Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (4)

[Phenotype]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (3)"

 

[Davian]

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Originally Posted by JGL53

Science rests on the laws of logic and a consistent universe, and the intelligence of humans.

The rest of your post makes no sense.

It would make no sense if the universe was a chance event with humans being a product of a process with no goals or purpose. Our reason would be a product of survival and have no assurance of logic or truth.

Once again I will point out that if the universe is itself an artifact then the invisible creator can change the laws from moment to moment if he desires. Thus there would be no laws of nature, or even laws of logic.

That is a straw man argument, God's laws of logic come from His nature not his desires and the laws of physics are the way God governs the universe to show His power and glory.

An actual god existing would make science impossible. Since there is no reason to take the god idea as a live option, it would seem we humans are very lucky. Life would be tough with science. We would be reduced to living like people did 100,000 years ago. (who were highly religious, no doubt, and it didn't help. lol.)

Another straw man. Men worked with the tools available to them and discovered through the laws of logic which are from God's nature. Modern science came from the belief that due to God the universe would be understandable and consistent.
__________________

 

[Oncedeceived]

Dizredux

Newbie

Join Date: 20th December 2013
Posts: 987
Blessings: 1,013,319 [Bless]
Reps: 6,772,896,376,304,869 (power: 6,772,896,376,305)

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

No it was to Davian who put up a link that claims that our belief in God is due to patternicity more or less. However, like I said and you didn't respond to was that the measurements of the constants are what constitutes the fine tuning and not any sort of pattern.
​

Can't respond to everything with my arthritis, I have to pick and choose.

Ok.

Something to discuss here as we keep on touching on the need to have God for the universe to exist.

Let me put some of my views out there. I feel that God is involved in or controls the universe. No problem there but I am aware that it is my religious belief.

Now in my belief, I feel that whether or not God is required is irrelevant to my faith. I believe that he is in control and that is enough.

Now with that in mind, what I keep writing about is that although God may be involved or that God may be necessary to the creation and functioning of the universe, science cannot deal with this without empirical evidence. Science only deals with a specific subset of reality, that which can be measured in some way.

To ask science to include God without empirical evidence is an exercise in futility because simply, science cannot do that. It is like asking plumbing theory and technology to take into account quantum physics in its work. Plumbing cannot do it because it has no space for that, no way to deal with it.

So we don't really disagree all that much it is just that I think it a mistake to insist that science deal with something that it can't.


On the fine tuned argument (anthropic principle). I feel that a more logical argument is that we are fine tuned for our environment rather than the universe is fine tuned for us. Others may disagree and that's OK as it is a question that is still in a position of ongoing discussion among scientists.

You bring up Paul Davis from time to time. Here is something he said which I can possibly agree with:

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires
​

Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That fits my reasoning much better than the holistic fine tune argument that is being sometimes used. I think that the universe, local environment allows to to exist rather than demands. I have no problem in seeing that God made it this way but more in the way Davis describes.

Again, others may disagree. I am just examining my thoughts on the subject and trying to learn and think about it a little more.

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

To ask science to include God without empirical evidence is an exercise in futility because simply, science cannot do that. It is like asking plumbing theory and technology to take into account quantum physics in its work.

Asking science to include God would be like asking plumbing theory to incorporate water fairies as controlling water instead of gravity.

If you are going to assert that God is doing something, then present evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Dizredux

Newbie

Join Date: 20th December 2013
Posts: 987
Blessings: 1,013,319 [Bless]
Reps: 6,772,896,376,304,869 (power: 6,772,896,376,305)

Sorry again about the pain.

Something to discuss here as we keep on touching on the need to have God for the universe to exist.

Let me put some of my views out there. I feel that God is involved in or controls the universe. No problem there but I am aware that it is my religious belief.

Now in my belief, I feel that whether or not God is required is irrelevant to my faith. I believe that he is in control and that is enough.

Now with that in mind, what I keep writing about is that although God may be involved or that God may be necessary to the creation and functioning of the universe, science cannot deal with this without empirical evidence. Science only deals with a specific subset of reality, that which can be measured in some way.

To ask science to include God without empirical evidence is an exercise in futility because simply, science cannot do that. It is like asking plumbing theory and technology to take into account quantum physics in its work. Plumbing cannot do it because it has no space for that, no way to deal with it.

