Jump to content


Photo

A Few Questions For The Atheists


  • Please log in to reply
380 replies to this topic

#341 Shadow

Shadow

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Midlands, England

Posted 14 November 2011 - 08:07 PM

Because we are here, we know we came from somewhere because there is absolutely no evidence of something coming from nothing.


I agree with this, but this is why I do not believe in any religious God, especially not the God depicted in the Bible or Quran which magically creates something from nothing, ala ex nihilo which we know is scientifically impossible. Matter can not be created or destroyed, so why suddenly would it just come into existence? The idea of a beginning of the universe is routed firmly in western thinking. Buddhism and Hinduism accept an eternal universe, biogenesis - life coming from life, life has to always exist, it was not "created". The Genesis story of the Bible is no different than abiogenesis, neither can be demonstrated by science.

#342 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 November 2011 - 07:20 AM

Because we are here, we know we came from somewhere because there is absolutely no evidence of something coming from nothing.


I agree with this, but this is why I do not believe in any religious God, especially not the God depicted in the Bible or Quran which magically creates something from nothing, ala ex nihilo which we know is scientifically impossible.

A couple of major problems you’re having here:

First: If God is who he said He is, creation is NOT a problem for Him.
Second: If God is who he said He is, then God is “not” nothing.
Third: If God is who he said He is, and given the above, God is therefore something/someone.
Fourth: If God is who he said He is, and given the above (that God can create), said creation could not have come from “nothing” because God is someone/something!
Fifth: If God is who he said He is, He can therefore create from anything, and create anything that He considers worthy of creation. Regardless of whether or not we understand the substance from which He creates.
Conclusion: Claiming that something coming from God is analogues to something coming from “nothing” is a fallacious assertion, because God is not “nothing”.

And finally, the above accusation by Shadow DOES NOT comport with the OP, and is nothing more than a time wasting tactic to keep from actually answering the OP questions. But I did entertain it, to provide example of how fallacious said atheistic accusation is.


Matter can not be created or destroyed, so why suddenly would it just come into existence?


If God is who he said He is, and He created matter, then prior to matters existence said Law (that god also created) didn’t exist in this universe, because this universe didn’t exist either!

Further, if God is who he said He is, He created matter; it therefore stands to reason (i.e. is logical) that HE can destroy matter. But we, as mere mortals (His creation) cannot.

Therefore your materialistic argument fails.

The idea of a beginning of the universe is routed firmly in western thinking.


No, that is incorrect. ALL the logical, rational, and empirical scientific evidence adduced that the universe indeed had a beginning. In order for you to postulate your hypothesis against this, YOU need to provide contrary logical, rational, and empirical scientific evidence to the contrary. And, until you’ve done so, your argument is merely philosophical in nature!

Buddhism and Hinduism accept an eternal universe, biogenesis - life coming from life, life has to always exist, it was not "created".


Once again, you are merely providing “philosophical” observations, not logical, rational, and empirical scientific evidence. So, until you’ve done so, your argument remains philosophical in nature!

But, by all means, continue along these lines; it just keeps me in practice for arguing against fallacious argumentation.


The Genesis story of the Bible is no different than abiogenesis, neither can be demonstrated by science.


Once again, the above postulate is nothing more than an unfounded and spurious accusation. I might remind you to see my address to your first statement in this rebuttal.


So, what have we found so far Ladies and gentlemen?

We have found thus far that absolutely no atheist here can answer with empirical evidence the OP questions! At best, they skirt the questions with unfounded accusations, presupposed d ‘a priori’ opinion, and personal biographical information (etc…). But they cannot tackle that hard questions with answers for the foundations of atheism, or empirical evidence for a materialistic origins!

So, what does this leave us with? Is atheism (and materialistic evolution then) just another religion?

So far, the answer leans to the affirmative. What will time tell us from future atheistic postings?

#343 johnsmith1048576

johnsmith1048576

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • California

Posted 25 November 2011 - 04:29 PM

Before I read the rest of this thread, let me share my own succinct reply.

Therefore, we know for a fact, using the empirical scientific method, that we have (and have had) existence. This existence is substantive, and yet there are metaphysical and ethereal aspects to our existence that we use to drive the rational of said existence (Thoughts, the “Laws of Logic”, altruistic Love, the “Laws of Mathematics” etc… to name a few). Because we are here, we know we came from somewhere because there is absolutely no evidence of something coming from nothing.


I agree we exist. You lost me when you started talking about the metaphysical and ethereal aspects of our existence. I strongly disagree with your sentiment and direction when you mentioned talking about a "rational of existence". I exist. You exist. We agree on this. We don't need a rational for this existence, using your sense of the words. For example, to quote one of my favorite physicists, Richard Feynman.

Feynman 'Fun to Imagine' 4: Magnets (and 'Why?' questions...)


In short, all systems of knowledge are axiomatic. My particular axiomatic system of knowledge includes the standard empirical scientific method as an axiom. I have no rational nor justification for it, and thus I have no rational nor justification for our own existence.

Questions: From where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?


What are our origins? As Feynman mentions, it depends on what level do we want to talk about it. Why am I here? Well, I can answer in terms of a history, that my parents had s@x, and had me. Their parents had s@x to give birth to them, and so on. We can trace this back in time about 3-4 billion years to the likely event of abiogensis. We can continue tracing that back to the big bang about 13 billion years ago. There, my knowledge ends. I do not know what was before the big bang, if anything. Currently, it's just one of those aspects about this universe that I'm going to have to accept based on the available empirical scientific evidence, just like I have to accept that magnets can repel each other because that's what the empirical scientific evidence says. I am ignorant of any previous causes, and it does not bother me in the slightest, though I do yearn to learn more by gathering more empirical scientific evidence.

#344 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 November 2011 - 06:18 PM

When a person dies, why cannot the doctors make them live by re-animated their bodies and mind?

