Where did the laws of nature come from?

[KCfromNC]

I think if you check what pshun2404 is saying is that birds were around before dinos existed.

I'm sure he'll present some evidence of this any time now.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes its a very small hole as I have supplied scientific support for all I have said. What I was saying relates to how things came about originally and not the processes for life itself. What does an atheistic scientific world position say about this.

My particular view says that you seem to draw some pretty sweeping conclusions from cherry-picked phrases quote-mined from the abstracts of papers.

 

[KCfromNC]

The content doesn't need to do that because its irrelevant to this debate. No you take the debate down the road of a false dilemma by making out its only about a supernatural idea and science when there's a whole lot of content in between which you dont talk about.

Hey, I'm not the one who brought up creationism / ID here. If you didn't want to talk about it you shouldn't have brought it up.

 

[stevevw]

It's creators do, at least when they're under penalty of perjury for lying. It is strange their story changes when that penalty isn't a threat, though.

I dont know why you keep referring to the people who support ID admitting that its creation in court. I cant find anything about this. If you are referring to the Kitzmiller v Dover area school there is no mention of this. The only person who were questioned were who represented ID was Meyers and I cant see anywhere where he admits that ID is creationism. The only person who states this is the judge. You will have to point to where it says this as I cant find anything at the moment.

 

[stevevw]

My particular view says that you seem to draw some pretty sweeping conclusions from cherry-picked phrases quote-mined from the abstracts of papers.

Thats a bit hard when the entire paper is about either showing alternatives to Darwinian evolution or showing that Darwinian evolution is questionable and that there is very little evidence. I have read the papers , have you. I mean some still hold a hope out for evolution but that at least question some of the long held views which have been accepted on assumption without proper testing. New discoveries have shone more light on the various ways living things can change and obtain new features and genetic material besides Darwinian evolution IE non adaptive process that dont require random mutations and natural selection.

So at the very least you should be acknowledging that there is some questions about evolution that cast some doubt and need to be considered. But you are not even doing this. Its like you are the one who is blindly holding onto whatever Dawkins has said and are not willing to change or look at anything that contradicts it. See I believe in evolution but not what you believe. So I am open to different form s of how things change. I am willing to accept all possibilities but it seems you are fixated on one. Your position seems more religious then mine.

 

[stevevw]

Hey, I'm not the one who brought up creationism / ID here. If you didn't want to talk about it you shouldn't have brought it up.

I havnt mentioned creationism at all. I havnt mentioned the supernatural as well which you have mentioned several times now. Intelligent design doesn't imply the supernatural or creation or God. It is just about design. Humans are intelligent designers and we see their intelligent design in the things they design. Thats all I am looking for is intelligent design in life. Like I said it could have been designed by some super intelligent alien race who seeded our planet millions of years ago after finally working out how to make a living thing through genetics. They experimented and came up with some new versions of animals and microorganisms and decided to find a planet that would be suitable to harvest them.

What we see is the results of their experiments. The UFOs people see are them coming back to check on us now and again. So it doesn't have to be any particular agent or a supernatural agent that designs. Its the product I am looking at at the moment to see if the evidence shows that its intelligently designed or naturally occurring through a self creating process of evolution. After this has been established then we can begin to assess what could be the designer. But if you dont think there is any intelligent design then what would the use of talking about a designer be to you.

 

[stevevw]

Because as I said before, the content does nothing to establish a need for the kind of supernatural designer proposed by ID.

Yes thats right and thats what I have been trying to tell you. The content, the evidence about what is intelligent design and what isn't does nothing to prove the designer who ever that may be. Finally you are agreeing. So thats why its important to just stick to the content of what the evidence supports or doesn't support and thats it.

 

[VirOptimus]

I havnt mentioned creationism at all. I havnt mentioned the supernatural as well which you have mentioned several times now. Intelligent design doesn't imply the supernatural or creation or God. It is just about design. Humans are intelligent designers and we see their intelligent design in the things they design. Thats all I am looking for is intelligent design in life. Like I said it could have been designed by some super intelligent alien race who seeded our planet millions of years ago after finally working out how to make a living thing through genetics. They experimented and came up with some new versions of animals and microorganisms and decided to find a planet that would be suitable to harvest them.