Mainstream science would never include anything about God ever. It is a study and discovery methodology of nature. The supernatural will not be used in a scientific way most likely ever. It doesn't need to. Science discovers the natural world and how it works. The point of contention is whether the universe and life are accidental happenstance or if God created both. We can use science to determine which is the best explanation using science. Science is to be neutral. It should be about the mechanisms and workings of nature. If all is by some unplanned, unintelligent process with no goals or purpose then there are things we would expect to see and that would be no appearance of design. If God created we should see things like intelligence, complexity with purpose, there should be an appearance of design. Which is just what we see.

These are not simple patterns but very objective and testable measurements in biological sense.

So we don't really disagree all that much it is just that I think it a mistake to insist that science deal with something that it can't.

Science can't judge its evidence. Evidence is that which is. It is one's interpretation that can be and is subjectively perceived. The unbeliever takes the evidence and stamps his/her presuppositional views on it and says there is no evidence for God. The believer looks at the same evidence and it supports God. Science is neutral or should be. Science still has its bias due to humans in the process.

On the fine tuned argument (anthropic principle). I feel that a more logical argument is that we are fine tuned for our environment rather than the universe is fine tuned for us. Others may disagree and that's OK as it is a question that is still in a position of ongoing discussion among scientists.

Explain why you think that?

You bring up Paul Davis from time to time. Here is something he said which I can possibly agree with:

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires
​

Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The universe needs to have what it has for us to exist, or even for the universe to exist. That supports that the universe is fine tuned for us and not the other way around. Like Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson said: “In some sense, the universe knew we were coming.”

Here is an article that Paul Davies wrote that I think you should see.

Life, the universe and everything | Cosmos Magazine

That fits my reasoning much better than the holistic fine tune argument that is being sometimes used. I think that the universe, local environment allows to to exist rather than demands. I have no problem in seeing that God made it this way but more in the way Davis describes.

I think you misunderstand what he describes.

Again, others may disagree. I am just examining my thoughts on the subject and trying to learn and think about it a little more.

Ok.

 

[bhsmte]

Dizredux

Newbie

Join Date: 20th December 2013
Posts: 987
Blessings: 1,013,319 [Bless]
Reps: 6,772,896,376,304,869 (power: 6,772,896,376,305)

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

No it was to Davian who put up a link that claims that our belief in God is due to patternicity more or less. However, like I said and you didn't respond to was that the measurements of the constants are what constitutes the fine tuning and not any sort of pattern.

​

Ok.

Something to discuss here as we keep on touching on the need to have God for the universe to exist.

Let me put some of my views out there. I feel that God is involved in or controls the universe. No problem there but I am aware that it is my religious belief.

Now in my belief, I feel that whether or not God is required is irrelevant to my faith. I believe that he is in control and that is enough.

Now with that in mind, what I keep writing about is that although God may be involved or that God may be necessary to the creation and functioning of the universe, science cannot deal with this without empirical evidence. Science only deals with a specific subset of reality, that which can be measured in some way.

To ask science to include God without empirical evidence is an exercise in futility because simply, science cannot do that. It is like asking plumbing theory and technology to take into account quantum physics in its work. Plumbing cannot do it because it has no space for that, no way to deal with it.

So we don't really disagree all that much it is just that I think it a mistake to insist that science deal with something that it can't.


On the fine tuned argument (anthropic principle). I feel that a more logical argument is that we are fine tuned for our environment rather than the universe is fine tuned for us. Others may disagree and that's OK as it is a question that is still in a position of ongoing discussion among scientists.

You bring up Paul Davis from time to time. Here is something he said which I can possibly agree with:

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires

​

Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That fits my reasoning much better than the holistic fine tune argument that is being sometimes used. I think that the universe, local environment allows to to exist rather than demands. I have no problem in seeing that God made it this way but more in the way Davis describes.

Again, others may disagree. I am just examining my thoughts on the subject and trying to learn and think about it a little more.

Dizredux

Then why were you so taken aback by the fact evolution does not include God in the theory, just like every other scientific theory?

As I have always said, if you want to insert God in evolution for your own personal satisfaction, no one is stopping you from doing that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Asking science to include God would be like asking plumbing theory to incorporate water fairies as controlling water instead of gravity.

If you are going to assert that God is doing something, then present evidence.

