Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RationalOkie

Don't Believe In Evolution?....give Us Your Theory Christians

Recommended Posts

Now, when you get into the whys you are shifting to final causality which implies a purpose and that would fall outside of science and into philosophy and metaphysics. The problem with an endless string of prior event causes is that it leads to a philosophical absurdity; sorry to bring philosophy into this discussion, but science is rooted in philosophy, after all and scientific understanding must also be logically consistent. That is where I go back to the need for an intelligent causal agent that is causally prior to time.

 

What specific "philosophical absurdity" are you referring to? Just curious.

 

For me, implying an intelligent agent is "needed" only begs the question of what created the intelligent agent? If you say "nothing, he's eternal/exists outside of time" that's great, but why couldn't a non-intelligent agent be "eternal/exists outside of time"? Intelligent agent pretty much assumes theres a "plan" or an over-arching "purpose" to the universe. I don't believe there is any such thing, nor have I seen convincing evidence for it.

 

If you can construct a logically consistent theory that explains the available evidence better than the current theories of abiogenisis and evolution, I'm willing to hear it out.

 

Thanks,

:thanks:

 

Sorry for the delay in responding, I only have limited access to Internet over these two weeks. The logical absurdity to which I refer is an infinite regress of prior causal events. Unless their is a beginning point, an initial causal event, there can be no subsequent events.

 

When you ask the question of what created the intelligent agent you are backing yourself into an infinite regress argument again which leads to that same logical absurdity. Unless their is an uncaused cause that is immaterial and outside of time, then you end up in that regress. At some point their has to be a beginning point or else there can be no subsequent effects. So, in answer to your inquiry, I am not saying "nothing" and in fact am saying quite the opposite, there is something, or better, some one who is the cause for when we say that the cause is intelligent, we are implying personality.

 

The reason that the agent could not be personal is multifaceted, but let me give two good reasons. First, as I mentioned, the cause is intelligent and intelligences implies personhood. Now, sometimes we anthropomorphize intelligence upon impersonal machines, but this is only possible because a prior personal intelligent agent instilled that machine with "intelligence" but we don't assume that it became intelligent on its own or has intrinsic intelligence. Second, the agent had to employ will to act in order to begin the process. If the agent was impersonal then we would expect that the effect would immediately follow the existence of the cause as it would have no way of later deciding or triggering the effect to happen. If that were the case then we would expect the universe to be infinitely older than it is and life on earth to have occurred much sooner than it did as the cause would have had to always have existed. But that is not what we see empirically through our investigation.

 

If there is no plan or purpose for the universe, then there is no plan or purpose for the things within the universe, including for you or me. Can you accept the fact that your existence is purposeless and meaningless?

 

You ask for a logically consistent theory that explains the evidence for abiogenesis and evolution. First, there is no real evidence for abiogenesis, only hypothesis which have no valid evidence. Sure, there are people doing lab experiments to try to work out a process; however, none of these have proven to be viable explanations since they have been shown to be inconsistent with the natural world and the biology and physics as we know them (they would require a whole new physics and biology). Second, regarding the TOE, again, I would say that there is no strong evidence showing a pathway from first life or lower life to higher life; or from early higher life to later higher life forms. We have problems like genetic convergence and the Avalon and Cambrian explosions that pose huge problems for macro evolutionary models and a dearth of fossils in the record to make me comfortable with macro evolution. Other problems include the problem of consciousness which cannot be reduced to mere physical states or properties. The world cannot be reduced to mere physical properties and states. I am inclined to believe that there is an intelligent agent behind all of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're missing the point. We don't know want to know if you think an intelligent agent had to be involved. We know that already. What we want to know is HOW did the intelligent agent create the universe? Simply saying "Goddidit" does not explain how the immune system works and how it formed etc. You have to have an actual explanation. And can we please cut to the chase and ditch the intelligent agent nonsense? We already know you believe it's God, so unless you're training to work for Discovery Institute, it seems dishonest to call it something else when it's obvious to everyone what you're talking about.

