Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[Loudmouth]

I said that the weather, volcanoes, earthquakes are random, and if new life forms are being created by those forces acting upon natural selection, then the formation of those new life forms are random. One would then have to conclude that the creation of humanity is the product of random events.

If weather is random, why do we never see a blizzard in Honolulu?

If evolution is random, why do we see a consistent increase in antibiotic resistant bacteria when antibiotics are introduced to their environment?

 

[Loudmouth]

I've also repeatedly pointed out that Darwinist creationism is a faith-based creationist view also.

You have repeatedly ignored the evidence for the theory of evolution. You can't claim that evolution is faith based when you refuse to discuss the evidence.

Mockery, ridicule or personal disparaging will not take the focus from the issue (Darwinist creationism), I assure you.

You complain about mockery and ridicule, and then use it immediately yourself by disparaging the the theory of evolution by calling it creationism. Doctor, heal thyself.

 

[justlookinla]

This actually doesn't answer my question as to whether you have determined that lack of knowledge of the identity of the single common ancestor is a deal breaker in your acceptance of the "proof" that all evolved from a single common ancestor by naturalistic means. A simple "Yes, it is necessary" or "No, it is not necessary" would have sufficed. Additionally, there is the secondary question, also not answered, regarding your reasoning for determining the necessity for knowledge of the identity of that single common ancestor.

Yes, the point was that lack of the identity of an alleged single common ancestor calls into question the other many guesses and suppositions of the Darwinist creationist model. It could be this and it could be that and it could be something else is hardly evidence for one's creationist view.

I suppose a reiteration of the requirement that science only speculate on evidence it can test would be useless here.

It would be great to use whatever testing method is used to determine the impetus by which humanity was created for any creationist view.

No it is not. Science, which I thought we were talking about here, does not speculate on the existence or non-existence of creators.

I thought we were discussing creation and evolution, per the room title. For me, as I've pointed out so many times, the question is concerning the creator of humanity, of all life we observe today.

Science only looks at the mechanisms involved in the process being studied. Show evidence that an outside force had a hand in the evolution of life on Earth and the theory will reflect that "an outside force" had a hand in evolution. The theory will not speculate on the identity of that "outside force".

But the Darwinist creationist theory of how humanity was created does reflect on the presence, or absence, of a supernatural impetus on it's creationist view. No if's, and's or but's, humanity, as well as all life forms, did not have a supernatural impetus in it's creation, it was only, totally, completely, solely by naturalist mechanisms according to the Darwinist creationist model.

Well then, we are done here. You agree that humans evolved from a common ancestor

No, not necessarily. I believe God created humanity as a life form which never previously existed.

but believe, without evidence, that the evolution was performed by your version of a supernatural being; specifically, your idea of the God depicted in the Bible. At this point you and I appear to be in agreement on the process but not the impetus of that process.

The issue of a single common ancestor isn't addressing the question of who/what created humanity. If we agree that humanity isn't the creative result of only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic processes, then the discussion can turn to the process which was involved in the creation of humanity, be it theistic creative evolution, intelligent design or the sudden appearance of humanity.

 

[bhsmte]

The scientific method is a wonderful thing and has benefited mankind for quite a while now.

On the other hand, there are guesses and suppositions related to how the first life form became the complex and varied life we observe today. These guesses and suppositions, while maybe true, are nothing more than that, guesses and suppositions. Guesses and suppositions aren't evidence, aren't proof, but are subjective views taking the data at hand and making 'best guesses' from the data. Since the quest of many on this particular forum is to determine the truth concerning how, when or who was involved in the creation of humanity, then guesses and suppositions, while nice and interesting, offer nothing more than the viewpoint of whatever creationist position one has.

Theories don't hold up if built on guesses and suppositions just, sorry. They would get exposed by other scientists in about five minutes.

So tell me, does religion ever say; "we don't know the answer"?

Is religion built on guesses and suppositions?