First of all I didn't claim that Science should include God. Science should be neutral or as neutral as human bias allows. However, evidence is what it is. It is our interpretations that decided what it is.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Dizredux

Newbie

Join Date: 20th December 2013
Posts: 987
Blessings: 1,013,319 [Bless]
Reps: 6,772,896,376,304,869 (power: 6,772,896,376,305)

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

No it was to Davian who put up a link that claims that our belief in God is due to patternicity more or less. However, like I said and you didn't respond to was that the measurements of the constants are what constitutes the fine tuning and not any sort of pattern.
​

Ok.

Something to discuss here as we keep on touching on the need to have God for the universe to exist.

Let me put some of my views out there. I feel that God is involved in or controls the universe. No problem there but I am aware that it is my religious belief.

Now in my belief, I feel that whether or not God is required is irrelevant to my faith. I believe that he is in control and that is enough.

Now with that in mind, what I keep writing about is that although God may be involved or that God may be necessary to the creation and functioning of the universe, science cannot deal with this without empirical evidence. Science only deals with a specific subset of reality, that which can be measured in some way.

To ask science to include God without empirical evidence is an exercise in futility because simply, science cannot do that. It is like asking plumbing theory and technology to take into account quantum physics in its work. Plumbing cannot do it because it has no space for that, no way to deal with it.

So we don't really disagree all that much it is just that I think it a mistake to insist that science deal with something that it can't.


On the fine tuned argument (anthropic principle). I feel that a more logical argument is that we are fine tuned for our environment rather than the universe is fine tuned for us. Others may disagree and that's OK as it is a question that is still in a position of ongoing discussion among scientists.

You bring up Paul Davis from time to time. Here is something he said which I can possibly agree with:

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires
​

Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That fits my reasoning much better than the holistic fine tune argument that is being sometimes used. I think that the universe, local environment allows to to exist rather than demands. I have no problem in seeing that God made it this way but more in the way Davis describes.

Again, others may disagree. I am just examining my thoughts on the subject and trying to learn and think about it a little more.

Dizredux

Yup, that's pretty much as I accept things as well.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then why were you so taken aback by the fact evolution does not include God in the theory, just like every other scientific theory?

As I have always said, if you want to insert God in evolution for your own personal satisfaction, no one is stopping you from doing that.

I've never claimed that evolution or any theory should include God. The theories and evidence for anything is what it is. We make judgements on that evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

First of all I didn't claim that Science should include God. Science should be neutral or as neutral as human bias allows. However, evidence is what it is. It is our interpretations that decided what it is.

Why did you agree with justlookinlaism when he claims evolution is atheistic and went on about evolution not including God? And don't deny it once, you did go on about the theory of evolution not including God.

Now, you are back peddling, likely because your previous position was untenable and you came to realize the same. For evolution theory to be "atheistic" the theory would have to make a statement, that there is no evidence for a God, but it doesn't even mention a God, does it, just like every other theory in science.

Science is science and it works they way it does for very good reasons. Some are mad or fearful of science, for obvious reasons and that is further substantiated by this and other threads.

 

[Davian]

It would make no sense if the universe was a chance event with humans being a product of a process with no goals or purpose. Our reason would be a product of survival and have no assurance of logic or truth.

Why does it have to "make sense"?

 

[Dizredux]

Sorry again about the pain.

It is a part of life, I just have to take it into account.

Once:

Mainstream science would never include anything about God ever. It is a study and discovery methodology of nature. The supernatural will not be used in a scientific way most likely ever. It doesn't need to. Science discovers the natural world and how it works. The point of contention is whether the universe and life are accidental happenstance or if God created both.

No point of contention here. Science cannot enter into this discussion. At this point it is a philosophical/religious issue. There is nothing wrong that but without evidence that is all it can be.

Once:

We can use science to determine which is the best explanation using science. Science is to be neutral. It should be about the mechanisms and workings of nature.

If all is by some unplanned, unintelligent process with no goals or purpose then there are things we would expect to see and that would be no appearance of design. If God created we should see things like intelligence, complexity with purpose, there should be an appearance of design. Which is just what we see.

I am sorry but the appearance of design is, in my mind, a very bad argument because the appearance of design can indicate design but doesn't have to. A tool that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't is not very much use. Really, all appearance of design means is that someone or several think it looks designed. What if others disagree and don't think it looks designed, what do you do then?

Let us go to basics. Take a natural bridge. Assume I am on an expedition and we have never witnessed one before.

I could say that it clearly looks designed but it would not be in fact designed. The appearance would be wrong. The problem is that you have to find a way to show definitively whether something is designed or not. Without that, you have nothing more than a flawed tool. Again, sometimes it is right and sometimes it is wrong is not a whole lot of use.