You see if dead matter came to life through the theory of abiogenesis, that means that life is not as complicated to make as all evolutionists will claim. When a person dies the dead matter could be fixed and the person would be as good as new. But that is not what we see. Everyday doctors have people who should have died but lived, or should have lived but died. If life were all natural from dead matter, this would be totally explainable. But if there is another force that controls life and death then this would not be explainable. And that is the way that it is, unexplainable.

Every system and organ in the human body is interdependent upon another system or organ to exist and to work. What this means is that only instant creation can explain our existence. Besides, if evolution did this, evolutionists would be able to give us a play by play example of which organs and systems evolved first and which ones evolved last. The reason that there has never been an attempt at this is because it's "impossible" to do. The human body being so interdependent makes it this way.

#345 johnsmith1048576

johnsmith1048576

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • California

Posted 25 November 2011 - 06:31 PM

When a person dies, why cannot the doctors make them live by re-animated their bodies and mind?

You see if dead matter came to life through the theory of abiogenesis, that means that life is not as complicated to make as all evolutionists will claim. When a person dies the dead matter could be fixed and the person would be as good as new. But that is not what we see. Everyday doctors have people who should have died but lived, or should have lived but died. If life were all natural from dead matter, this would be totally explainable. But if there is another force that controls life and death then this would not be explainable. And that is the way that it is, unexplainable.

I think you have an implicit premise that medical science has advanced to the degree that they can re-animate their body and brain. I believe that this is empirically false. Any good medical doctor will tell you that the brain's function is poorly understood, and that we very much lack the ability to take a dead brain and put it back to the "live brain" configuration. One reason that we cannot is that we don't know yet precisely what a "live brain" configuration is. If and when medical science advances to the point that they can, then I fully expect that you will be able to return people from the dead by properly restoring their body's state.

Every system and organ in the human body is interdependent upon another system or organ to exist and to work. What this means is that only instant creation can explain our existence. Besides, if evolution did this, evolutionists would be able to give us a play by play example of which organs and systems evolved first and which ones evolved last. The reason that there has never been an attempt at this is because it's "impossible" to do. The human body being so interdependent makes it this way.

Now this is just a canned attack on evolution. I'm new to the forums, so I'm wondering if it would be best to start a new topic. Unfortunately, this is a rather broad topic, the topic of at least one forum and many posts, so I doubt I'll be able to do it justice here. Instead, let me reply with the other side's canned replies.

You invoked the idea of irreducible complexity. The basic idea is that if there is a system whose parts cannot have come about from a small, incremental modification of simpler precursor parts, then biological evolution by natural selection cannot be true. That is a true statement. The evolutions will disagree that there is a confirmed case of irreducible complexity. Every time one is found, later it is debunked, and an evolutionary pathway has been suggested and confirmed (or at least highly plausible). (Especially for the popular "in the news" cases, such as the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, and so on.)

Second is your assertion that evolutionary science must explain it all in order to be true and accepted. This is a rather high standard, far higher than in any other discipline. Take, for example, quantum theory. Quantum theory doesn't explain why we have time dilation at macroscopic speeds, and thus it's incomplete, but that doesn't make its confirmed predictions any less true. By the same token, evolutionary science is incomplete, but its confirmed predictions are still true, and it's still making new falsifiable non-trivial predictions every day, the hallmark of a good empirical scientific theory.

#346 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 November 2011 - 07:55 PM

I think you have an implicit premise that medical science has advanced to the degree that they can re-animate their body and brain. I believe that this is empirically false. Any good medical doctor will tell you that the brain's function is poorly understood, and that we very much lack the ability to take a dead brain and put it back to the "live brain" configuration. One reason that we cannot is that we don't know yet precisely what a "live brain" configuration is. If and when medical science advances to the point that they can, then I fully expect that you will be able to return people from the dead by properly restoring their body's state.


Did I say that they could do this? Nope. So the rest of what you said is based on an assumption you made.


Now this is just a canned attack on evolution. I'm new to the forums, so I'm wondering if it would be best to start a new topic. Unfortunately, this is a rather broad topic, the topic of at least one forum and many posts, so I doubt I'll be able to do it justice here. Instead, let me reply with the other side's canned replies.


You can start another thread or I can. And why would it be canned? My brain is not inside a can of spam. :lol:

You invoked the idea of irreducible complexity. The basic idea is that if there is a system whose parts cannot have come about from a small, incremental modification of simpler precursor parts, then biological evolution by natural selection cannot be true. That is a true statement. The evolutions will disagree that there is a confirmed case of irreducible complexity. Every time one is found, later it is debunked, and an evolutionary pathway has been suggested and confirmed (or at least highly plausible). (Especially for the popular "in the news" cases, such as the bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, and so on.)


To tell you the truth, I don't know all the slogans of kinds of debates. And I usually come up with my own ideas and don't copy and paste unless it's from my own website. But now since I know what kind of debate irreducible complexity is, I can think of some real complex ones. Ones where if it was not right the first time, offspring dies and next generation goes extinct. And you will find it's not copy paste idea from other creation sites. I do research and figure most stuff out for myself.

Second is your assertion that evolutionary science must explain it all in order to be true and accepted. This is a rather high standard, far higher than in any other discipline. Take, for example, quantum theory. Quantum theory doesn't explain why we have time dilation at macroscopic speeds, and thus it's incomplete, but that doesn't make its confirmed predictions any less true. By the same token, evolutionary science is incomplete, but its confirmed predictions are still true, and it's still making new falsifiable non-trivial predictions every day, the hallmark of a good empirical scientific theory.


Your side does make the claim that evolution is a true proven scientific theory and fact with mountains of empirical evidence, right? If you guys are going to claim the standard, we will hold you to it. It is not we who made up the standard in which evolution has been exalted to. You guys did. Not our problem it cannot hold up to that level of scrutiny.

