Jump to content

Darwinist Have Their Head In The Sands


Guest Rick B
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Rick B

Hello everyone

 

Been a while since I last posted. I used to have the name "Just Rick" but that no longer seems to be in the database so I created a new account. I usually respond to the various ex-christian articles under the name "Rick" but apparently there is already another Rick registered here.

 

I wanted to bring attention to a discussion going on in a Clipmark page. The discussion started out about Darwinism (as opposed to evolution science <shrug>) but quickly begins running the gauntlet of why atheism should be considered a religion, why atheism has the onus of proving god does not exist, how evolution has no transitional proof, and why there is so much overwhelming evidence to support the existence of god in the form of a whole bunch of theories, logics, and Arguments. Here is a list of some of those logical arguments :

 

  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument

  • The Thomist Cosmological Argument

  • The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

  • The Big Bang Theory evidence of beginning

  • The Design Argument

  • The Anthropic Principle

  • Information Theory

  • Specified order

  • Irreducibly complex biology

  • The moral argument

 

I'm somewhat familiar with most of them, but "Specified Order and Information Theory" were unfamiliar to me and to vague to google effectively.

 

Anyone interested in it can find the link here.

 

I was wondering if anyone could take a peak and point out anything I might have missed or points I should have made. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not super good in these things, but have argued and debated these points a little on this website.

 

I think what the "Specified Order" is about is the same as the "Fine Tuned Universe" argument. Basically, there's only one kind of universe that can exists, and it is this one, and it is fine tuned to life to exist. The problem with that argument in short is that then either Heaven doesn't exist either, or Heaven is the exact same kind of Universe as this one with meteors, catastrophies and earthquakes. And the same goes for Hell. If the case is that Heaven is just another Universe exactly like ours, then how can it be argued it is a better place? And if the physical laws apply, then in Hell, people can't burn for eternity, they'll get consumed by the fire in just a few minutes and then they die... again? And of you go to the next Hell???

 

The Information Theory argument is about the DNA and Evolution, that the DNA is a string of pieces of information and that only a larger intellect could have created it. And that no new information can be "made" just through random events or mutations. And I think that argument is wrong because it puts a label or understanding of DNA that isn't quite true. Many times these arguments sound real and valid, but they are cleverly done to that way, without including all the aspects of the concept. DNA is just like a string of bits, and it is proven that there are copy errors happening. DNA can get longer and shorter through mutations, so it evolution does account for the increase of "information" correctly. I think it's based on a misunderstanding of how DNA really works. This argument has been around for quite some years now, and yet the large majority of scientists don't see this one as a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[*]The Design Argument

 

If you were too flip a coin once which way will it land? you have no idea because it is random, however if you flip the coin 1 million times the average will be guaranteed to be close to 50%....generally close enough to make no difference if you round to the nearest percent.

 

Looking at those number someone uneducated in statistics might conclude that there was some sort of control over the coin, that the coin was "designed" or even controlled so it would land on each side evenly. However they would be wrong.

 

Study chaos theory, it is a pretty good explanation of how order can rise out of disorder. Atoms, for instance, seem ordered, but the pieces that make up the building blocks of atoms, like quarks, are thought to behave randomly, and create order, because like the coin, if these things react randomly enough times the law of averages makes them behave in predictable ways.

 

 

[*]The Anthropic Principle

 

Evolution does not need to obey the anthropic principle because the earth is not a closed system, energy is constantly being fed to it by that big yellow orb up in the sky...you know, the sun.

 

As far as the creation of the universe goes, it should be noted that part of the anthropic principal is that energy/matter is never created or destroyed, it merely changes form, or becomes useless energy. It is very possible that useless energy could converted back to its useful state in the right conditions.

 

 

[*]Irreducibly complex biology

 

nothing but a god of the gaps argument, This argument becomes ever more specious as science learns more about how evolution happens, as many organs once thought to be "irreducibly complex" are now explained.

 

Those who use this forget that parts of an "irreducibly complex" system could have evolved for other uses besides its current one

 

[*]The moral argument

 

This is such a horrible argument that I could write a whole book on how stupid it is...suffice to say that Christians are no more moral than anyone else, so it simply doesn't add up.

 

Morality existed before Christianity, and before Judaism. Current Christian morals differ greatly than 1st century Christians and even more from Judaism. Much that is taught in the bible is flat out not good morality....or even consistent on morality.

 

The existence of morality can be explained with more mundane means such as social evolution and anthropology. While positing god as the answer for morality leaves many unanswered questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Rick B
[*]The Anthropic Principle

 

I think you may have confused the Anthropic Principle with the Entropy. It was my understanding that the Anthropic Principle dealt more with the "settings' of the universe. In other words life couldn't exist without things being exactly the way they are. This leads to the assumption that a god would be needed to make the settings.

 

Hope I got that right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B)-->

QUOTE(Rick B @ Jun 16 2007, 02:15 PM) 286923[/snapback]
I think you may have confused the Anthropic Principle with the Entropy. It was my understanding that the Anthropic Principle dealt more with the "settings' of the universe. In other words life couldn't exist without things being exactly the way they are. This leads to the assumption that a god would be needed to make the settings.

 

Hope I got that right.

I think you did, and it is similar (if not the same) to the Fine Tuned argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B)-->

QUOTE(Rick B @ Jun 16 2007, 04:15 PM) 286923[/snapback]
[*]The Anthropic Principle

 

I think you may have confused the Anthropic Principle with the Entropy. It was my understanding that the Anthropic Principle dealt more with the "settings' of the universe. In other words life couldn't exist without things being exactly the way they are. This leads to the assumption that a god would be needed to make the settings.

 

Hope I got that right.

