Jump to content


Photo

Is Natural Selection A Mechanism Of Evolution?

Evolution Refuted

  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#61 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 12 December 2017 - 05:09 PM

Goku: For example linguistics does not bear out the Tower of Babble story as the origin of all the different languages, archaeology does not support the Exodus story of Moses, geology and historical records do not indicate Noah's global deluge, and so on.

 
I think what this really portrays is that your information-source is giving you arguments you have accepted. There is plenty of evidence for the flood, proper evidence, qualified correctly, if you look at my recent topics alone it is unavoidably correct evidence. Really you are just selecting the arguments you think make the evidence 99% against the bible, but arguments aren't evidence, the evidence itself tells us nothing as such, in that a lot of it can be interpreted, especially circumstantial evidence which is highly open to interpretation. So I think it is 99% of the evolutionary/atheist worldviews arguments that actually contradict the bible, certainly there isn't any direct evidence that it's false.
 
Your evidence for a global flood, as best I can tell, is also perfectly consistent with local floods and disasters. Occam's razor would dictate that local events are a much more appealing explanation, even without going into the evidence and arguments against a global flood. Sure it may have consistent evidence, but there is also consistent evidence that a three-legged aardvark made the known universe by doing a happy dance: if such an event occurred we would expect a universe to exist, and alas here we are. The way you wield the argument of consistent evidence is not convincing, even for a tentative and provisional truth claim as a matter of personal belief.
 
There is no remotely convincing evidence that a global flood has ever occurred, especially as described by biblical fundamentalists. As I have said many times over the years if a global flood happened we would expect a global sediment layer (or close enough to global) all dating back to about 2,400 BC give or take a few centuries to account for the different chronological histories of various YEC paradigms. As far as I am aware no such layer in any capacity has ever been found. Similarly, we would expect to see a massive genetic bottleneck for all land species (and birds) all dating back to the time of the flood some 4,400 years ago, and this is not what we see in any way, shape, or form. All cultures around the globe should have been wiped out at the same time too, and again this is not what we see in the archeological record.
 
The story itself has many plausible problems as well. For example after the flood how did all the animals get to their endemic regions? - for example how did kangaroos get to Australia from Mt. Ararat in Turkey? There's also a question of food and water, both on the Ark and post-flood. The Ark itself is so large that it should have broken apart many times over due to all the stresses on it. The Ark would have been the largest wooden ship ever built, and wooden ships of lesser size (even when reinforced with metal) are not good in rough waters as the wood twists and turns letting in water, and the ship becomes prone to foundering/sinking. An even bigger wooden ship, not reinforced with metal, surviving a tumultuous flood that carved out the Grand Canyon would have no realistic chance of success.
 
Then of course, as has been discussed on the forum, the heat released from the amount of water required for a global flood would have rendered the planet lifeless many times over. We could talk about the problems all day, but these are some of the highlights off the top of my head.
 
Of course any and all problems can be solved with miracles. However, this is not something on par with turning water into wine or raising Jesus from the dead. Simply put the global flood is not only theoretically impossible from known science, like the miracles mentioned above, but there is also empirical evidence derived from the specific time-frame that the flood was supposed to occur, and we see no evidence of it or anything like it anywhere throughout history or natural history, and with no "consistent evidence" that cannot easily be explained by local flooding and such.
 

As for Piasan's post I think it was just a personal attack really, his motives are obvious, he saw that I wasn't particularly good at one type of riddle/puzzle and so now he most mendaciously PRETENDS that I have to be an expert at that particular puzzle in order to understand science. Lol. That comes off as a bit desperate. And calling logic, "binary thinking" is basically just an epithet, I would much rather be a logical thinker than an illogical thinker, Piasan, as it helps to assess science claims;
 
If I am defensive it's understandable give your argument is basically intepreted as this; "mike is a retard that doesn't understand science." If you are scientific and understand science, you should value what the evidence suggests. It suggests I am pretty good at evaluating claims. Not the best in the world for sure but then who is. And as for science and evolution, remember I recently created a quiz myself for evolution and you didn't get all of the answers correct, of which mikey was the creator of the questions! :gotcha:

 
I cannot comment for Piasan, but my own take is that you often see a line of logical thinking and jump down the rabbit hole, and in the process you get tunnel vision and forget other salient points that when put together is not complimentary to your position.
 