 

The intelligent agent created the universe as an act of will, ex nihilo. When you say that you want an explanation are you asking for an efficient, formal, material or final causal explanation? Each is of a different sort and the one that I have given you is of one of those sorts (a final cause). BTW, I have no connection with the Discovery Institute. However, maybe you could be a bit more precise in the type of causal explanation you seek.

 

Shouldn't it be bluntly obvious what kind of evolution we're talking about at a site called EX-Christian? If you can't figure that out alone, then it's obvious you're not actually interested in listening to what we have to say or you're trying to lure us into some sort of trap just like the Pharisees.

 

No, I don't assume these things, that is how people end up talking past one another. There is too much ambiguity in the discussion of evolution to assume these things. If you just want me to assume your answer, why can't I ask you to do the same for me? Why can't I just say, shouldn't it be bluntly obvious what my position would be? I mean, I am a Christian after all. No, you wouldn't accept that from me and I don't accept that answer from you. BTW, what do you know about the Pharisees and what do they have to do with this conversation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not merely to contrast, but to provide a competing theory.

 

In order to truly be a theory, your model must have predictive ability. Evolutionary theory makes predictions about what kinds of fossils we will find; what kinds of variations in DNA we will see; what kinds of physical characteristics will be observed in animals; how populations of microorganisms will respond under pressure, and so on. By examining these predictions in contrast to actual data from the real world, we can determine the accuracy of the theory.

 

What this thread is looking for is NOT a refutation of Evolutionary Theory, or an assertion that God must have had a hand in the process of evolution. What it is looking for (and failing to find, because it does not exist), is a predictive model which will allow us to compare the predictions to real-world evidence, in order to evaluate the reliability of the theory.

 

Your hypothesis is that God created life and (if I understand correctly) that God caused life to diverge into different species. What we are looking for, again, is a predictive model. We want to hear what sorts of things you would expect to find in nature if your hypothesis were true. What's more, these predictions must be ones which cannot be accounted for more easily by Evolutionary Theory. (see Occam's Razor)

 

So. What kinds of things do you think you would find in the natural world if God, rather than natural processes, were responsible for speciation?

 

More specifically, what processes do you think God used to create life and species, and what evidence of these processes should we expect to find in nature?

 

That would constitute a Theory of Creation.

 

(yes, I know I'm making this way too easy. I got tired of talking past each other.)

 

OK, my theory predicts that the origin of life question will not be solved by naturalistic explanations. Nor will the problem of consciousness or genetic convergence. How's that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(yes, I know I'm making this way too easy. I got tired of talking past each other.)

I think we all were hoping the LNC were smart enough to understand, without someone having to spell it out. I was almost at the point of doing a post like yours.

I don't think it's lack of intelligence so much as lack of education. Our public education system does an abysmal job of explaining the basics of the scientific method.

 

I blame God.

 

God didn't create the public educational system, that was man who did. I understand the basics of the scientific method quite well, thank you. Do you understand the philosophical underpinnings of the scientific method and the fact that it couldn't exist unless God existed? Maybe you could explain why the scientific method even makes sense if the world is purely a physical existence? Maybe you can give me a taste of what public education has taught you along these lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At some point their has to be a beginning point or else there can be no subsequent effects.

Why does this have to be so? This is making a sweeping conclusion on the nature of being from a limited perspective. Nature has proven itself to be stranger than fiction already quite many times, such as on the quantum level. Your whole argument is resting on this premise of cause and effect being a straight line. I think that's faulted. I'm open to the possibility of turtles all the way up, and turtles all the way down.

 

I think the nature of being will show itself as stranger and more elegant than anything we've yet come to understand through the limited perspectives we've taking so far, including , but not excluding religion.

 

First, as I mentioned, the cause is intelligent and intelligences implies personhood.

Of course this is a troublesome argument. Is your dog a person? Is a bird? Is the tree in your front yard? Exactly what do you mean by intelligence, and what do you mean by person? These are not easy to answer, let alone make your straight-line argument of cause and effect based on flawed premise.

 

Now, sometimes we anthropomorphize intelligence upon impersonal machines, but this is only possible because a prior personal intelligent agent instilled that machine with "intelligence"

And this comes to what I'm saying about calling something a person or intelligent. It's your calling something these things from your perspective in the center looking down or up. I might argue that intelligence is innate to the whole of the universe. But what do I mean by intelligence? Moreover, what do you mean, and more importantly how do you separate it out of the system?