#347 johnsmith1048576

johnsmith1048576

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • California

Posted 25 November 2011 - 08:05 PM

Your side does make the claim that evolution is a true proven scientific theory and fact with mountains of empirical evidence, right? If you guys are going to claim the standard, we will hold you to it. It is not we who made up the standard in which evolution has been exalted to. You guys did. Not our problem it cannot hold up to that level of scrutiny.

Again, that level of scrutiny I argue is unfair and inapplicable. No other empirical scientific theory is held to that standard. Why should evolution?

#348 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 25 November 2011 - 08:52 PM

Again, that level of scrutiny I argue is unfair and inapplicable. No other empirical scientific theory is held to that standard. Why should evolution?


Lower the status you won't get any complaints from me. But let's be honest. Evolution was raised to such a status not by it's merits but because the evolutionists wanted to do this. I have yet to have anyone here list a viable 1,2,3, criteria evolution had to meet to get the status. The reason a criteria is not set for the status is because then it could be challenged. The reason you guys don;t want it challenged is because then it would actually become falsifiable to a degree that people would turn their backs on it and many would lose their jobs and high ranking status for being a part of it. Papers written, time spent, etc.... Would all become worthless. Evolution is not falsifiable because there is to much at stake concerning it.

#349 johnsmith1048576

johnsmith1048576

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • California

Posted 25 November 2011 - 09:28 PM

Lower the status you won't get any complaints from me. But let's be honest. Evolution was raised to such a status not by it's merits but because the evolutionists wanted to do this. I have yet to have anyone here list a viable 1,2,3, criteria evolution had to meet to get the status. The reason a criteria is not set for the status is because then it could be challenged. The reason you guys don;t want it challenged is because then it would actually become falsifiable to a degree that people would turn their backs on it and many would lose their jobs and high ranking status for being a part of it. Papers written, time spent, etc.... Would all become worthless. Evolution is not falsifiable because there is to much at stake concerning it.

Well the proverbial precambrian rabbit is always a good example. A couple well documented examples of obviously wrongly placed fossils would do well to disprove evolution.

One of the best evidences for evolution is how the tree of taxonomy, a science that predates evolutionary theory completely (or at least Darwin), coincides near exactly with the genetic tree of life. You can compare the DNA distance between two different species, and that genetic distance corresponds to their distance on the taxonomy tree of life. If you start finding some animals for which their place on the taxonomic tree of life doesn't match with the genetic tree, that would do quite well to disprove evolution.

One of my favorite examples of how evolutionary science is a predictive science, and not merely a history, is when we sequenced the genomes of the chimps and humans. According to evolutionary theory, humans share a common ancestor with the great apes. All of the great apes have 48 chromosomes. We have 46. If evolutionary theory is true, then in one of our ancestors had to have one of its pairs of chromosomes fuse with another pair to produce 1 less pair. We've known this for many decades. Just recently, we've sequenced both genomes, and low and behold, we found that fused chromosome. If we didn't find that fused chromosome, that human chromosome which contains two great ape chromosomes, then that would be another good disproof of evolution.

#350 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 November 2011 - 12:09 AM

Hi, johnsmith1048576.


Second is your assertion that evolutionary science must explain it all in order to be true and accepted. This is a rather high standard, far higher than in any other discipline.


Not in any science. Gravity doesn't work in most instances; It operates as predicted in any and all circumstances. When there is no gravity it can be mathematically proven why.

By the same token, evolutionary science is incomplete, but its confirmed predictions are still true, and it's still making new falsifiable non-trivial predictions every day, the hallmark of a good empirical scientific theory.


Evolution makes predictions of it's own that can't be compatible with a competing model. If evolution is more than a scientific idea, then it's mechanism would have been empirically verified instead of inferred.



Well the proverbial precambrian rabbit is always a good example. A couple well documented examples of obviously wrongly placed fossils would do well to disprove evolution.


Got plenty of those Link. But what the scientific community needs is evidence for it - not against it. It's akin to a kids game where they come up with a fairytale and say "Prove it wrong if you can" and then deny that the evidence against it exists.

One of my favorite examples of how evolutionary science is a predictive science, and not merely a history, is when we sequenced the genomes of the chimps and humans. According to evolutionary theory, humans share a common ancestor with the great apes. All of the great apes have 48 chromosomes. We have 46. If evolutionary theory is true, then in one of our ancestors had to have one of its pairs of chromosomes fuse with another pair to produce 1 less pair. We've known this for many decades. Just recently, we've sequenced both genomes, and low and behold, we found that fused chromosome. If we didn't find that fused chromosome, that human chromosome which contains two great ape chromosomes, then that would be another good disproof of evolution.


You are correct that evolution would predict that, but it is an assumption that can be inferred as evidence for any idea. Chromosomes will fuse with or without common descent and the fact that all humans share the same fusion puts a limit on the time when it occurred.

Again, it is entirely possible, quite likely in fact, that our human ancestors underwent a chromosomal fusion event during a population bottleneck in fairly recent history (i.e., within the past several thousand years at most), easily explaining the fusion of chromosome 2. This concept is supported by an article published in a 2003 issue of Nature by Rohde et. al. where the authors make the following argument:

"These analyses suggest that the genealogies of all living humans overlap in remarkable ways in the recent past. In particular, the MRCA [most recent common ancestor] of all present-day humans lived just a few thousand years ago [~3,000] in these models. Moreover, among all individuals living more than just a few thousand years earlier than the MRCA, each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors."
Link


Believe it or not, evolution was already assumed true even before the fusion event was verified; It was just another unanswered mystery to them. But if we make an assumption of a global flood, the fusion event is an empirical measurement of the time it took place and it would be unlikely that the time frame fits the model by chance.


Enjoy.

#351 johnsmith1048576

johnsmith1048576

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • California

Posted 26 November 2011 - 12:47 AM

Not in any science. Gravity doesn't work in most instances; It operates as predicted in any and all circumstances. When there is no gravity it can be mathematically proven why.

False. Quantum theory and general relativity are incompatible, and one makes predictions that are incompatible with the other.