 

ahh....I see what you are getting at. Well, in this case, it is an entirely subjective opinion. How do we know that if the universe was different it might support some sort of different life? The answer...we don't.

 

I've heard this a couple of times and it really stretches the idea of a hypothetical situation to the breaking point. None of us are qualified to say what might or might not exist if the laws of the universe operated differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Rick B
I think you did, and it is similar (if not the same) to the Fine Tuned argument.

 

Sheesh. All these postulates that they put forth - its like they are minor variations of the same thing. I thought god was suppose to be a universal truth? I mean, its like they are just throwing anything they can think of out just to keep anyone off balance and unable to focus on a central issue. Whenever someone gives a theory or logical argument that has an element of unknown in it they jump right in and fill it with god. That doesn't seem like proof to me, that seems like an assumption.

 

I even pointed this out and was accused of having no comprehension of what a logical argument is ... :twitch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, I was thinking the same thing Rick.

 

How come there isn't any "philosophical" proof for all the scientific theories? Why is it that scientific theory is based on evidence, facts and reason from the same, while the argument from God is based on some mind tricks and word games where the formulation of a sentece is important to make the idea stick? Like the cosmological arguments:

 

P1) everything has a cause

P2) the universe had a cause

C) God is the cause

 

And forget that it directly means that God doesn't have a cause, and it invalidates P1. So to make the argument valid, you have to state:

 

P1) everything has a cause, except God

P2) the universe has a cause, and the Universe isn't God

C) God is the cause of the Universe

 

It means you have to make certain undefined or unspooken assumptions in the first line of argument. But you rarely find anyone using that argument also explaining the presumptions that comes with it. So if you state it in some more complete form like this, you get a lot of squirming. The "truth" of God's existence is completely founded on the right choice of words, rather than a real logical argument. IYKWIM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the Anthropic principle isn't a deist/theist argument, per se, more a statement that there are a limited number of possible universes that are observable by human and human like creatures... and it's clearly true, since if we weren't in a universe where life like us was possible, this discussion would be moot...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the Anthropic principle isn't a deist/theist argument, per se, more a statement that there are a limited number of possible universes that are observable by human and human like creatures... and it's clearly true, since if we weren't in a universe where life like us was possible, this discussion would be moot...

That's true, but it is common among religious philosophers to argue for the existence of a creator (ID).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think debating transitional proof is just....just...asinine...no...INSANELY asinine.

 

It's like looking up in the sky and saying? "See? the earth doesn't rotate! If the earth were rotating, you would see the sun move! You don't see the sun moving do you?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the Anthropic principle isn't a deist/theist argument, per se, more a statement that there are a limited number of possible universes that are observable by human and human like creatures... and it's clearly true, since if we weren't in a universe where life like us was possible, this discussion would be moot...

That's true, but it is common among religious philosophers to argue for the existence of a creator (ID).

 

It arisies from Feynman's Sum of Histories... and Feynman was the kind of atheist that makes most of us look like tyros...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey there Rick and welcome to the forums.

 

I believe there is much still to be learned in biology. We do not yet have all the answers. And though I most definitely adhere to the fact of evolution, I don’t believe that any theory of evolution exhausts our understanding of life and living phenomena.

 

This lack of understanding in biology provides a lot of wiggle room for the Creationists. In essence they seem to be saying, “See, you biologists don’t know everything, so there must be a Creator.” It’s the God of the gaps.

 

However I suspect that the 21st century will be a century of biology. Our understanding can only grow. And if biologists will continue in their systematic inquiry then I suspect that many things which are now mysteries will give way to understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was dumbed down... But I'll give it a go. From De Broglie, there are an infinite number of possible histories of the universe. However, there are only a limited (possibly a 'smaller' infinity, but then we're then looking set theory as well) that could produce a universe in which stars and galaxies could form, and thus intelligent life arise... Hawking makes a lot better stab at this than I do in 'The Universe in a Nutshell'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Rick B
That was dumbed down...

Ouch again

 

there are an infinite number of possible histories of the universe. However, there are only a limited (possibly a 'smaller' infinity, but then we're then looking set theory as well) that could produce a universe in which stars and galaxies could form, and thus intelligent life arise

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Ok, I was looking at this as a different thing entirely. I missed the connection (or the foundation) that you were making between this and the other logical ideas being put forth. I *think* I have a grasp on it now. Still seems obvious to me that adding god to this kind of stuff is nothing more than assumption. Replace "god" with "allah" or "Zues" or "the flying spaghetti monster" and it makes the same assumptions. I hardly call making this argument as proving anything as creationists claim to be doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It matches experimental observation, the mathematics is consistent and makes predictions about other observations that were made later... I can't help your general ignorance in being unable to see a difference between mathematical models that predict something and gods...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Rick B
It matches experimental observation, the mathematics is consistent and makes predictions about other observations that were made later... I can't help your general ignorance in being unable to see a difference between mathematical models that predict something and gods...

I think I'm a bit confused by the apparent tone here. This is now the 2nd time that you imply that there is something wrong with my lack of knowledge in this. I came to these forums to clarify my deficiency in this area so your implied insult of "ignorance" is a bit undeserved. I can admit to ignorance (as I implied with my need of a "dumbing down" explanation), but you make it sound like I'm refusing to acknowledge and learn.

 

The only thing that I can figure to make sense of this is that you mistook my comments to be directed at you and your explanation in some way when I was expressing exasperation at creationists to make assumptions within various logical arguments. At this point I'm grasping at straws trying to figure out why you seem irritated with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick, please don't mind Gramps. If you interact with him long enough he is likely to take a shot or two at you. He likes to play the curmudgeon. I think in this case however that he must have misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.