because of the trees- he actually realizes and acknowledges intelligent systems even to the point to where he makes sure to everyone he himself is credited with his intelligently designed program but then trys to sell everyone that intelligent designs do not exist...even though he himself is one.

You keep making this claim about God and I honestly believe that you believe in Him, I just can't understand how unwilling you are to place Him in his own designs. Why is that?

 

That is a priori: If "Y" exists "X" must be its cause.

 

Because it involves using a omnipotent source. ANY answer given using a omnipotent source is unallowed in science. IE; In science we can't say the earth rotates on it axis because God did it. It spins because of conservation of angular momentum. Now whether God created that law is not subject for science.