 

but we don't assume that it became intelligent on its own or has intrinsic intelligence.

And that's your problem. Why not? Have you defined the Universe already and understand exactly how it all works?

 

Second, the agent had to employ will to act in order to begin the process. If the agent was impersonal then we would expect that the effect would immediately follow the existence of the cause as it would have no way of later deciding or triggering the effect to happen. If that were the case then we would expect the universe to be infinitely older than it is and life on earth to have occurred much sooner than it did as the cause would have had to always have existed. But that is not what we see empirically through our investigation.

All of these are just various logic arguments based on your assumed premise. Logic arguments can be made to prove anything true, and have no basis in reality in the end.

 

If there is no plan or purpose for the universe, then there is no plan or purpose for the things within the universe, including for you or me. Can you accept the fact that your existence is purposeless and meaningless?

Again, define purpose and meaning. I find life, everywhere, to be meaningful because I imbue it with that quality. It's an interpretation. It's perceived as significant because it gives life and sustains ME. And not just me as this person typing, but me as part of the whole which includes you. And not just you, but all of us. And not just us, but the world. And not just the world, but the universe. And not just the universe, but being. And not just being, but Turtles all the way up, and Turtles all the way down.

 

Second, regarding the TOE, again, I would say that there is no strong evidence showing a pathway from first life or lower life to higher life; or from early higher life to later higher life forms.

Of course this statement is easily disputable, but the point I want to make is that its so fascinating you require stronger evidence than what we have already (which is mountainous), yet require no such evidence for your religious beliefs. Now you either have to call those a matter of faith, and leave it at that. Or say and argue as you have about evidence, but then you are required to produce MORE evidence in favor of your position and against what you reject if you wish to overturn what is widely accepted. And logic arguments don't qualify as evidence.

 

In other words, believe with faith if you will, if it adds value to you to see the world as in the hands of God, but then drop talk about evidence if you can't produce stronger evidence than what there is now. I'd suggest you accept the evidence and try to fit your faith with it, rather than try to minimize or deny the evidence. Trying to poke holes into scientific models (especially as a non-scientist) does not validate another model nor in any way lend credibility to it. It will take science to unseat science.

 

BTW, you did present your argument well and I respected it. I just found it flawed. I look forward to your response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The logical absurdity to which I refer is an infinite regress of prior causal events. Unless their is a beginning point, an initial causal event, there can be no subsequent events.

That would be true except, like Antlerman says above, quantum physics is showing us that cause and effect are not nearly as straight forward as one would believe.

 

When you ask the question of what created the intelligent agent you are backing yourself into an infinite regress argument again which leads to that same logical absurdity. Unless their is an uncaused cause that is immaterial and outside of time, then you end up in that regress. At some point their has to be a beginning point or else there can be no subsequent effects. So, in answer to your inquiry, I am not saying "nothing" and in fact am saying quite the opposite, there is something, or better, some one who is the cause for when we say that the cause is intelligent, we are implying personality.

I find it interesting that you dismiss the infitite regression portion, but ignore the idea that it would be a non-intelligent agent. Why must this be so?

 

First, as I mentioned, the cause is intelligent and intelligences implies personhood. Now, sometimes we anthropomorphize intelligence upon impersonal machines, but this is only possible because a prior personal intelligent agent instilled that machine with "intelligence" but we don't assume that it became intelligent on its own or has intrinsic intelligence. Second, the agent had to employ will to act in order to begin the process. If the agent was impersonal then we would expect that the effect would immediately follow the existence of the cause as it would have no way of later deciding or triggering the effect to happen. If that were the case then we would expect the universe to be infinitely older than it is and life on earth to have occurred much sooner than it did as the cause would have had to always have existed. But that is not what we see empirically through our investigation.

 

I'm really not sure how to take this. Are you saying natural processes could have achieved as much as we see today without external intervention? If so, by what are you judging this?

 

If there is no plan or purpose for the universe, then there is no plan or purpose for the things within the universe, including for you or me. Can you accept the fact that your existence is purposeless and meaningless?