Also, I think you subtly changed the argument. I argued that a good empirical science need not be complete. You argued something else. You argued as if I said that a good empirical science need not be accurate all the time. Those are two very different things. AFAIK, there isn't a smoking gun of empirical evidence against evolution. All observations conform to the model.


Evolution makes predictions of it's own that can't be compatible with a competing model. If evolution is more than a scientific idea, then it's mechanism would have been empirically verified instead of inferred.

Come again? I don't follow. What does it mean for something to be empirically verified vs inferred? I think I have to disagree with your claim. Again, the empirical scientific method as I know it cares only about making models, based on empirical evidence, which offer novel falsifiable predictions, which have withstood honest and robust attempts to falsify them. There is this notion in some communities that it has to be done in a lab, or be replicated, to be considered (empirical) science. This simply isn't true. You simply need a model which accounts for observations.


Now I know you're all quite picky about such claims, so I'll only make it hesitantly until I can find more information to back that up, but off the cuff wasn't that video dismissed as an editing trick? If you wish, I can answer right now. There are mutations which add "letters" to the DNA sequence. After one generation of natural selection, information has been added to the genome of the surviving children.

Got plenty of those Link. But what the scientific community needs is evidence for it - not against it. It's akin to a kids game where they come up with a fairytale and say "Prove it wrong if you can" and then deny that the evidence against it exists.

Do you prefer for me to respond one by one to the evidences in that thread here, or in that thread? Unfortunately, I not an expert in archeology, so some of those I'll be unable to comment on. Suffice to say, I think many of those arguments are weak.

You are correct that evolution would predict that, but it is an assumption that can be inferred as evidence for any idea. Chromosomes will fuse with or without common descent and the fact that all humans share the same fusion puts a limit on the time when it occurred.

I do not understand. How can that be evidence for any possible hypothesis? Suppose the hypothesis was for special creation. How would that piece of evidence support that hypothesis? At best, it would be neutral. Surely we can agree that there are models which are incompatible with the observed fusion of the two chromosomes. I am at a loss how you can say that observation is consistent with all possible models.

Believe it or not, evolution was already assumed true even before the fusion event was verified; It was just another unanswered mystery to them. But if we make an assumption of a global flood, the fusion event is an empirical measurement of the time it took place and it would be unlikely that the time frame fits the model by chance.

Yes, evolution was known true before sequencing the genomes, as I mentioned. However, it's just another falsifiable prediction from the model which has been verified, adding to the mountain of evidence. Now, I am curious, could you expand a bit on this please. How can you predict from the Biblical flood model that sequencing the human and chimp genomes would reveal that a human chromosome pair is the result of a fused chimp chromosome pair (more or less)? I do not follow at all.

#352 johnsmith1048576

johnsmith1048576

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • California

Posted 26 November 2011 - 01:07 AM


Not in any science. Gravity doesn't work in most instances; It operates as predicted in any and all circumstances. When there is no gravity it can be mathematically proven why.


False. Quantum theory and general relativity are incompatible, and one makes predictions that are incompatible with the other.

Also, I think you subtly changed the argument. I argued that a good empirical science need not be complete. You argued something else. You argued as if I said that a good empirical science need not be accurate all the time. Those are two very different things. AFAIK, there isn't a smoking gun of empirical evidence against evolution. All observations conform to the model.


Actually, I need to expand on this. I'm sorry. I just realized this is the naive and incorrect Popper idea of falsification. Unfortunately, properly done empirical science is a bit more nuanced. Allow me to explain with two examples.

When Newton published his Principalia (or soon thereafter, I forget), they measured the orbit of Uranus. It did not conform to the predictions of Newtonian gravity. Does that mean Newtonian gravity is wrong? No. When you're faced with contradicting evidence, your options are to throw out what you have and start over, or make an ad hoc hypothesis. In this case, the ad hoc hypothesis was the existence of another planet. They calculated exactly where another planet would have to be in order to produce the observed orbit of Uranus. Later, they found that planet exactly where predicted. We call this planet Neptune.

To continue, there is also the orbit of Mercury. It's not a perfect ellipse. That contradicts Newtonian gravity. This was known for a long time, and that time a simple ad hoc hypothesis wouldn't work. Instead, it took general relativity to produce a model consistent with observations. However, the interesting part is that Newtonian gravity is a special case of general relativity. Newtonian gravity isn't simply incorrect, unlike Astrology. It's merely an approximation of a more accurate theory, the theory of general relativity. All of the predictions verified under Newtonian gravity are still correct today. It's not like the observation of Mercury's orbit somehow invalidates high school weight and spring physics problems done with Newtonian gravity.

Newtonian gravity was a successful theory. It made many novel falsifiable empirical predictions that were verified. It covered a large range of observations. However, it was both incomplete and incorrect in some cases. Again, contrast this with astrology, which is simply incorrect.

To that end, even if you find one or two minor contradicting evidences against evolution, you still have the whole mountain of evidence to go through. We might need an ad hoc hypothesis, like maybe special creation for the X fossil we found at Y, but when 99.9% plus of all evidence fits something, like it did with Netwonian gravity, you know you're on to something.

To drive this point home, consider general relativity and quantum mechanics. They both can't be right. They make predictions which contradict the other. General relativity works well at the large scale and at large relative speeds. Quantum mechanics works well at the micro level where gravity is usually irrelevant. We know there's another, better, theory out there. If you figure it out you'll probably win a Nobel prize. If we find that theory which makes even better predictions, then the old predictions of quantum mechanics and general relativity will be just as right. The new theory (sometimes dubbed incorrectly "the theory of everything") may not even be complete nor fully accurate itself. It might just be another approximation of reality, more correct than previous theories, but still incorrect in some measurable cases.