 

[justlookinla]

In other words, you don't care about the evidence. What you care about is that people follow the evidence to conclusions that you don't like. What you don't like is that science conflicts with your religious beliefs.

You don't care there is no evidence for Darwinist creationism.

We only need to show that the evidence is consistent with naturalistic processes, which it is.

There is no evidence that only naturalistic processes created humanity from a single life from from long long ago.

Do I need to show that God is not involved in the process of a chemical reactions before you will accept the scientific explanation that only uses naturalistic processes?

You only need to show that only naturalistic processes created humanity from a single life form from long long ago.

The only issue is your complete rejection of the scientific method when it leads to conclusions you don't like.

There is one issue, who/what created humanity.

 

[bhsmte]

You don't care there is no evidence for Darwinist creationism.



There is no evidence that only naturalistic processes created humanity from a single life from from long long ago.



You only need to show that only naturalistic processes created humanity from a single life form from long long ago.



There is one issue, who/what created humanity.

When you google; Darwinist creationism, nothing comes up.

I would get busy, making a wiki page for justlookinlaism.

 

[justlookinla]

If weather is random, why do we never see a blizzard in Honolulu?

If weather isn't random, predict the path, severity and on ground time of the next tornado.

If evolution is random, why do we see a consistent increase in antibiotic resistant bacteria when antibiotics are introduced to their environment?

Bacteria are bacteria are bacteria, finches are finches are finches, moths are moths are moths.

 

[justlookinla]

You have repeatedly ignored the evidence for the theory of evolution. You can't claim that evolution is faith based when you refuse to discuss the evidence.

I claim that Darwinist creationism, one of the many forms of creationism, is faith based.

You complain about mockery and ridicule, and then use it immediately yourself by disparaging the the theory of evolution by calling it creationism. Doctor, heal thyself.

I'm not calling the theory of evolution "creationism", I'm pointing out one of the many views of how humanity was created, i.e., Darwinist creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

When you google; Darwinist creationism, nothing comes up.

I would get busy, making a wiki page for justlookinlaism.

Really? I'm getting "About 1,770,000 results (0.22 seconds)".

 

[bhsmte]

Really? I'm getting "About 1,770,000 results (0.22 seconds)".

Yea, any definitions specifically for; Darwinist creationism you can reference?

 

[Dizredux]

I said that the weather, volcanoes, earthquakes are random, and if new life forms are being created by those forces acting upon natural selection, then the formation of those new life forms are random. One would then have to conclude that the creation of humanity is the product of random events.

That you think weather, volcanoes and earthquakes are random is a sign of how much you are disconnected from reality.

Dizredux

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I went back to get the post and bhsmte's posts didn't go back that far. I couldn't find it. It is a dead issue.

It is irrelevant, I just think it's questionable that you posted that research as if it supported a position which it did not.

Really? Silly and dishonest? I have answered your analogy. I even said I would accept the analogy for the purpose of the discussion and then you call me dishonest. That is out of line and you need to apologize.

My characterization is not out of line. I introduced the analogy to address your oft-repeated question of how evolution could be expected to produce accurate faculties. The point of the analogy was to illustrate that it is more likely that fitness would be increased via accurate faculties than via inaccurate faculties. Your response failed to address this point. You said that you doubted acing a test would increase fitness, something not stated in the analogy, as I explained, and that acing a test would require logic, again something that doesn't address the point of the analogy. Your claim that with these comments you have given me "exactly what I asked for" when I asked you to address the parsimony argument illustrated by the analogy is therefore silly at best and dishonest at worst.

So please address the actual point of the analogy, i.e. that it is more likely that accurate faculties rather than inaccurate ones would increase fitness and thus evolution should be expected to produce such faculties.

So now I am evading. IF you continue to question my motives there is no reason to continue this conversation.

If you recall, you've been evading the analogy for some time. If I spent weeks dodging your lion analogy, I'm certain you would feel I was being evasive. Remember, you ignored the analogy for a long time, then you claimed to have answered it, then you said you would answer it, and now you're claiming to have answered it despite not addressing the actual point of the analogy. If that was how I responded to your lion analogy, how would you characterize my behaviour?