What we see is the results of their experiments. The UFOs people see are them coming back to check on us now and again. So it doesn't have to be any particular agent or a supernatural agent that designs. Its the product I am looking at at the moment to see if the evidence shows that its intelligently designed or naturally occurring through a self creating process of evolution. After this has been established then we can begin to assess what could be the designer. But if you dont think there is any intelligent design then what would the use of talking about a designer be to you.

But you belive that the designer is god correct? And you wouldnt question the ToE if it werent for your religious beliefs, correct?

 

[KCfromNC]

I dont know why you keep referring to the people who support ID admitting that its creation in court. I cant find anything about this. If you are referring to the Kitzmiller v Dover area school there is no mention of this.

Did you forget the small problem of them re-using creationist textbooks as ID textbooks? Must have just been a coincidence.

 

[KCfromNC]

Thats a bit hard when the entire paper is about either showing alternatives to Darwinian evolution or showing that Darwinian evolution is questionable and that there is very little evidence.

Shouldn't be that hard if the papers actually specifically support your claims that ID is scientific and best fits the facts. The challenge you're running up against is that they do nothing of the sort.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes thats right and thats what I have been trying to tell you. The content, the evidence about what is intelligent design and what isn't does nothing to prove the designer who ever that may be. Finally you are agreeing. So thats why its important to just stick to the content of what the evidence supports or doesn't support and thats it.

Which would be fine, except that earlier in the thread you admitted you don't know how to identify levels of design even when we know the designer. So I'm kinda stumped as to what you hope to accomplish. You don't want to talk about who this mystery designer is, you say you can't find publications which support ID, your own references say that ID is a failure, and you can't tell us what is and isn't designed. So what's left?

 

[KCfromNC]

I havnt mentioned creationism at all. I havnt mentioned the supernatural as well which you have mentioned several times now.

Yep, and it is a mystery to me why you won't just come clean about what you're proposing. Why do you feel the need to hide it?

 

[stevevw]

But you belive that the designer is god correct? And you wouldnt question the ToE if it werent for your religious beliefs, correct?

How do I answer that without you being suspect of whatever I say. It seems you have already decided or you have already formed the opinion that all people who believe in God will question evolution. first off its stereotypical and there are many who either believe in God and support evolution or dont believe in God and question evolution. As I said I support evolution to a point. So its not so black and white as you are making out. It seems some on here try to make the debate a false dilemma by saying its either you are for or against one type of belief in evolution. If you are against it or question it you are suspect and probably a creationists or believe in ID.

I question evolution based on the evidence and not my belief. I could support evolution and still be comfortable with my beliefs. My beliefs are not contingent on evolution being true or not. As many believe in theistic evolution and that sits well with their belief. But I dont bring beliefs into it and look at the evidence. A lot of what I post comes from supporters of evolution who question the main tenets of Darwinian theory. In fact many evolutionists question some part of the Darwinian theory. I am surprised you havnt known this or even agree with it.

 

[stevevw]

Yep, and it is a mystery to me why you won't just come clean about what you're proposing. Why do you feel the need to hide it?

I dont feel the need to hide it. Ive just learnt that there's no sense in going into it when you are talking about scientific verification. We could have a debate about my beliefs and how I think God works in our world today. how I believe the universe was created. But that would be like trying to prove how something comes from nothing. Especially to a non believer who would be asking for evidence every step of the way. As soon as I make some claim you would ask for evidence. Then the debate comes to a stand still. I mean I dont mind doing it but I know where it will end.

 

[stevevw]

Which would be fine, except that earlier in the thread you admitted you don't know how to identify levels of design even when we know the designer. So I'm kinda stumped as to what you hope to accomplish. You don't want to talk about who this mystery designer is, you say you can't find publications which support ID, your own references say that ID is a failure, and you can't tell us what is and isn't designed. So what's left?

Sorry you must be reading something else. I have posted ample support for design and ID that doesn't claim that its false. You obviously either didn't read them or have selectively chosen something that you spotted that may or may not have said something negative and have latched onto that. As I said a few times now I may not know everything about design but luckily there are experts that do which we can turn to and find out about the topic and use. I can understand some of the basics but I can look at the expert opinion and compare it and assess it and allow others to do the same. Believe it or not there is a lot out there. But you limit it down to being specific info like it can only come from ID sites or it has to mention ID or creation to be support for ID and creation.