So, a simple rabbit in the pre-cambrian, while it would be most interesting, would not be sufficient to disprove evolution. It has too much evidence behind it. I think most scientists would rather accept alien intervention or time travels. However, if you start finding a lot of out of place fossils, or a lot of animals whose place on the genetic tree of life doesn't match their place on the taxonomy tree of life, then they'll reconsider. This, of course, appears to be highly unlikely.

To put it another way, very often in science a confirmed theory is never "proven wrong". Just something better comes along. Even alchemy, while laughed at today, still managed some correct models of how chemistry works (depending on exactly what one wants to call alchemy).

Oh, and finally, (I think many of you have heard this before, but it bears repeating): disproving evolution is insufficient to prove special creation. There are a multitude of possible hypotheses out there, including alien seeders, us living in The Matrix, or the all father Odin creating all life instead of the Christian God.

#353 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 November 2011 - 01:51 AM

False. Quantum theory and general relativity are incompatible, and one makes predictions that are incompatible with the other.


Then logically one is either wrong or both are correct and the assumptions of one is wrong.

I'll take relativity any day.

Also, I think you subtly changed the argument. I argued that a good empirical science need not be complete.


I argued that any science is empirical. The fact the ToE isn't complete proves it's not empirical.

Come again? I don't follow. What does it mean for something to be empirically verified vs inferred?


An inference is an idea that hasn't been observed.(i.e. circular reasoning)

I think I have to disagree with your claim. Again, the empirical scientific method as I know it cares only about making models, based on empirical evidence, which offer novel falsifiable predictions, which have withstood honest and robust attempts to falsify them. There is this notion in some communities that it has to be done in a lab, or be replicated, to be considered (empirical) science. This simply isn't true. You simply need a model which accounts for observations.


Yes. Watching millions of species adapt before our very eyes is a huge biological data base that firmly establishes variation by very specific genetic or even epigenetic mechanisms. The observed examples (millions of them) do not fit the model of common descent.

Now I know you're all quite picky about such claims, so I'll only make it hesitantly until I can find more information to back that up, but off the cuff wasn't that video dismissed as an editing trick? If you wish, I can answer right now. There are mutations which add "letters" to the DNA sequence. After one generation of natural selection, information has been added to the genome of the surviving children.


I seriously doubt if it's faked because I read a blog where Dawkins said he was taken by surprise. Either way, none of you can answer it.

Posted Image

In what way do copying errors (single nucleotide polymorphism) do anything beneficial? Genetic entropy isn't an example of genetic novelty that I'm aware of. I can make copying errors all day but it will never increase the quality or the information of the original copy.

The prestin gene in bats and dolphins is used for echolocation. Common descent predicts that this ability evolved through genetic mutations, but no such example has ever been observed.

"The various postduplication mechanisms entailing random mutations and recombinations considered were observed to tweak, tinker, copy, cut, divide, and shuffle existing genetic information around,but fell short of generating genuinely distinct and entirely novel functionality. Contrary to Darwin’s view of the plasticity of biological features, successive modification and selection in genes does indeed appear to have real and inherent limits: it can serve to alter the sequence, size, and function of a gene to an extent, but this almost always amounts to a variation on the same theme—as with RNASE1B in colobine monkeys. The conservation of all-important motifs within gene families, such as the homeobox or the MADS-box motif, attests to the fact that gene duplication results i n the copying and preservation of biological information, and not its transformation as something original."

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=66600

I do not understand. How can that be evidence for any possible hypothesis? Suppose the hypothesis was for special creation. How would that piece of evidence support that hypothesis? At best, it would be neutral. Surely we can agree that there are models which are incompatible with the observed fusion of the two chromosomes. I am at a loss how you can say that observation is consistent with all possible models.


It's a fact that fusion occurs. If you believe that it's from common descent, then they are yet to demonstrate common descent. If it contained the same genetic information it would still only be an unverified hypothesis. A fused human chromosome is a far cry from an observed example of human chromosomes originating from chimps. And as stated earlier, a fusion is a step towards genetic entropy and is only leading to more genetic disorders, creation would predict that.

Yes, evolution was known true before sequencing the genomes, as I mentioned. However, it's just another falsifiable prediction from the model which has been verified, adding to the mountain of evidence. Now, I am curious, could you expand a bit on this please. How can you predict from the Biblical flood model that sequencing the human and chimp genomes would reveal that a human chromosome pair is the result of a fused chimp chromosome pair (more or less)? I do not follow at all.


I never said humans share a common ancestor with chimps. There are some empirical facts here "Humans underwent a fusion event". There is also one other fact "All humans share it". Meaning, it puts our human MRCA around the time the flood model predicts it. If it's meant to infer common descent, then that is pure speculation.



Enjoy.

#354 johnsmith1048576

johnsmith1048576

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • California

Posted 26 November 2011 - 02:07 AM

Then logically one is either wrong or both are correct and the assumptions of one is wrong.

I'll take relativity anyday.

That's interesting, considering that quantum theory has the single prediction in all of the empirical sciences which was verified to the highest degree of precision of any prediction of any human empirical science, ever.

Yes. Watching millions of species adapt before our very eyes is a huge biological data base that firmly establishes variation by very specific genetic or even epigenetic mechanisms. The observed examples (millions of them) do not fit the model of common descent.

I'm sorry. I'll try to keep an open mind. Do you know where I can find sourced data or primary data on this?



In what way do copying errors (single nucleotide polymorphism) do anything beneficial? Genetic entropy isn't an example of genetic novelty that I'm aware of. I can make copying errors all day but it will never increase the quality or the information of the original copy.

You are correct that copying errors do not add information. You ignored the part where I said "and after a single generation of natural selection" which is the key idea of evolution. I am unsure if this omission was purposeful or not, as you seem to be educated on the topic. I ask for intellectual honesty. You should know that the argument is natural selection, survival of those genes which create successful individuals, is how information is added, with random mutation. You need both.