 

My existence would only be purposeless and meaningless if I required an external source for justification of my exitence. I don't. Life's a journey, not a destination (to quote the bard). I create my own meaning and purpose as I go along, it's called "living".

 

You ask for a logically consistent theory that explains the evidence for abiogenesis and evolution. First, there is no real evidence for abiogenesis, only hypothesis which have no valid evidence. Sure, there are people doing lab experiments to try to work out a process; however, none of these have proven to be viable explanations since they have been shown to be inconsistent with the natural world and the biology and physics as we know them (they would require a whole new physics and biology). Second, regarding the TOE, again, I would say that there is no strong evidence showing a pathway from first life or lower life to higher life; or from early higher life to later higher life forms. We have problems like genetic convergence and the Avalon and Cambrian explosions that pose huge problems for macro evolutionary models and a dearth of fossils in the record to make me comfortable with macro evolution. Other problems include the problem of consciousness which cannot be reduced to mere physical states or properties. The world cannot be reduced to mere physical properties and states. I am inclined to believe that there is an intelligent agent behind all of this.

 

I'm still waiting for your actual theory. All I'm seem to be hearing is that "everything is so complex and science doesn't know everything so there must be someONE that caused all this", essentially "God did it". In my experience, I've seen many of the above answered to my satisfaction (note - not to 100% certanty, that's not a realistic goal), yet none of the contrary evidence that would indicate an intelligent agent (again, why intelligent?)has proved to be very strong and indirect at best.

 

Is it really so hard to believe the natural processes could cause all this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

When you ask the question of what created the intelligent agent you are backing yourself into an infinite regress argument again which leads to that same logical absurdity. Unless their is an uncaused cause that is immaterial and outside of time, then you end up in that regress. At some point their has to be a beginning point or else there can be no subsequent effects. So, in answer to your inquiry, I am not saying "nothing" and in fact am saying quite the opposite, there is something, or better, some one who is the cause for when we say that the cause is intelligent, we are implying personality.

It is you in fact who end up with the infinite regress by invoking God as your explanation for creation. If the universe is so complex it had to have been created by God to exist, then God would be just as complex as its creation. If complex beings need to be created in order to exist, then who created the complex god? On the other hand, if you accept microevolution as scientific fact, then you accept that complexity can arise from simplicity without the need of having been created. While evolution does not disprove the existence of God in itself, if you admit some evolution is true, you've just disproved your own argument that all complexity has to have been created. If you can accept complexity arising from simplicity with microevolution, why can't you accept it as a possibility with the origins of the universe? What do we need God as an explanation for?

 

 

 

If there is no plan or purpose for the universe, then there is no plan or purpose for the things within the universe, including for you or me. Can you accept the fact that your existence is purposeless and meaningless?

 

 

That's a non sequitur. Your own personal opinion about what life would be like without God has no bearings on whether or not God exists. It's like saying if there is no Santa Claus, what's the point of kids living if they have no Christmas presents to hope for? Whether or not you base your whole life on the belief you'll get free Christmas presents from a magical flying fat man does not prove anything about the existence of said magical flying fat man.

 

The intelligent agent created the universe as an act of will, ex nihilo. When you say that you want an explanation are you asking for an efficient, formal, material or final causal explanation? Each is of a different sort and the one that I have given you is of one of those sorts (a final cause). BTW, I have no connection with the Discovery Institute. However, maybe you could be a bit more precise in the type of causal explanation you seek.
Perhaps an analogy of what we mean is that if we were to ask you how does child birth work, simply saying the mother willed the baby to come into existence does not explain all the details of how the baby was born. We don't want to know whether or not you think mothers will themselves to give birth. What we want to know is HOW does the process of child birth works.

 

No, I don't assume these things, that is how people end up talking past one another. There is too much ambiguity in the discussion of evolution to assume these things. If you just want me to assume your answer, why can't I ask you to do the same for me? Why can't I just say, shouldn't it be bluntly obvious what my position would be? I mean, I am a Christian after all. No, you wouldn't accept that from me and I don't accept that answer from you. BTW, what do you know about the Pharisees and what do they have to do with this conversation?
Isn't it obvious you just want to ask us what our opinions on human evolution are so you can tear apart the theories about human evolution instead of actually explaining how creationism works? You're just trying to deceive us to go along with your scripted argument because you can't argue against us otherwise unless we follow your script.