Once:

These are not simple patterns but very objective and testable measurements in biological sense.

Can you show some objective and testable instruments that can test appearance of design to see if it is in fact designed if that is what you are referring to. I was not sure.

Diz So we don't really disagree all that much it is just that I think it a mistake to insist that science deal with something that it can't.

Once

Science can't judge its evidence.

Huh?

Evidence is that which is. It is one's interpretation that can be and is subjectively perceived. The unbeliever takes the evidence and stamps his/her presuppositional views on it and says there is no evidence for God.

Show me some examples of this in the literature. The issue of God is seldom if ever discussed there as far as I know.

The believer looks at the same evidence and it supports God.

Can you show me where scientific evidence can be dealt with in that way? I don't see much in the way of believer/non believer in the literature. Those such as AIG deliberately reject any evidence that disagrees with their views. Here, we are not looking at the same evidence. A number of creation sites treat evidence similarly. What you need to demonstrate is that in fact we are looking at the same evidence. For the most part, I don't think so.

Just

One of the problems here is Science is neutral or should be.Science still has its bias due to humans in the process.

Err, how would you propose rectifying this problem. Actually scientists put a huge amount of effort in reducing bias. You can never get rid of it but you can work at making it as little possible.

Diz

On the fine tuned argument (anthropic principle). I feel that a more logical argument is that we are fine tuned for our environment rather than the universe is fine tuned for us. Others may disagree and that's OK as it is a question that is still in a position of ongoing discussion among scientists.

Explain why you think that?

That is a lot to discuss, we need to approach that later. This is long enough as it is.

Diz

You bring up Paul Davis from time to time. Here is something he said which I can possibly agree with:

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires

Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Once

The universe needs to have what it has for us to exist, or even for the universe to exist. That supports that the universe is fine tuned for us and not the other way around. Like Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson said: “In some sense, the universe knew we were coming.”

Here is an article that Paul Davies wrote that I think you should see.

Life, the universe and everything | Cosmos Magazine

OK I will read it.

Diz

that fits my reasoning much better than the holistic fine tune argument that is being sometimes used. I think that the universe, local environment allows to to exist rather than demands. I have no problem in seeing that God made it this way but more in the way Davis describes.

I think you misunderstand what he describes.

I was just commenting on that one statement. I will get back when I read the Cosmos article.



Dizredux

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why did you agree with justlookinlaism when he claims evolution is atheistic and went on about evolution not including God? And don't deny it once, you did go on about the theory of evolution not including God.

Does ToE include God? I don't think there is any mention of God in ToE. It also presupposes that naturalistic processes are the cause of life. Is this not correct?

Now, you are back peddling, likely because your previous position was untenable and you came to realize the same. For evolution theory to be "atheistic" the theory would have to make a statement, that there is no evidence for a God, but it doesn't even mention a God, does it, just like every other theory in science.

ToE has no mention of God, it also presupposes a purely naturalistic process. In that way it is atheistic.

Science is science and it works they way it does for very good reasons. Some are mad or fearful of science, for obvious reasons and that is further substantiated by this and other threads.

There are many things substantiated in these and other threads and it centers on what believers and what non-believers presuppose and what supports those beliefs.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why does it have to "make sense"?

We live in an orderly and comprehensible world that promotes making sense of life.

 

[bhsmte]

Does ToE include God? I don't think there is any mention of God in ToE. It also presupposes that naturalistic processes are the cause of life. Is this not correct?



ToE has no mention of God, it also presupposes a purely naturalistic process. In that way it is atheistic.



There are many things substantiated in these and other threads and it centers on what believers and what non-believers presuppose and what supports those beliefs.

Once, you are like a pinball, you bounce all over the place, claim you never said this and really meant that, it is really amusing to watch.

An atheist claims there is no evidence of a God and they don't believe a God exists, correct? So an atheist will actually bring up and mention a God, correct?

Does the theory of evolution or any scientific theory, make this same judgment about a God?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is a part of life, I just have to take it into account.

I understand, I have a painful condition myself. It is not all the time though so it is not so bad.

Once: No point of contention here. Science cannot enter into this discussion. At this point it is a philosophical/religious issue. There is nothing wrong that but without evidence that is all it can be.

Ok.