"The various postduplication mechanisms entailing random mutations and recombinations considered were observed to tweak, tinker, copy, cut, divide, and shuffle existing genetic information around,but fell short of generating genuinely distinct and entirely novel functionality. Contrary to Darwin’s view of the plasticity of biological features, successive modification and selection in genes does indeed appear to have real and inherent limits: it can serve to alter the sequence, size, and function of a gene to an extent, but this almost always amounts to a variation on the same theme—as with RNASE1B in colobine monkeys. The conservation of all-important motifs within gene families, such as the homeobox or the MADS-box motif, attests to the fact that gene duplication results i n the copying and preservation of biological information, and not its transformation as something original."

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=66600


Are you familiar with the E. Coli long term experiment at Michigan State?
http://en.wikipedia....tion_experiment

Unfortunately, you appear to have more knowledge of genetics than I, so I am unable to rebut your argument directly. I am curious if you consider the creation of an entirely new enzyme to digest an entirely new nutrient to be sufficient to "add information".

Now, as you're defining it now, you're doing a No True Scotsman. In the strict sense of the information theory terms, random mutation + natural selection /will/ add information. This is indisputable. I believe we all agree to so called "small scale" evolution. So instead, you're trying to define "adding new information" to be "adding new information that would be responsible for bridging Biblical kinds".

It's a fact that fusion occurs. If you believe that it's from common descent, then they are yet to demonstrate common descent. If it contained the same genetic information it would still only be an unverified hypothesis. A fused human chromosome is a far cry from an observed example of human chromosomes originating from chimps. And as stated earlier, a fusion is a step towards genetic entropy and is only leading to more genetic disorders, creation would predict that.

I never said humans share a common ancestor with chimps. There are some empirical facts here "Humans underwent a fusion event". There is also one other fact "All humans share it". Meaning, it puts our human MRCA around the time the flood model predicts it. If it's meant to infer common descent, then that is pure speculation.

Ah, I see, talking about an unrelated discussion. I fail to understand your position though. From the model of common ancestry, and from the observation that chimps have 48 chromosomes, and from the observations that humans have 46 chromosomes, they made a novel falsifiable prediction, that one of the 23 pairs of human genomes should contain almost the same DNA as two chimp chromosome pairs. This novel falsifiable prediction was later tested, and confirmed. This is supporting evidence of common descent. In other words, this demonstrates common descent. At least, when you accumulate enough evidence of this kind, then it is rigorously demonstrated. I'm not sure what kind of game you're playing, trying to dismiss this evidence as not evidence which is in favor of common descent.

#355 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 26 November 2011 - 02:45 AM

Well the proverbial precambrian rabbit is always a good example. A couple well documented examples of obviously wrongly placed fossils would do well to disprove evolution.


How about missing fossils? http://www.evolution...?showtopic=4732

Every living fossil (30 known) prove wrong that the fossil was laid down by time.

One of the best evidences for evolution is how the tree of taxonomy, a science that predates evolutionary theory completely (or at least Darwin), coincides near exactly with the genetic tree of life. You can compare the DNA distance between two different species, and that genetic distance corresponds to their distance on the taxonomy tree of life. If you start finding some animals for which their place on the taxonomic tree of life doesn't match with the genetic tree, that would do quite well to disprove evolution.


Tree of taxomy:
Posted Image

Phylogenetic tree of life:

Posted Image

This is basically the same thing as claiming that Micro and Macro evolution are exactly the same thing.

One of my favorite examples of how evolutionary science is a predictive science, and not merely a history, is when we sequenced the genomes of the chimps and humans. According to evolutionary theory, humans share a common ancestor with the great apes. All of the great apes have 48 chromosomes. We have 46. If evolutionary theory is true, then in one of our ancestors had to have one of its pairs of chromosomes fuse with another pair to produce 1 less pair. We've known this for many decades. Just recently, we've sequenced both genomes, and low and behold, we found that fused chromosome. If we didn't find that fused chromosome, that human chromosome which contains two great ape chromosomes, then that would be another good disproof of evolution.


This is based on the assumption that that our chromosomes were ever apart in the first place. You see this is what I call conformism. Since they have 48 and we have 46 it means that upon finding the fused one that we are related. Well let's reverse the scenario. Let's say they had 46 and we had 48. And a fused chromosome was found in them. What would the evolutionist claim? The great apes chromosome unfused itself and we were the result. You bet they would.

So regardless of which way it would have gone, evolutionists would have made it sound like it supported evolution only. that's not science, that's conformism. How does it work in more detail?

A evolutionist finds evidence, he believes in evolution so he tries to make the "interpretation" sound like it does support evolution. So whether the apes had the fused chromosome, or we do, it will always be interpreted to conform to evolution.

Interpretation #1. This is the original one. They have 48, we have 46. And we found the fused one in us so that means we are related.

Interpretation #2. We have 48, they have 46. We have found the fused chromosome in them which proves we are related.

Conformism is not science.

Conformist: A person who uncritically or habitually conforms to the customs, rules, or styles of a group.
Conformism: the act or practice of conforming, as to social convention, religious orthodoxy, or established political belief,
Conform: to act in accordance or harmony; comply (usually followed by to ): to conform to rules.

Conformism means there are no checks and balances, and evolution is no longer falsifiable. Everything found conforms to one idea that the group accepts or it's rejected. Just like the person who belongs to that group has to conform to their ideas and beliefs or they are rejected. To conform is to comply. There is no free thinking in such a group.

#356 johnsmith1048576

johnsmith1048576

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • California

Posted 26 November 2011 - 03:11 AM

How about missing fossils? http://www.evolution...?showtopic=4732

Every living fossil (30 known) prove wrong that the fossil was laid down by time.

From the other thread, you said "1) In the fossil record, not one fossil found is repeated in another layer. In other words you find a certain type of fish in one layer, you won't find that same type of fish in another layer.". I don't believe this is true. IIRC, haven't shark fossils changed very little over many geology layers?

Also, this is basically begging the question. You assume that you cannot find the same fossil across layers, which is more or less the conclusion. Also, I see no reason why this claim should be true from the model of evolution.