 

Of course this is a troublesome argument. Is your dog a person? Is a bird? Is the tree in your front yard? Exactly what do you mean by intelligence, and what do you mean by person? These are not easy to answer, let alone make your straight-line argument of cause and effect based on flawed premise.
Whoever created the universe, it's apparently not God according to LNC. Maybe it's Xenu and we all have to get audited to get rid of the aliens infecting our souls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh.... are you serious? This is like saying that the theory of gravity is false because it does not tell us anything about the behavior of atoms. For that we need atomic theory. For the origins we turn to work in the field of abiogenesis, which if you paid attention to you would know has made major advancements in just the last few months.

 

How does your reply address my statement? To which specific advancements are you referring?

 

I am not sure this even requires much of an explanation. For one thing scientists do not claim to have a complete picture of the evolutionary tree, and according to the theory EVERYTHING is related if you go back far enough. Did you know that we share over 50% of our DNA with cabbage? It is not surprising that we find similarities even between relatively distant species.

 

Are you serious? This is one of the major problems being confronted by the macro evolutionary theory. Now, you are reverting to a religious answer as well by claiming that science doesn't know everything and is therefore putting placeholders in the blanks and calling it science. That doesn't work for an empiricist like me. What in the world does it matter whether we share 50% of our DNA with a cabbage? That really has no bearing on the conversation at hand. So, do you have a real answer for the convergence problem?

 

Unfortunately for you, this is only a problem in your particular twisted mindset. One, these are philosophical problems not scientific ones so scientists are not generally interested in answering them. Two, many people disagree with your conclusions here, we have already explained in extreme detail why these claims are a load of dingos kidneys so I refuse to go into it again.

 

What? Again, you are showing that you are not serious about this discussion. If, as you say, this is a philosophical discussion and not a scientific one (and I agree with you on that point) it tells me that the world is made up of more than matter, so thank you for that honest answer. Second, I know that a lot of people here disagree with me on this issue in that many of them are pure naturalists/physicalists/materialists, and that is the only logical conclusion to which they could come. However, contrary to your final statement, you have not given one shred of evidence that the mind is reducible to the brain or that any other explanation will show how the mind could exist as independent of the brain. And, if you don't do that then you are left with the conclusion that we are all determined by our DNA and antecedent experiences which means that reason is an illusion and that this site is a waste of time. However, you all seem to argue as if we had minds that are independent entities, so you don't give evidence for the belief that we are determined beings. However, if you would like to try again, I will consider your arguments with the reason that comes from my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are missing the point, what you are engaging in is the typical bait and switch that always goes on from your side of the argument.

 

When asked for evidence for YOUR theory you present evidence that the competing theory (evolution) is false.

 

Even if your arguments were valid (and they usually aren't) you have failed to offer a competing theory at all. Your counterpoint to evolution is nothing more than "God did it." Which is not a scientific theory no matter how you slice it.

 

If you are going to claim that the TOE does not meet the standards of rigorous scientific inquiry then why not present a theory on the topic which you feel DOES meet those standards?

 

OK, my theory is intelligent agency and we can start with the existence of the mind as our first piece of evidence. Have at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh...explosive appearance is a bit of a misnomer. Both of these periods lasted close to 100 million years.

 

Hey, it is not me who calls it explosive appearance, that is coming from the scientific community. So, if you have a problem with that descriptor you are arguing against science, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you need to go from your understanding of evolution and work from that at all? Why not explain what your theory is? You keep on dodging it.

 

Scientists do this all the time, test existing theories. I will make my case very simply, intelligent agency. See my post above for more details.

 

Oh, I'm sorry. First Cause Jesus did it. Is that better?

 

I didn't say that either. Did you want to argue against my case or simply build your own straw man to knock down?

 

Well, then GOOD! Then you don't have to give any explanation to your own theory, since you agree with whatever the way you consider evolution to be. But since, according to you, there are multiple and different evolutionary theories, you can explain which version you believe in... or not, since the question then doesn't apply to you!