I said that we could for the sake of the argument claim that accurately perceiving the environment would give an organism an advantage for survival. That wasn't good enough for you. I don't know why, I was for the sake of argument giving into your point to show that your point is irrelevant to the discussion.

You long since agreed that accurate faculties would confer a selective advantage, but you haven't conceded that point that accurate faculties are more likely to be produced by evolution than inaccurate faculties. This is the point of the analogy that you have not yet addressed. If you think that is irrelevant, then you should stop asking why we can expect evolution to produce accurate faculties.

The counter argument as been presented repeatedly, yet you ignore it or claim that the Laws of Logic which would be necessary to accurate perception are not an evolved product. You have agreed that they are not an evolved product. If they are not an evolved product they are a priori to our perception of our environment accurate or not.

Please link me to the post or reiterate here your counter argument refuting the point that evolution is more likely to produce accurate faculties than inaccurate ones.

The issue is not that natural selection is not a component in the processes that God uses in His creation. It is not an issue of whether He tinkers with that creation or leaves it to take care of itself. Without the inherent intelligence and the laws of logic man could not accurately perceive his environment. ME would not have intelligence to provide to organisms, and the laws of logic being transcendent to man would be necessary to develop or codify them in the first place.

So in fact you can offer no reason why natural selection (and other evolutionary mechanisms) as understood by empirical science couldn't work unless it was divinely sustained.

It seems to me that the difference is in how that genetically based intelligence is shown in the genome or lack therein vs that which is structurally associated with intelligence or genes acted upon by other factors such as epigenetics.
​

It doesn't matter. It was a very insignificant side issue that is not even important to the conversation.

It does matter. You're claiming that intelligence couldn't evolve from an unguided process and to support this you were insisting that there is no genetic basis for intelligence. I and others have pointed out various genes that affect intelligence and thus intelligence is a trait which can be acted upon by evolutionary forces. If you wish to concede this, then there is no need to clarify the above statement. If you don't which to concede, I would really appreciate an explanation of the difference between evidence for a "genetic basis for intelligence" (which according you do not,according to you, dispute) and evidence that "intelligence is genetically based".

I can agree. It really isn't that significant to our discussion anyway.

Excellent. So you accept that accurate faculties would be more likely to increase fitness than inaccurate faculties, yes? This is fairly central to the issue of whether evolution could be expected to produce accurate faculties.

No, there is sensory faculties that allow an organism to successfully work within their environment or there are humans that use their intelligence to accurately perceive their environment. Are you wanting to equate the faculties of the jelly fish to the human's ability?

I am equating their sensory faculties to a certain degree to illustrate the point that they can get accurate information about their environment without being intelligent. Do you dispute that a mantis shrimp (for example) can accurately detect colours despite lacking intelligence? Yes or no? Add whatever caveats you like, but please answer the question.

So Jelly fish perceive the universe and understand the language of it? Can they do abstract mathematics that explain the workings of it. That is what is being discussed. How human beings have this ability. You are the one that either has to explain how the same faculties that give the jelly fish success in its environment equates to man's ability to understand the universe and language of it abstractly.

They do indeed perceive the universe, just a lot less of it and to a lesser degree. That doesn't make their faculties inaccurate. If you are conceding the point that intelligence isn't the same thing as accurate faculties then we can move on to discussing how this applies to our abilities.

Laws of Logic are not physical laws. They are laws of concepts. Laws of the mind. How do physical laws create laws of the mind?

We observe that something cannot simultaneously be A and Not A; it is one thing or another. This is the nature of our universe, a Physical law. This is the basis for the mental construct (law of Identity) that states this; a Logical law. That A cannot simultaneously be Not A is true irrespective of humanity's existence. This is the framework in which we have evolved. Because accurate faculties are more likely to confer selective advantage than inaccurate ones, we have evolved to possess faculties which accurately reflect the reality that A cannot simultaneously be Not A.