I don't think you are stupid, and I am confident Piasan and the other evolutionists don't think you are stupid either. However, I do believe you are extremely biased and this bias plays a big role in your posts. It is one thing to be able to use basic logic in an academic test talking about subjects in which no normal person would have a bias in, versus applying that logic in a complex interdisciplinary subject in which you do have a bias in.
 
I remember that quiz! I was inspired to come up with my own quiz, but never got around to it.
 

As for the 6,000 years being studied by creationists, that doesn't change my point anyway, that the bible doesn't give the age of things so technically if there is only a possibility that God done something miraculous with time or there is some time somewhere humans may have missed, that's significant. It's also important to listen to other creationists like OECs, and not arrogantly assume that only YECs are creationist. In other words, the bible might clearly say things like, "yom" or, "day" and we may even have to take that literally, but there are also many convoluted problems with taking it all in the same way. There are big discussions about this. For example the first day had no sun so would 24 hours be relevant to one revolution of the earth? Does Genesis give the science? Does it say that the earth was spinning at it's present rate? Would it even spin at all with no sun?

 
The Bible doesn't literally say Genesis happened in 4,004 BC, but you can deduce the age through genealogies. I'm not familiar with all the nuances that various people deal with to get slightly different numbers, but it basically comes down to genealogies plus a little logic. If I say I am driving to a far away city, and drive for 4 hours, take a 1 hour break, then drive for another 4 hours and reach my destination at 4 pm, although I never literally said my trip started at 7 am, you can still deduce that information with a little logic. With the Bible it is the exact same basic idea.
 
As for yom and the rotation of the Earth, the people who wrote Genesis did not think the Earth rotated or even that the Earth was a sphere/ellipsoid. I see no reason to think the first few days were anything other than what we would call standard 24-hour days, apart from imposing our 21st century understanding of science onto the text itself. The point of Genesis 1 is not to give us an accurate historical account in the sense of a science or history textbook, but to convey more fundamental truths about God, humanity, nature, and the relationship between them. These things were conveyed in a way people from 2,500+ years ago would have understood and connected to the stories told. To shoehorn modern science into the story, or shoehorn Genesis into modern science, is to miss the point altogether.


"Your evidence for a global flood, as best I can tell, is also perfectly consistent with local floods and disasters. Occam's razor would dictate that local events are a much more appealing explanation,"


1000s of "events" all over the globe AT THE SAME TIME is only "more appealing" if you wish to try to discredit what Jesus said and for philosophical reasons.. NOT because it makes more sense Scientifically using logic, reason, and critical thinking skills..

#62 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 19 December 2017 - 09:11 AM

We do know why it’s there.

It’s a consequence of three things:
1. Variation in individual organisms
2. Individual organisms being subjected to different circumstances
3. Inheritance of those variations

saying it is one thing, demonstrating it it is quite another.

i guess you will now pull out the "it takes millions of years".
computer simulations can easily reduce this time span by at least a billion.

#63 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 19 December 2017 - 11:30 AM

 

 

Goku: I cannot comment for Piasan, but my own take is that you often see a line of logical thinking and jump down the rabbit hole, and in the process you get tunnel vision and forget other salient points that when put together is not complimentary to your position.
 
I don't think you are stupid, and I am confident Piasan and the other evolutionists don't think you are stupid either. However, I do believe you are extremely biased and this bias plays a big role in your posts.

 

And I think this is just pandering to what Piasan said. "I Goku vote against mike too." Agreeing with each other as a form of argument isn't clever Goku it means you need to neurotically agree that Mike is P, because you can't prove he is.

 

If you are objective, can't you acknowledge that a reasonable average score on various critical-thinking  and claims tests shows I am good at evaluating claims, and that skill is what is used in debate, not any dependence on bias? After all isn't providing some evidence I am not incompetent, a way of bringing science to bare on the issue? Yet I note that you ignore the results the evidence shows and instead say I am biased? :huh: 

 

 

 

Goku: However, I do believe you are extremely biased and this bias plays a big role in your posts.