Once: I am sorry but the appearance of design is, in my mind, a very bad argument because the appearance of design can indicate design but doesn't have to. A tool that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't is not very much use. Really, all appearance of design means is that someone or several think it looks designed. What if others disagree and don't think it looks designed, what do you do then?

Everyone agrees it has the appearance of design. The contention is whether or not it is real or not. The evidence for design is there, it then becomes the subjective opinion of those that view it to whether it constitutes real design.

Let us go to basics. Take a natural bridge. Assume I am on an expedition and we have never witnessed one before.

I don't want atheist mumbo jumbo. This is ridiculous in accordance to what we are discussing. We are not talking about natural bridges. If one was to hollow out a huge rock and put features on it that look like erosion would you know if it were designed or natural?

I could say that it clearly looks designed but it would not be in fact designed. The appearance would be wrong. The problem is that you have to find a way to show definitively whether something is designed or not. Without that, you have nothing more than a flawed tool. Again, sometimes it is right and sometimes it is wrong is not a whole lot of use.

No, and this is where you and I disagree completely. We can look at the appearance of design in biological life forms and either make the determination it is real or an illusion. We can look at the appearance of the universe and determine whether fine tuning is from a tuner or its an illusion. We can look at our free will and determine is it real or an illusion. The same for a conscience, or consciousness because it has to be real or an illusion. That it is illusion to me is the flaw.

Once:Can you show some objective and testable instruments that can test appearance of design to see if it is in fact designed if that is what you are referring to. I was not sure.

Is it illusion or is it real? Do you think that life is based on what is real or illusion?

Once Huh?Show me some examples of this in the literature. The issue of God is seldom if ever discussed there as far as I know.

What????

Can you show me where scientific evidence can be dealt with in that way? I don't see much in the way of believer/non believer in the literature.

What literature, what are you talking about?

Those such as AIG deliberately reject any evidence that disagrees with their views. Here, we are not looking at the same evidence. A number of creation sites treat evidence similarly. What you need to demonstrate is that in fact we are looking at the same evidence. For the most part, I don't think so.

Seriously, I have no idea what you are saying? I am talking about the apparent design of biological life and the fine tuning of the universe.

Just Err, how would you propose rectifying this problem. Actually scientists put a huge amount of effort in reducing bias. You can never get rid of it but you can work at making it as little possible.

Each scientist, and that is a lot of scientists. I think that everyone tries to do so but it is impossible to leave all bias out of human beings.

Diz That is a lot to discuss, we need to approach that later. This is long enough as it is.

Ok.

DizFine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really? Do you think that I haven't read this and more?

Once OK I will read it.

Good, I hope you will.

I was just commenting on that one statement. I will get back when I read the Cosmos article.

I do that all the time.



Dizredux[/quote]

 

[justlookinla]

Why did you agree with justlookinlaism when he claims evolution is atheistic and went on about evolution not including God? And don't deny it once, you did go on about the theory of evolution not including God.

Call me what you wish, revert to the usual Darwinist behavior of ridicule and mockery, that's really immaterial and of no importance to me, but try to get my position on evolution straight if you would. I don't claim evolution is atheistic, I point out the fact that Darwinism is inherently atheistic. There's a difference between the two.

Now, you are back peddling, likely because your previous position was untenable and you came to realize the same. For evolution theory to be "atheistic" the theory would have to make a statement, that there is no evidence for a God, but it doesn't even mention a God, does it, just like every other theory in science.

Darwinism does make a statement. It states unequivocally that humanity is the result of entirely naturalistic processes acting upon a single life form. That's a very basic view of atheistic creationism.

Science is science and it works they way it does for very good reasons. Some are mad or fearful of science, for obvious reasons and that is further substantiated by this and other threads.

Yes, science is science and Darwinism is Darwinism. Darwinism isn't science but a series of guesses and suppositions which conclude that mankind is the sole, complete and total result of only a naturalistic mechanism. That's the basic gospel of the inherently atheistic Darwinist philosophy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once, you are like a pinball, you bounce all over the place, claim you never said this and really meant that, it is really amusing to watch.

Prove it. Provide the posts that counter what I just said to you.

An atheist claims there is no evidence of a God and they don't believe a God exists, correct? So an atheist will actually bring up and mention a God, correct?

I have seen numerous posts concerning scientific matters where a scientist will claim that God can not be the answer. Is that what you mean?

Does the theory of evolution or any scientific theory, make this same judgment about a God?

Does ToE say that the process of evolution is a purely naturalistic process?