 

Well, considering it took so long for someone to actually give me a working definition of evolution on this thread, what do you want me to do? I believe in small scale evolution within and, on a limited basis, across some species (but not all). I can only accept what I have seen definitive evidence confirm, and so far, that isn't a whole lot.

 

Why do you want to find where evolution falls short? Is that the question? "Where does evolution fall short -- Christians give an answer!?" Is that the title?

 

Okay, so God didn't do it. You believe in Evolution. Good. Then you don't have to answer anything or even argue what is wrong with evolution... SINCE THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT!!!

 

Every theory is tested in such a manner. That is why it is called a theory and not a law. Theories are tested and scientists look for the places that the theory fails to explain the data and then either adjust or abandon the theory when necessary. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. Did you want to interact with me or just make my posts for me?

 

BTW, don't you keep you eyes open for where evolution fails to explain the data? If not, then you are a religious adherent to evolution, not a scientific one. That would be called blind acceptance.

 

Then you don't have to answer the question in the topic, since it's about Creationism, not Evolution.

 

There you go again, I have not mentioned creationism....

 

Evolution is not what is in question in this thread. When will you get that into your thick skull?

 

Are you saying that I cannot include evolution in my explanation? Why do you limit me? Or, do you have a preconceived answer for which you are look for me to give?

 

So far, the only argument you are doing is: this is wrong with evolution.

 

Then what? What theory DO you have?

 

I don't think you are actually reading my answers as you seem content to make them up for me. Intelligent agency and evolution.

 

I see 3 kinds of answers:

 

1) "What is wrong with evolution"

2) "I am answering the topic, because it is about evolution."

3) "I already answered the question"

 

And nothing else.

 

If you don't believe in Creationism, then you don't qualify fill in for the Christian/Creationists view. Do you? You have to believe in Creationism to argue why it is a theory, but since you don't believe in it, stop derailing the THREAD!!!

 

Again, go back and read my answers rather than the ones that you took the liberty of writing for me. I apologize if I am not giving the answer that you had in your mind that I should answer as one who believes in God, but I am trying to answer as the evidence leads me. Again, I have not mentioned creationism in my answer, you have done that in yours now twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, my theory is intelligent agency and we can start with the existence of the mind as our first piece of evidence. Have at it.

 

This is not evidence it is a bald assertion. There is no way to empirically test the claim that minds require an intelligent agency to create them.

 

What evidence can you offer that such is the case? Can you even clearly define what a mind is? how intelligent does a creature have to be before it has one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey, it is not me who calls it explosive appearance, that is coming from the scientific community. So, if you have a problem with that descriptor you are arguing against science, not me.

 

Again, these periods last near 100 million years. Scientists use the term 'explosive' in a very relative sense. a.k.a. faster than the periods around it, but still a VERY long time. The way you are using the term is misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you serious? This is one of the major problems being confronted by the macro evolutionary theory. Now, you are reverting to a religious answer as well by claiming that science doesn't know everything and is therefore putting placeholders in the blanks and calling it science. That doesn't work for an empiricist like me. What in the world does it matter whether we share 50% of our DNA with a cabbage? That really has no bearing on the conversation at hand. So, do you have a real answer for the convergence problem?

 

Your an empiricist? are you trying to be funny? I don't get the joke apparently.

 

It is not religious to admit there are things we do not know. Religious people are the ones who claim to have the answers even with a severe lack of facts. "I don't know" is never an acceptable answer to a religious person, as you are demonstrating right here. It is perfectly reasonable for a scientist to say "this is all we know right now, we need to study more"

 

I am not a biologist, and neither are you, so it is reasonable that any attempt by either of us to talk about this in detail would look quite silly to one who is qualified.

 

 

What? Again, you are showing that you are not serious about this discussion.

 

Well you are quite right in that, your lack valid arguments make it difficult to take any discussion with you seriously. I am mostly speaking with you for laughs at this point, because I have long given up on having a reasoned discussion with you.

 

Considering that, I will not be offended if you decide to break of conversation, it is what it is though, and I won't be dishonest with you.