 

Well I can see the problem with this line of reason, you jump from "I believe" to " this plays a big role in your posts" but how can your neurosis play a part in my posts if it only exists between your ears?

 

It's like saying, "I believe Goku has shemale tendencies and this plays a part in his non-agressive posts." yes but what if he doesn't have any and it is only a belief?   :acigar: An objective person should know that something happening in your head can't flavour the reality external to you. perhaps next time you should engage brain before opening mouth and inserting foot? ;) :P

 

You haven't proven I am biased by asserting I am. It's begging-the-question if you merely grant that your case is proven. I don't think there is any overt bias in my posts, certainly I would be a poor candidate if we were to ask, "who stands out as being biased." In a recent debate for example on irreducible complexity, I suggested not that what Piasan said was right, that the whole thing has been refuted, and not what the creationists generally argue either, that it is wholly correct, but in fact I argued that it may likely be a bit of both. And in fact you should know going down the rabbit-hole of "logical reasoning" is something that improves personal bias, because you are forced to acknowledge that some arguments are sound or some conclusions follow even if you don't believe that conclusion.

 

Surely you must have read for example, where I conceded in an atheist universe suffering, misery, indifference would all be expected, because where there isn't technically 100% knowledge/proof we cannot dismiss the, "if". So instead of saying like simple creationists would say, "in an atheist universe there would be no universe the universe as we know it wouldn't exist", instead I would say, "no we can't ban the, "if" in the statement, "if the universe is atheist" because we can't technically know if such a universe could exist if atheism was true, therefore we can only allow all possible "if"s, and reason from there, so we can only say, "if we assume this universe IS atheist, then it would follow why children are murdered and God doesn't stop it because he wouldn't be there."

 

Logic has allowed me to see those things, even though they don't favour my beliefs, which is an example of how you can be a rationalist and still remain a Christian creationist. A biased, incompetent person would have stopped at, "no it can't be atheist a tornado in a junkyard". (Disclaimer; those who understand subtle reasoning will notice that I am not claiming that a designed universe would follow if an atheist existence is true, the design in the universe would follow if the universe is designed, I am just saying that technically we don't know 100% so we can't ban a potential hypothesis based on dogmatic assertion. For example, I don't know if somehow the universe could be atheist, even if I do believe there are strong reasons against it.) This is essentially to dismiss my own arguments, which is sometimes called self-effacing behaviour and not something you  get with biased persons who would play it down in their thinking by using justifications, telling themselves things like this, "oh that's just a technicality, what I think is more important".. no but rather it is epistemic humility to instead say, "no but despite me and what I argue, yet logic and what it can accurately reveal, is more important that my strong arguments."

 

You see logic tells me that if someone is murdered then of course it follows that that would be evidence consistent with God not being there because if God is not there, how can God stop it? That's called, "Reductio ad absurdum".  (again, acute reasoning leads to a disclaimer, I am not saying God is not there I am just saying that it is obviously correct logic that if God is not there it follows that He can't stop something from happening because first He must exist. There are other factors too, such as the fact that we may also regard the same type of reasonings for peoples actions and yet they exist but at times can ignore us or have their own reasons for not stopping something. For example if I had a time machine and went back in time to observe jack the ripper, if I had not stopped the crime you might argue that "therefore a time traveller would have stopped the crime", but for example, what if we didn't want to interfere with history? If we stop that one even it might change a whole course of events. Or, perhaps someone did go back in time and stopped Bill the Bludgerer but instead that allowed other crimes to occur, we now call "Jack the ripper" crimes. Then there is the fact that if God does stop a murder we can never know He did because from our perspective an event's absence is the sum total of our experience, we can't go and observe an event that didn't take place such as witnessing the non-murder of Jane. Or I could have had cancerous cells form 42 times in my lifetime and God stopped them every time, how would we ever know?) 