Tree of taxomy:
Posted Image

Phylogenetic tree of life:

Posted Image

This is basically the same thing as claiming that Micro and Macro evolution are exactly the same thing.

Maybe... The model of common ancestry has novel falsifiable predictions. Every time we find a new species, we can plot its position on the taxonomy tree, and plot its position on the genetic tree. Every time we have made this observation for a new species, it fits exactly as predicted according to the model of common ancestry.

If you want, I guess one can say that the model of evolution and common ancestry says that micro and macro are interchangeable. (Again, I apologize for my ignorance of genetics, but I think that's a fair statement for this context. Perhaps there are important differences for other discussions, but not for such a high level discussion of common ancestry.)

Had we found a finch that had a radically different genome, or some other animal whose place on the two trees was radically different, then that would be bad for evolution.

This is based on the assumption that that our chromosomes were ever apart in the first place. You see this is what I call conformism. Since they have 48 and we have 46 it means that upon finding the fused one that we are related. Well let's reverse the scenario. Let's say they had 46 and we had 48. And a fused chromosome was found in them. What would the evolutionist claim? The great apes chromosome unfused itself and we were the result. You bet they would.

So regardless of which way it would have gone, evolutionists would have made it sound like it supported evolution only. that's not science, that's conformism. How does it work in more detail?

Indeed yes the evolutionists would claim that with your reversal of 46 and 48. That would be the sensible prediction from their models. I think you are very confused though. Take a step back please, and work with me.

Evolution has common ancestry. Evolution works through slow mutation of DNA. The model is that chimps and humans share a common ancestor, and because the evolution model has slow rates of change of DNA, the model predictions that human and chimp DNA should be about the same. It's the argument above about the taxonomy and genetic trees being the same.

So, an evolutionist looks at the human and chimp genomes. He sees 23 pairs, and 24. We know that the three great ape species, of which are supposed to be common ancestors with the human, all have 24 pairs. Thus, the likely answer in the model of evolution is that after our common ancestor, past the split between human and chimp, the human line had two pairs fuse into one. Again, please notice that this is a prediction from a model.

So, this is a prediction made from the model of evolution and common ancestry. It was made long before both genomes were sequenced. It was quite possible from the perspective of the person first looking at the two sequenced genomes that the prediction was wrong. That is the defining characteristic of falsifiability. It's quite possible that looking at all 23 pairs of human chromosomes, and all 24 chimp pairs, that there was no matching of pairs such that 1 human pair looked like a fusion of 2 chimp pairs.

Thus, you are simply wrong when you say that any result would be spun by the evolutionists to support evolution. Had they shown that all human pairs could not possibly be mistaken for fused chimp pairs, then that would be a /very/ bad blow for human and chimp common ancestry.

To be very clear, as a matter of facts, they actually have the entire genomes sequenced. That means there is a computer hard drive out there somewhere with sequence of letters of A C G T for every single nucleic base of the entire DNA of an individual. With the crazy fast computers, they then looked for a pair of human chromosomes whose bases were a near match for the bases of two chimp pairs. With those crazy fast computers, they found that match.

#357 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 November 2011 - 08:01 AM

Before I read the rest of this thread, let me share my own succinct reply.


No, actually you should have read the OP (the first post in the thread)before replying to any post in this thread. As, your reply (as per the OP, was neither siccinct, nor was it within the parameters of the OP.

I might suggest that you re-read the OP prior to posting any further replies in this thread.

#358 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 November 2011 - 10:24 AM

Before I read the rest of this thread, let me share my own succinct reply.

Therefore, we know for a fact, using the empirical scientific method, that we have (and have had) existence. This existence is substantive, and yet there are metaphysical and ethereal aspects to our existence that we use to drive the rational of said existence (Thoughts, the “Laws of Logic”, altruistic Love, the “Laws of Mathematics” etc… to name a few). Because we are here, we know we came from somewhere because there is absolutely no evidence of something coming from nothing.


I agree we exist. You lost me when you started talking about the metaphysical and ethereal aspects of our existence.


Indeed (B is) AND (B is B ), but, quite simply John, please explain “Empirically” the metaphysical(ness) of our existence! Did you not read the OP?

I strongly disagree with your sentiment and direction when you mentioned talking about a "rational of existence".

That you disagree, affects the OP not one whit until you meet the OP’s requirement of empirical evidence, or acceptance of your faith-statements.

I exist. You exist. We agree on this. We don't need a rational for this existence, using your sense of the words. For example, to quote one of my favorite physicists, Richard Feynman.

Yes, we indeed “need a rationale for this existence” because our mere existence begs the question of our existence! Now, if we didn’t think (a metaphysical reality), rationalize (a metaphysical reality), emote (a metaphysical reality) etc… then you would be correct. But we do! Therefore you are incorrect!

Feynman 'Fun to Imagine' 4: Magnets (and 'Why?' questions...)


Richard Feynman’s opining’s mean absolutely nothing in this OP, as they don’t meet the parameter of the OP. Therefore, Richard Feynman’s opining’s are moot.

In short, all systems of knowledge are axiomatic. My particular axiomatic system of knowledge includes the standard empirical scientific method as an axiom. I have no rational nor justification for it, and thus I have no rational nor justification for our own existence.

Exactly, therefore the materialistic atheist is living full-on in a ‘theistic’ world-view, based upon their faith-statements, because they cannot even explain the metaphysical nature of their axiomatic “rules” of knowledge! It’s not as if we “made up” or “created” these “laws of Logic”, or “laws of mathematics” (etc…) like we make up the rules of baseball and such. They’re “Self-Evident”, not “man-made”, they were DISCOVERED!

So when the materialistic atheist says “all systems of knowledge are axiomatic”, they are basically conceding to the metaphysical. But then the materialistic atheist further says “there is no non-materialistic Causer”, while at the same time saying “I am ignorant of any previous causes” they are denying the fact that there may well be a non-materialistic causer, and that they are living by faith that they may well be wrong. And further, they are no longer “A”theistic by definition, but rather Agnostic (no knowledge).