 

If, as you say, this is a philosophical discussion and not a scientific one (and I agree with you on that point) it tells me that the world is made up of more than matter, so thank you for that honest answer. Second, I know that a lot of people here disagree with me on this issue in that many of them are pure naturalists/physicalists/materialists, and that is the only logical conclusion to which they could come. However, contrary to your final statement, you have not given one shred of evidence that the mind is reducible to the brain or that any other explanation will show how the mind could exist as independent of the brain. And, if you don't do that then you are left with the conclusion that we are all determined by our DNA and antecedent experiences which means that reason is an illusion and that this site is a waste of time. However, you all seem to argue as if we had minds that are independent entities, so you don't give evidence for the belief that we are determined beings.

 

You clearly have a problem understanding the concept of burden of proof. I really don't see any point in saying more than that on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are missing the point, what you are engaging in is the typical bait and switch that always goes on from your side of the argument.

 

When asked for evidence for YOUR theory you present evidence that the competing theory (evolution) is false.

 

Even if your arguments were valid (and they usually aren't) you have failed to offer a competing theory at all. Your counterpoint to evolution is nothing more than "God did it." Which is not a scientific theory no matter how you slice it.

 

If you are going to claim that the TOE does not meet the standards of rigorous scientific inquiry then why not present a theory on the topic which you feel DOES meet those standards?

 

OK, my theory is intelligent agency and we can start with the existence of the mind as our first piece of evidence. Have at it.

 

The existence of a mind is evidence of intelligent agency. I'm assuming that what your referring to as a mind is a form of intelligence. Therefore if your argument is true, seeing as how the intelligent agency which made us presumably has a mind or equivalent that would be evidence that their was an intelligent agency which made it, and so on and so forth.

 

Secondly we don't really have any reason to believe the existence of a mind requires an intelligent designer or even that an intelligent designer can create a mind.

 

Can I make a suggestion. I don't believe that you believe that YWHW created the universe and everything in it because of the existence of a mind. I'm fairly certain that the reason why you believe this is because Moses received divine revelation from YWHW that he had created the heavens and the earth and recorded this in Genesis. Thus I would state that seeing as how we would have no way of knowing that YWHW created the universe without Genesis nor indeed that YWHW even in fact exists without the Bible and the Jewish and Christian religions based upon it, your main piece of evidence would in fact be the account in Genesis. Would I be largely correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Marty

 

OK, my theory is intelligent agency and we can start with the existence of the mind as our first piece of evidence. Have at it.

 

Actually, your hypothesis is Intelligent Agency. You must first observe and gather evidence together before you can call your idea a theory. Once your evidence can describe how your intelligent agency created things, then it can be called a theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't work for an empiricist like me.

OK, my theory is intelligent agency and we can start with the existence of the mind as our first piece of evidence. Have at it.

Good! You're an empiricist.

 

As an empiricist, you understand that you must now produce this "intelligent agency" in its entirety for review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Davka

OK, my theory is intelligent agency and we can start with the existence of the mind as our first piece of evidence. Have at it.

Please explain why you perceive the existence of the mind as evidence of intelligent agency. Seriously.

 

I don't want to waste time arguing against what I think you might mean, and I'm unclear on what you do mean.

 

For myself, I see the mind as evidence of complexity. That's all. The more complex the brain, the more developed the mind. So I really don't understand why you feel that the mind is evidence of anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to that, why does complexity imply a designer? Some people think that because we are so complex, we must be the product of an intelligence, when in reality, the better designed a thing is, the less complex it tends to be compared to it's predecessors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you are going to claim that the TOE does not meet the standards of rigorous scientific inquiry then why not present a theory on the topic which you feel DOES meet those standards?

 

OK, my theory is intelligent agency and we can start with the existence of the mind as our first piece of evidence. Have at it.

 

I was giving this some more thought and I have to wonder that you think that scientific theories do not meet that standard of proof but you obviously think that this does.

 

Let me tell you about the evidence we actually have in regards to the link between the mind and the brain. If a person is brain dead they do not appear to think, if a persons brain is injured then their ability to think is impacted in accordance to the amount of damage done. We have even been able to make certain thought types to certain parts of the brain, where severe damage in one area can impact certain types of thoughts and will not effect others at all.