 

:P



#64 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 19 December 2017 - 11:38 AM

Goku I would be happy to take a bias quiz/test. I myself looked for one googling one for some time I never found one. I googled "objectivity quiz" and things like that but I have never found one that only tests if you are more objective than subjective. It would be very interesting at a forum like this to test natural bias and objective thinking.



#65 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 02 January 2018 - 06:09 PM

Sadly, some people actually believe this wildly exaggerated idea which has zero scientific chance of happening.

zero means impossible.
while i agree the chances are pretty slim, i've seen nothing that demonstrates it impossible.

in all honesty i do not believe science will ever recreate life.

#66 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 02 January 2018 - 10:26 PM

Sadly, some people actually believe this wildly exaggerated idea which has zero scientific chance of happening.

zero means impossible.while i agree the chances are pretty slim, i've seen nothing that demonstrates it impossible.in all honesty i do not believe science will ever recreate life.


"i've seen nothing that demonstrates it impossible."

What.. 10 to the power of 340,000,000 not big enough odds against it for you? Remember, there are "Only" 10 to the power of 80 Atoms in the entire "known" universe!! At what point do you thrown in the towell and say it couldn't have happened.. Looks like you are not quite there yet.. Hope springs eternal!!


http://www.earthage....n_by_chance.htm

#67 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 06 January 2018 - 06:54 PM

At what point do you thrown in the towell and say it couldn't have happened.

science has been trying for years, decades, to come up with how life could have arose.
so far, it hasn't come up with a plausible scenario for how it did.

#68 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 07 January 2018 - 07:05 AM

 

 

What If: zero means impossible.
while i agree the chances are pretty slim, i've seen nothing that demonstrates it impossible.

 

One thing taking all those critical thinking tests teaches me is when to spot a device called, "shifting the burden of proof".

 

Example;

 

"You can't prove it impossible an isolated population of apes genetically modified by aliens could have built the pyramids therefore give me a demonstration it is impossible."

 

So the hidden argument is this; "you can't disprove it therefore it is possible", which is a non-sequitur, if we can only not technically prove it impossible because it is only impossible to prove it impossible.

 

Example; "Prove a teapot didn't orbit a moon in a galaxy far away."

 

Now if I can't prove it does that mean we should always hold out the "possibility" that it did? 

 

In other words, when we look at the cell, we can't provably show something that can't happen, because it's absence is the proof. Superman's absence is the proof. Does it really mean anything meaningful if we can't throw every person off a cliff to prove it, because many people have died and we never got to test if they could fly when we thrown them off?

 

In the same way, there is nothing in nature, outside of life, which builds DNA, proteins or kinesin motors. As I have patiently explained before now, that it is possible something like DNA physically can exist doesn't mean it is possible it can be naturally constructed outside of life.

 

I gave an analogy if you remember. Put a device in a bag, with a standard jst female/male plug which has to be plugged in then switched on. As long as nobody exists the device will never be switched on even though it is physically possible to plug it in and switch it on.

 

So then we must delineate between that which is physically possible to be constructed as long as teleology is involved and that which is fully impossible. Equivocation is possible, evolutionists can switch between the two but in reality some things even though they are physically possible, are still impossible to occur without teleological involvement.

 

This is easily provable which is good news since it is what we really need to prove; put a watch in a field, let the battery run out. Now, that watch will never tick again unless someone replaces the battery. It does not matter if it is physically possible for the watch to function, it never will unless there is teleology involved.

 

(I repeat myself but it's for your own good, my lad.) ;)

 

(The experiments so far which show life can't come from non-life as a large induction, support what I am saying. Those who are able to understand my arguments will know that. Those experiments are proving that without teleology, nobody will assemble a protein or a DNA strand because God isn't going to do it meaning it won't happen.)



#69 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 07 January 2018 - 03:32 PM

"i've seen nothing that demonstrates it impossible."