There is evidence from main stream scientists in the areas of engineering, biology, physics and astrophysics which can mention and give examples of design in life. The fine tuning argument is one where even main stream scientists have said that it has elements of design. Of course some will not admit that there is any supernatural involved and that there must be a logical explanation that they havnt found yet. But still it can be argued that it may be evidence for design in life and shouldn't be excluded as that possibility. This is the type of evidence I look at and present which may not conclusively prove ID but can be something to consider and thats all I am saying.

 

[VirOptimus]

How do I answer that without you being suspect of whatever I say. It seems you have already decided or you have already formed the opinion that all people who believe in God will question evolution. first off its stereotypical and there are many who either believe in God and support evolution or dont believe in God and question evolution. As I said I support evolution to a point. So its not so black and white as you are making out. It seems some on here try to make the debate a false dilemma by saying its either you are for or against one type of belief in evolution. If you are against it or question it you are suspect and probably a creationists or believe in ID.

I question evolution based on the evidence and not my belief. I could support evolution and still be comfortable with my beliefs. My beliefs are not contingent on evolution being true or not. As many believe in theistic evolution and that sits well with their belief. But I dont bring beliefs into it and look at the evidence. A lot of what I post comes from supporters of evolution who question the main tenets of Darwinian theory. In fact many evolutionists question some part of the Darwinian theory. I am surprised you havnt known this or even agree with it.

I simply dont belive you and while its not my buisness I wonder why you cant be upfront about where you are coming from. It gives a very dishonest impression.

Firstly "evolutionist" is a nonsensical term. The ToE is a scientific theory, those who accept science is not something-ist, they are only rational. Secondly, Darwinian theory is also nonsensical. Darwin was (partly) the originator but the ToE has come a long way since then. The modern ToE is very much NOT questioned by anyone who has a degree in biology, i.e. know what the theory entails. Sure, there are questions in the margins and the ToE is still being finetuned but overall its incredibly robust.

 

[Ophiolite]

Firstly "evolutionist" is a nonsensical term.

Unfortunately you weaken your otherwise excellent argument when you make faulty remarks like this. Evolutionist is a term adopted by some researchers in the field, which was subsequently usurped by creationists. I cite a single example, but one of such power I trust it will be sufficient.

I am sure you know who Ernst Mayr is. (For those who don't he was one of the key figures in generating the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary theory.) This is the title of his 1988 (?) book.
Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist.

Secondly, Darwinian theory is also nonsensical.

You are on marginally stronger ground here, but many biologists seem perfectly happy to talk of Darwinian theory, as a means of acknowledging and honouring Darwin's role in setting off a revolution within biology.

I recommend a more circumspect challenge to the terms in future.

 

[VirOptimus]

Unfortunately you weaken your otherwise excellent argument when you make faulty remarks like this. Evolutionist is a term adopted by some researchers in the field, which was subsequently usurped by creationists. I cite a single example, but one of such power I trust it will be sufficient.

I am sure you know who Ernst Mayr is. (For those who don't he was one of the key figures in generating the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary theory.) This is the title of his 1988 (?) book.
Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist.

You are on marginally stronger ground here, but many biologists seem perfectly happy to talk of Darwinian theory, as a means of acknowledging and honouring Darwin's role in setting off a revolution within biology.

I recommend a more circumspect challenge to the terms in future.

Live and learn.

Nice post.

 

[KCfromNC]

Especially to a non believer who would be asking for evidence every step of the way. As soon as I make some claim you would ask for evidence. Then the debate comes to a stand still.

Yeah, imagine asking for evidence of a supposedly scientific idea. That's just crazy talk, man.

 

[KCfromNC]

Sorry you must be reading something else. I have posted ample support for design and ID that doesn't claim that its false.

When I asked you to identify the level of design in various objects you said you didn't know how. Did you forget about that or have you changed your mind and now believe you can actually quantify the amount of design in any given object? If it is the latter, feel free to go back and answer that post. Be sure to include units on whatever numbers you provide and don't forget to show your work.