Then you are incorrect. The laws of logic are not about our faculties at all. They exist outside of ourselves. They are not dependent on us to exist. They are true whether mankind exists or not. They are not about our accurate faculties.

Okay, I agree; laws of logic are true regardless of human existence. The point is that our faculties have evolved to reflect the reality that those laws describe.

You seem to be the one confused. You claim on one hand that the laws of logic are the same as the physical laws of the universe or brute fact that we discover and codify. Then you claim that they evolved as accurate faculties in us. What are you claiming because I am totally confused by your differing explanations for them.

Please read carefully. Laws of Logic are formal codifications of how we observe reality to be, which you correctly stated. Our faculties evolved to accurately reflect that reality. I am not claiming that the laws of logic evolved, but that our faculties evolved to accurately reflect the physical reality the Laws of logic describe.

But you are begging the question.

Please elaborate.

Lets leave the apple since you are having trouble there.

Or you could explain exactly how observing an apple to be red is different from observing that it isn't blue.

Let us move to truths. The laws of logic are laws of truth. The law of non-contradiction is the law that no truth can ever be false. The law of non-contradiction is the law about propositions the primary bearers of truth-value. They are truths about propositions and the truth-value between them. The knowledge of the Laws of Logic gives us the ability to infer from the truth-values of some propositions the truth-values of other propositions.

This doesn't address the argument that we should expect evolution to produce faculties which can accurately perceive the physical reality which these laws describe.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Yes, the point was that lack of the identity of an alleged single common ancestor calls into question the other many guesses and suppositions of the Darwinist creationist model. It could be this and it could be that and it could be something else is hardly evidence for one's creationist view.

I'm not sure, but I think you are saying that not knowing the identity of the single common ancestor invalidates the entire common descent conclusion. Ok...I disagree, but agreement on this is unnecessary for further discussion.

No, not necessarily. I believe God created humanity as a life form which never previously existed.

Humans have no ancestors that were not human? I am sure you are aware that there is evidence indicating otherwise. You would have to provide some significant evidence in support of your point of view to lend serious credence to it.

The issue of a single common ancestor isn't addressing the question of who/what created humanity. If we agree that humanity isn't the creative result of only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic processes, then the discussion can turn to the process which was involved in the creation of humanity, be it theistic creative evolution, intelligent design or the sudden appearance of humanity.

How can I agree that humanity isn't the creative result of only,totally, completely, solely naturalistic processes when I don't have evidence to point to anything else. I agree that there is the possibility of some kind of outside influence that guided evolution but there is no scientific evidence of it.
Even if the scientific evidence for humanity being the creative result of only,totally, completely, solely naturalistic processes isn't absolute proof, it is still the only evidence we have. Thus, I cannot concede that there was anything beyond naturalistic processes in the evolution of life on Earth and will only allow that the possibility exists.
The possibility that the process did not involve anything other than naturalistic processes is still a viable contender for what happened.

Let's start by discussing your contention that humans were specially created and did not evolve from other life forms. What evidence can you present to support that hypothesis?

 

[Loudmouth]

I claim that Darwinist creationism, one of the many forms of creationism, is faith based.

cre·a·tion·ism
noun \-shə-ˌni-zəm\

: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
Creationism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Loudmouth]

If weather isn't random, predict the path, severity and on ground time of the next tornado.

I can predict that Honolulu will not have a blizzard today. Therefore, weather is not random. They even have these things called weather PATTERNS. Ever heard of them?

Bacteria are bacteria are bacteria, finches are finches are finches, moths are moths are moths.

So you have no problem with humans sharing a common ancestor with an amoeba since eukaryotes are eukaryotes?

Eukaryotes

 

[Dizredux]

If weather isn't random, predict the path, severity and on ground time of the next tornado.

There is a form of nihilism where it is felt that if you do not know every thing about a subject then you know nothing. Basically this view rejects all evidence.