What.. 10 to the power of 340,000,000 not big enough odds against it for you? Remember, there are "Only" 10 to the power of 80 Atoms in the entire "known" universe!!


fyi (bold mine)
 

Scientific ignorance also leads to the abuse of such citations, and you have to carefully pay attention to context. Coppedge, for instance, also cites (on p. 235) Harold J. Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology (p. 99), who reports that (paraphrased by Coppedge) "under 'equilibrium' conditions (the stable state reached after initial reactions have balanced), the probability of such a fluctuation during Earth's history would be...1 chance in 10^339,999,866." In particular, this is "the probability of chance fluctuations that would result in sufficient energy for bond formation" needed to make a living cell. This statistic is laughable not only for its outrageous size, but for the mere absurdity of anyone who would bother to calculate it--but what is notable is that it has nothing to do with the origin of life. For notice the qualification: these are not the odds of the first life forming, but the odds of enough energy being available for any life to grow at all, in an environment which has reached an effective state of thermal equilibrium--a condition which has never existed on Earth. It is obvious that in an equilibrium state, with no solar or geothermal input, it would be impossible for life to gather enough energy to go on. Who needs to calculate the odds against it? Morowitz was demonstrating a fact about the effects of maximized entropy on a chemical system, not the unlikelihood of life originating in a relatively low entropy environment like the early or even current Earth. The fact is that life began in, and has always enjoyed, an active chemical system that is not only far from equilibrium, but receiving steady energy input from the sun and earth. So this statistic has no bearing on the question of the odds of life.

 

https://infidels.org...B.html#Morowitz



#70 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 07 January 2018 - 05:51 PM

So the hidden argument is this; "you can't disprove it therefore it is possible", . . .

yes, that's basically the gist of it.
this also applies to the creationist side, no one has been able to disprove god.
  • Goku likes this

#71 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 January 2018 - 02:29 PM

 

 

What If: yes, that's basically the gist of it.
this also applies to the creationist side, no one has been able to disprove god. 

 

Yes but the comparison has to be equivalent. In the case of life coming from non-life not only is there no evidence it can, all of the evidence and rational arguments support it being reasonably impossible. So to shift the burden of proof in this instance would be to say, "prove life can't come about by abiogenesis."

 

If you are comparing that with the common atheist sophistry that, "there is no evidence for God like there isn't for invisible unicorns and we don't have to disprove the invisible pink unicorn" that argument isn't sound because the expected evidence of a Creator is a creation, and is correctly qualified in many ways. Physicists will tell you maths and it's formulas lead them to a theism, generally, and then obviously we have all of the usual evidence that comes from created things; colour, symmetry, specified complexity, contingency planning, unique ovwerwhelmingly intelligent designs that really can only speak of a miraculous level of wisdom far beyond in many cases, our comprehension.

 

So to say "abiogenesis is all but proven to be false", can't be compared to the false argument that, "God is all but proven to be false". The difference is that the former has all of the evidence against it and the latter has all the evidence for it.



#72 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 15 January 2018 - 02:22 PM

"You can't prove it impossible an isolated population of apes genetically modified by aliens could have built the pyramids therefore give me a demonstration it is impossible."
 
So the hidden argument is this; "you can't disprove it therefore it is possible", which is a non-sequitur, if we can only not technically prove it impossible because it is only impossible to prove it impossible.

You also wouldn't go around saying that you had proven such a thing impossible. What you'd probably do instead is point out that there's no particular evidence that the apes who built the pyramids were genetically engineered by aliens, and therefore no reason to prefer that theory over the one where the apes were one of the regular varieties (i.e. humans).
 

Example; "Prove a teapot didn't orbit a moon in a galaxy far away."
 
Now if I can't prove it does that mean we should always hold out the "possibility" that it did? 

We could, but there's not much reason to. The reason Russell constructed his analogy that way was that a teapot out in deep space doesn't create any observations or interactions that we'd have to explain.
 

In other words, when we look at the cell, we can't provably show something that can't happen, because it's absence is the proof. Superman's absence is the proof. Does it really mean anything meaningful if we can't throw every person off a cliff to prove it, because many people have died and we never got to test if they could fly when we thrown them off?

Similar to the teapot, there are no Superman-shaped observations that need a Superman to explain them. We can't disprove the existence of Superman, but that's fine because there's no particular reason to believe he exists. If you had a bunch of wrecked locomotives with punch marks in them, and a bunch of tall buildings that had clearly been leapt over in a single bound, things would be different.