 

Every piece of evidence we can gather shows a direct link between the ability to think and the functioning of the brain. It does not matter that we may not understand all the details yet, there is no evidence that could lead anyone to the conclusion that thought is connected to some supernatural function outside the brain.

 

And to suggest that such a thing must be so, merely on the basis that you cannot understand how the naturalistic way could work is just silly, and it is not real science no matter how much you claim to be an "empiricist"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I'm sorry. First Cause Jesus did it. Is that better?

 

I didn't say that either. Did you want to argue against my case or simply build your own straw man to knock down?

Oh, so Intelligent Agency is NOT Jesus or First Cause... MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!

 

Well, considering it took so long for someone to actually give me a working definition of evolution on this thread, what do you want me to do? I believe in small scale evolution within and, on a limited basis, across some species (but not all). I can only accept what I have seen definitive evidence confirm, and so far, that isn't a whole lot.

Ok. So you believe in Evolution, to some extent. Now, what was the name of the thread again? "Don't believe in Evolution... give us your theory" was it not? So... obviously you then don't fall into THAT category. And the creator of this thread perhaps are NOT interested in your "Believe almost in Evolution" theory, but rather the Creationists. Since you are not a Creationist, then perhaps this thread wasn't directed to you.

 

But then, this is probably over your head again. You keep on failing to really get the contents of what is said. The question/this thread, was directed towards those who do not believe in Evolution, and believe in Creationism, and if they could give scientific support for it. But what happens when you get in here? You take over, and you want to start argue evolution. It's an obvious attempt of you to sidetrack the whole issue. I'm getting really annoyed with your behavior and constant derailing of the threads.

 

Why do you want to find where evolution falls short? Is that the question? "Where does evolution fall short -- Christians give an answer!?" Is that the title?

 

Okay, so God didn't do it. You believe in Evolution. Good. Then you don't have to answer anything or even argue what is wrong with evolution... SINCE THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT!!!

 

Every theory is tested in such a manner. That is why it is called a theory and not a law. Theories are tested and scientists look for the places that the theory fails to explain the data and then either adjust or abandon the theory when necessary. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. Did you want to interact with me or just make my posts for me?

See? You soooooo completely misunderstand (as usual).

 

This thread is directed (for the umpteenth time) to those who DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION BUT BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM.

 

Obviously you don't fit that criteria.

 

So what are you arguing then? That Evolution is partially true, and therefore it is a Christian theory? What the hell are you trying to say by redirecting the whole issue towards what it was NOT intended for?

 

BTW, don't you keep you eyes open for where evolution fails to explain the data? If not, then you are a religious adherent to evolution, not a scientific one. That would be called blind acceptance.

So far I have not given any argument for or against evolution AT ALL!! So who is putting words in my mouth? And who is building a strawman here?

 

What I see is that you are insisting of using a red-herring argument. You are trying to avoid the question of scientific evidence for Creationism by derailing the whole topic to criticize evolution and arguing for theistic evolution instead. Was that what this thread was about? Or was it about an alternative to Evolution? That's all I'm talking about. Because I'm just trying to steer this topic back to its original purpose, but you constantly push it your way.

 

Then you don't have to answer the question in the topic, since it's about Creationism, not Evolution.

 

There you go again, I have not mentioned creationism....

HOW DUMB ARE YOU??? I'm trying MODERATE THIS THREAD TO STAY WITHIN THE TOPIC AND NOT DERAIL INTO THE TOPIC YOU WANT IT TO BE!!!

 

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT AN ALTERNATIVE TO EVOLUTION!!!

 

...[same stuff over and over again]...

 

I'm sorry. I see no other recourse than to close this topic.

 

This thread was created in a "Science" section, and our policy is to try to keep threads within the topic in all sections but Lion's Den. In Lion's Den we allow much more freedom and sidetracking. But in this section we do not.

 

And since we have a person here who does not get it, who, for some unknown reasons, can't get himself to understand even though I have repeated tried to make him pick up on what is going on, there's nothing left than to shut it down. And I am considering creating a new thread, where we put a bit more detailed explanation to what the thread is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.