The above is a perfect example. If we not know the *exact* path, severity and on ground time of a tornado then it is totally random.

It does not matter that weather scientists can give the public a pretty good of where and when a tornado is likely to hit. It is irrelevant to someone with this kind of philosophy.

The same goes for the original common ancestor. If we cannot precisely identify the the first organism then we know nothing about how the diversity of life occurred.


A rather good example of this:

DerelictJunction

Another lie. You have been presented with multiple references and explanations.

Just

Start with the first life form from many many years ago. Identify it.

According to Just, if we can't identify the first life, then all the references and explanations have no meaning whatsoever.

It is hard to gain any exchange of ideas with someone like this especially when this stance may indicate a somewhat tenuous hold on reality.

Dizredux

 

[RickG]

If weather isn't random, predict the path, severity and on ground time of the next tornado.

The folks at NOAA do it all the time and do a pretty good job of it as well.


[quoteBacteria are bacteria are bacteria, finches are finches are finches, moths are moths are moths.

Yep, and within are different species of bacteria, finches, and moths. The speciation level is where evolution occurs.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I said that the weather, volcanoes, earthquakes are random, and if new life forms are being created by those forces acting upon natural selection, then the formation of those new life forms are random. One would then have to conclude that the creation of humanity is the product of random events.

No, just no, none of these things are random. If they were, a volcano would be just as likely to pop up in my yard as anywhere else, earthquakes wouldn't happen more often in certain areas than others, tornadoes wouldn't happen more often at certain times of the year. There would be no weather forcast if it were truly random, because one cannot predict random events to any extent.

Likewise, if evolution were random, you would have no correlation between the adaptations of animals and their environment, which just isn't the case.

 

[justlookinla]

I'm not sure, but I think you are saying that not knowing the identity of the single common ancestor invalidates the entire common descent conclusion. Ok...I disagree, but agreement on this is unnecessary for further discussion.

Nope, not what I said. What I said was....."Yes, the point was that lack of the identity of an alleged single common ancestor calls into question the other many guesses and suppositions of the Darwinist creationist model. It could be this and it could be that and it could be something else is hardly evidence for one's creationist view."

Humans have no ancestors that were not human? I am sure you are aware that there is evidence indicating otherwise. You would have to provide some significant evidence in support of your point of view to lend serious credence to it.

Again, what I said was "I believe God created humanity as a life form which never previously existed". If you can provide evidence that humans existed as humans before they were humans, I'd be happy to see it.

How can I agree that humanity isn't the creative result of only,totally, completely, solely naturalistic processes when I don't have evidence to point to anything else.

That's the thing, you don't have evidence which points to humanity being the creation of only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic processes. The guesses and suppositions may or may not be true in that particular creationist viewpoint.

I agree that there is the possibility of some kind of outside influence that guided evolution but there is no scientific evidence of it.

There's as much evidence for a supernatural involvement in the creation of humanity as it is for an atheistic viewpoint of the creation of humanity.

Even if the scientific evidence for humanity being the creative result of only,totally, completely, solely naturalistic processes isn't absolute proof, it is still the only evidence we have.

There is no evidence, only guesses and suppositions.

[QUTOE] Thus, I cannot concede that there was anything beyond naturalistic processes in the evolution of life on Earth and will only allow that the possibility exists.
The possibility that the process did not involve anything other than naturalistic processes is still a viable contender for what happened.[/QUOTE]

Right, we all have our subjective views.

Let's start by discussing your contention that humans were specially created and did not evolve from other life forms. What evidence can you present to support that hypothesis?

It's a faith-based view, as is Darwinist creationism which teaches that humanity is the result of a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless process.

 

[justlookinla]

cre·a·tion·ism
noun \-shə-ˌni-zəm\

: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
Creationism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

cre·ate
krēˈāt/Submit
verb
bring (something) into existence.
"he created a thirty-acre lake"
synonyms: produce, generate, bring into being, make, fabricate, fashion, build, construct;