We do have cells, which calls for an explanation of their existence. It may not be possible to exhaustively check every possible way a cell could have originated and prove them all impossible, which is fine because that's an absurd standard to try to satisfy, but that doesn't mean you get to claim that you've done it anyway.
 

I gave an analogy if you remember. Put a device in a bag, with a standard jst female/male plug which has to be plugged in then switched on. As long as nobody exists the device will never be switched on even though it is physically possible to plug it in and switch it on.

You don't have anywhere near enough information to say never. Maybe some trees grow under the bag in just the right way to wedge the connectors together and hit the switch. Maybe an earthquake shakes it in just the right way.
 

So then we must delineate between that which is physically possible to be constructed as long as teleology is involved and that which is fully impossible. [/i]

There doesn't seem to be any reason to make such a deliniation other than to allow you to continue to insist something has been proven impossible when it hasn't.
 

Equivocation is possible, evolutionists can switch between the two but in reality some things even though they are physically possible, are still impossible to occur without teleological involvement.

There is no such thing. If a thing is physically possible, it is physically possible without teleological involvement, because the only way things that are physically possible can be done with teleological involvement is through physical interaction. Any physical interaction you or I could have with a thing could be replicated by unguided forces under the right circumstances. Obviously a lot of those things are absurdly improbable, but there is a very important difference between absurdly improbable and impossible.

#73 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 15 January 2018 - 02:47 PM

 

 

Popoi: There is no such thing. If a thing is physically possible, it is physically possible without teleological involvement, because the only way things that are physically possible can be done with teleological involvement is through physical interaction. Any physical interaction you or I could have with a thing could be replicated by unguided forces under the right circumstances. Obviously a lot of those things are absurdly improbable, but there is a very important difference between absurdly improbable and impossible. 

 

There is such a thing. If something is physically possible this can be regarded as something called a vacuous statement, in logic, if it still won't happen unless there is teleology. It's meaningless that it is physically possible that the first five verses of Genesis can be engraved in the sand in the sense that, it will only happen if it is done on purpose.

 

That is my point, that there is never any logical reason to entertain something happened just because it is physically possible. Those verses will never be etched in the sand, as long as there is nobody there to do it, even though it is physically possible. What this means is that just because something is physically possible, doesn't mean it is a matter of probability, it is still for all reasonable purposes, impossible without teleology.

 

So it's an exception, technically it is possible, yes, but "if and only if there is teleology". But this does depend on what type of physical interaction is required. If for example, only a human hand can do certain things, even if that thing is physically possible to do, it will only happen if a human hand does it, if it is only do-able with a human hand. 

 

I am not talking about things which are physically possible, which can happen without teleology, but things that clearly require it, like sophisticated intelligent designs.

 

 

 

 Popeye: Any physical interaction you or I could have with a thing could be replicated by unguided forces under the right circumstances

 

Lol. Is that so? Quite a big assertion isn't it? Anything eh? Like the construction of a car? Or the assembling of a 747 jet if a tornado rips through a junkyard? 

 

 

 

 Popoi: Obviously a lot of those things are absurdly improbable, but there is a very important difference between absurdly improbable and impossible

 

No, it's not a matter of the false dichotomy of "it's either intrinsically impossible or exceedingly improbable". That is what I am showing you, that there is demonstrably a third option which is this; "it is physically possible but impossible anyway without teleology"

 

It's clear that some things simply will never happen without teleology. I think it is a very strong argument that even though a cell can exist, it's clear that it would only exist firstly if there was teleology and it's physical existence is testimony of that, in the same way any other sophisticated design is, such as a car. For with both there are no physical reasons for them to exist. That is to say, it is only reasons of teleology, not physics, for an amino acid has no desire to become a protein and even if it did, why then would it become anything more? If a metal and crude car chassis could come from rock given enough worlds, why then would anything else form, such as a car tyre and wheel?

 

 

 

Popoi: There doesn't seem to be any reason to make such a deliniation other than to allow you to continue to insist something has been proven impossible when it hasn't.