Questions: From where did we come (what are our Origins)? What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?


What are our origins?

Yes, what are the materialistic atheist’s empirical evidence for a Materialistic origin to the universe!


As Feynman mentions, it depends on what level do we want to talk about it.

Nope, as we already pointed out; Feynman opines only, and provides absolutely NO empirical scientific evidence what-so-ever for our origins. Therefore (as I pointed out) Feynman is moot!

Why am I here? Well, I can answer in terms of a history, that my parents had s@x, and had me. Their parents had s@x to give birth to them, and so on.

AS you already know, the above has no bearing on our origins within the context of “Beginnings”, it just explains lineage. Lineage is dependent upon origins, not the other way ‘round.

We can trace this back in time about 3-4 billion years to the likely event of abiogensis.


Really? You can trace your lineage back “3-4 billion years”? Wow, I’d like to see that! And I’m not just being facetious here! You’d be making scientific history if you could do such!!! I can only trace my lineage to the 1600’s , and I thought I was doing good at that!!!

Anyway, as the OP insists, you need to provide empirical evidence, not the mere presupposition of your above assertion. There is nothing “likely” about abiogenesis, as it is totally bereft of any empirical scientific evidence; as is “3-4 billion years” of humanity.




We can continue tracing that back to the big bang about 13 billion years ago.

Nope, at best, you can empirically provide for an “initiation” for the universe. Other than that, ypou are merely speculating.

There, my knowledge ends.

You “materialistic based” knowledge ended long before that (as I pointed out).

I do not know what was before the big bang, if anything. Currently, it's just one of those aspects about this universe that I'm going to have to accept based on the available empirical scientific evidence, just like I have to accept that magnets can repel each other because that's what the empirical scientific evidence says.

Incorrect… You can provide empirical evidence here-and-now that “that magnets can repel each other”, but the only empirical assertion you can make about the universe, is that it had a beginning. Other than the fact that, ALL the empirical evidence adduces provides that “if we had a beginning, we had a beginner!” (Non-B > B )

I am ignorant of any previous causes, and it does not bother me in the slightest, though I do yearn to learn more by gathering more empirical scientific evidence.


But the problem you have is two-fold:

Empirical evidence “IS NOT” all there is.
Ignoring such further proves that you (a confessed “A”theist) lives your life by a greater faith than I do.

#359 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 November 2011 - 11:49 AM

Yes. Watching millions of species adapt before our very eyes is a huge biological data base that firmly establishes variation by very specific genetic or even epigenetic mechanisms. The observed examples (millions of them) do not fit the model of common descent.

I'm sorry. I'll try to keep an open mind. Do you know where I can find sourced data or primary data on this?


pleiotropy is a genetic process that involves the interworking of gene groups. A biological system is dependent upon all genes working together. If a specific trait is selected for, then it has an effect on the rest of the genes.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3874&view=findpost&p=64646

Epigenetic adaptations are a result of our environments effect on gene expression. Here variation can be seen even between identical twins that live in different environmental conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics



In what way do copying errors (single nucleotide polymorphism) do anything beneficial? Genetic entropy isn't an example of genetic novelty that I'm aware of. I can make copying errors all day but it will never increase the quality or the information of the original copy.

You are correct that copying errors do not add information. You ignored the part where I said "and after a single generation of natural selection" which is the key idea of evolution. I am unsure if this omission was purposeful or not, as you seem to be educated on the topic. I ask for intellectual honesty. You should know that the argument is natural selection, survival of those genes which create successful individuals, is how information is added, with random mutation. You need both.


NS does not select a single mutation; It can only select individuals. In which case I asked "How can an SNP in a chicken create novel information." Quite frankly, it can't do anything because a single copying error isn't being selected for. There is an estimated 100 mutations occurring per embryo. NS can't reduced this effect known as Muller's Ratchet because NS does not select mutations but individuals.

Posted Image

Mendelian Inheritance in Man,
Reported Genetic Disorders 1966 to 1999. The number
of medically reported genetic disorders in 1966 was
1,487. The number reported by 1999 was 11,099. A
curve of best fit has an R2 of 0.995. These data are evidence
of devolution.


It is estimated that it would take 300 generations for a beneficial mutation to reach fixation in a population. A single generation couldn't accomplish anything and has never been observed to create anything novel nor has any amount of generations for that matter.

Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila

Signatures of selection are qualitatively different than what has been observed in asexual species; in our S@xual populations, adaptation is not associated with ‘classic’ sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed. More parsimonious explanations include ‘incomplete’ sweep models, in which mutations have not had enough time to fix, and ‘soft’ sweep models, in which selection acts on pre-existing, common genetic variants. We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.Link



Are you familiar with the E. Coli long term experiment at Michigan State?


Yes. These bacteria can already metabolize citrate in the absence of oxygen. In other words, the genetic information was already present; The enzymes are produced by the genes - not the other way around.


Enjoy.

#360 houseofcantor

houseofcantor

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Phoenix, AZ

Posted 26 November 2011 - 02:00 PM

As a naive philosopher, I can only validate one temporal coordinate through induction - now. This; these words, this post, is the entirety of the extant John Cantor. This identity, here, is effect; where the cause is question. Ask me to recite this post in a month to see if I'm still this identity; an occurrence I consider to be not possible. This post will conclude, the chains of its causality will break; the links perhaps to be added to a consideration of potential response or discarded in their entirety.

In no wise do I consider myself anything more than the reinforced pattern of identity built from chains of causality. Two bucks worth of chemicals. Geometry over entropy. Capital A, this atheist. :D

Therefore to be dogmatic would be as follows. The first cause was entropy, the first effect was geometry; and it's been clockwork ever since. But I got a surprise for ya. I'm not dogmatic. The original cause, was Love.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users