 

Strawman fallacy, I am not claiming something impossible but that it is impossible unless there is teleology. It is clearly obvious that it is impossible that verses will be etched in sand, unless there is teleology. That it is physically possible to get etching in sand, isn't enough to render it possible, unless there is teleology

 

So all I am really saying is that some things are clearly only possible because of teleology. Are you going to say, " that isn't true and it doesn't exist that some things only exist because they were done on purpose." Wow - you will go a long way just to deny the obvious if it contradicts your worldview won't you? So you're saying a motor car can still happen without teleology? That because physically it's possible to get a motor car it is improbable to get one without it being made on purpose?

 

I think you lie to yourself, any reasonable person can see that it is simply not a matter of probability, but rather it is only possible if and only if there is teleology involved. 

 

So then this game between "either impossible or possible and therefore a matter of probability" isn't something I can rationally entertain for probability has nothing to do with it because some things only exist because they are made on purpose, probability is falsely invoked as if it depends on numbers. It doesn't, because there isn't any natural process that can shape metal into a car chassis and synthesise various materials. It will only happen if there is teleology involved, otherwise it is safe to say it is as equally impossible as the intrinsically impossible such as a non-square, square or a fully human, non-human.

 

Now something like winning the lottery is truly improbable because it can be shown you just need to match the numbers and this can physically occur as long as you choose numbers from the available numbers for the lottery. But give me one reason to believe there is something that creates cells from scratch, or cars? There aren't any reasons, and the appeal to the supremely improbable as though it is the only other option other than the intrinsically impossible, is a limited choice fallacy. It is provable logically, that there exists things which are physically feasible yet will only exist if there is teleology, such as helicopters and cars. In other words, they are impossible despite being physically feasible, as long as there is no teleological factor in the formula.

 

It's not that hard to get, but you are basically being evasive, IMHO.



#74 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 15 January 2018 - 06:02 PM

That is my point, that there is never any logical reason to entertain something happened just because it is physically possible.

Of course there is. If we’re left with no other explanation for an observation than that something improbable but possible happened, it is appropriate to entertain that idea.

Those verses will never be etched in the sand, as long as there is nobody there to do it, even though it is physically possible. What this means is that just because something is physically possible, doesn't mean it is a matter of probability, it is still for all reasonable purposes, impossible without teleology.

Can you demonstrate that there are no circumstances that could ever produce such writing, apart from an intelligently guided force? Please remember to show your work.
 

So it's an exception, technically it is possible, yes, but "if and only if there is teleology". But this does depend on what type of physical interaction is required. If for example, only a human hand can do certain things, even if that thing is physically possible to do, it will only happen if a human hand does it, if it is only do-able with a human hand. 

Can you demonstrate a thing that a human hand can do that could not possibly occur through any other circumstance? Again, please remember to show your work.
 

Lol. Is that so? Quite a big assertion isn't it?

Not really. Human capabilities are well known, and most of our ability to directly manipulate our environment comes down to pretty straightforward mechanics.

Anything eh? Like the construction of a car? Or the assembling of a 747 jet if a tornado rips through a junkyard? [/font]

Can you demonstrate a part of the process of assembling a car that could not possibly occur through anything but an intelligently guided force? I’m sure I hardly need to remind you at this point, but please remember to show your work.

No, it's not a matter of the false dichotomy of "it's either intrinsically impossible or exceedingly improbable". That is what I am showing you, that there is demonstrably a third option which is this; "it is physically possible but impossible anyway without teleology"

So far you haven’t shown me anything, which is my point. Many of the claims you’re making require an absurd amount of evidence to actually prove. “Life is impossible without intelligent intervention” makes claims about scenarios that you can’t possibly have actual knowledge of, and certainly well beyond what’s actually been tested. “There’s no known process that could have originated life” has the benefit of being supportable. “In my opinion it’s clearly obvious that life couldn’t have been caused naturally” is I think a more accurate summary of your actual position.

So you're saying a motor car can still happen without teleology?

No, I’m saying that you haven’t proven it can’t. It's a subtle distinction, but you're supposed to be the smart one here, right?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users