TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- intelligently designed fish
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: i see that now. how do intelligent design proponents explain this?

Is this reverse psychology or something?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Is this reverse psychology or something?

reverse psychology, in the reverse.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I thought dolphins were mammals?

We are in big trouble.....

quote:

Dolphins Evolve Opposable Thumbs HONOLULU�In an announcement with grave implications for the primacy of the species of man, marine biologists at the Hawaii Oceanographic Institute reported Monday that dolphins, or family Delphinidae, have evolved opposable thumbs on their pectoral fins. One of the evolved dolphins, whose opposable thumbs have struck fear in the hearts of humankind. "I believe I speak for the entire human race when I say, 'Holy fuck,'" said Oceanographic Institute director Dr. James Aoki, noting that the dolphin has a cranial capacity 40 percent greater than that of humans. "That's it for us monkeys." Aoki strongly urged humans, especially those living near the sea, to learn to communicate using a system of clicks and whistles in a frequency range of 4 to 150 kHz. He also encouraged humans to "start practicing their echolocation as soon as possible." Delphinologists have reported more than 7,000 cases of spontaneous opposable-digit manifestation in the past two weeks alone, with "thumbs" observed on the bottle-nosed dolphin, the Atlantic humpback dolphin, and even the rare Ganges River dolphin. "It appears to be species-wide," said dolphin specialist Clifford Brees of the Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal Laboratory, speaking from the shark cage he welded shut around himself late Monday. "And it may be even worse: We haven't exactly been eager to check for thumbs on other marine mammals belonging to the order of cetaceans, such as the killer whale. Oh, Christ, we're really in the soup now." Thus far, all the opposable digits encountered appear to be fully functional, making it possible for dolphins�believed to be capable of faster and more complex cogitation than man�to manipulate objects, fashion tools, and construct rudimentary pulley and lever systems. A primitive axe crafted out of driftwood and shell that is believed to be the handiwork of dolphins. "They really seem to be making up for lost time with this thumb thing," said Dr. Jim Kuczaj, a University of California�San Diego biologist who has studied the seasonal behavior of dolphins for more than 30 years. "Last Friday, a crude seaweed-and-shell abacus washed up on the beach near Hilo, Hawaii. The next day, a far more sophisticated abacus, fashioned from some unknown material and capable of calculating equations involving numbers of up to 16 digits, washed up on the same beach. The day after that, the beach was littered with thousands of what turned out to be coral-silicate and kelp-based biomicrocircuitry." "My God," Kuczaj added. "What are they doing down there?" It is unknown what precipitated the dolphins' sudden development of opposable thumbs. Some dolphin behaviorists believe that the gentle marine mammal, pushed to the brink by humanity's reckless pollution and exploitation of the sea, tapped into some previously unmined mental powers to spontaneously generate a thumb-like appendage. However, given that 95 percent of the world's dolphin experts have committed suicide since learning of the development, the full story may never be known. "You must believe, sleek ocean masters, that many of us homo sapiens weep with shame and disgust over the degradation to which our species has subjected our All-Mother, the Great World-Sea," read the suicide note of Dr. Richard Morse, a Brisbane, Australia, delphinologist and regular contributor to Marine Mammal Science. "Please be decent and kind masters to our poor ape-race. Oh, God, I'm so sorry about the tracking collars." "Scientists once wondered whether dolphins, with their remarkably advanced social and language structures, are actually smarter than we are," said Aoki, ushering reporters out of the laboratory he claimed "will either be a smoking hole or a zoo exhibit in the coming Dolphin Age." "Well, we're not wondering anymore."

yes, yes, where's your god now Moses??

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: i see that now. how do intelligent design proponents explain this?

The same way they explain everything else: "God did it."

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: reverse psychology, in the reverse.

The thing is Heinz is that when you take into account the level of scrutiny and questioning doubt you raise with any and all evolutionary evidence (questions that have all been thoroughly addressed), I can only consider your sole, lackadaisical, joking attempt of a question I have seen of of intelligent design to be rather ... well sad.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The thing is Heinz is that when you take into account the level of scrutiny and questioning doubt you raise with any and all evolutionary evidence (questions that have all been thoroughly addressed), I can only consider your sole, lackadaisical, joking attempt of a question I have seen of of intelligent design to be rather ... well sad.

The things is, i really dont know how intelligent design explains away fish with lungs. I kind of took a break from the 'origin of the earth' debate for a little while. Now I try to be more open and understanding of opposing viewpoints, instead of immediatly rejecting arguements. This is the first thread about this subject that ive been in for months.

in essence, no, im not bullshitting. Give me props for at least try'n

im trying to start here...

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." Socrates

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: I kind of took a break from the 'origin of the earth' debate for a little while. Now I try to be more open and understanding of opposing viewpoints, instead of immediatly rejecting arguements.

If you are sincere here, then I applaud you. It's difficult to abandon beliefs that you are passionate about and if you are serious about being "open" to arguments about the origin of species of life on Earth then I am genuinely impressed.

If you really want to understand evolution, then I'm sure we'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. But first, a few of my own:

1) What do you understand about the "theory of evolution"? What do you think it is exactly? Why is it that you reject it (or, at least, have in the past)?
2) Why do you think it is that there's a unanimous consensus in the scientific community about the veracity of the evolutionary theory? Do you believe that there is any controversy here? Why do you think it is that scientists (and pretty much everyone else with a functional understanding of evolutionary theory) accept this theory for the origin of species above all others?
3) What would it take for you to accept the veracity of the theory of evolution above all others?

I am not religious, but I see no conflict between religious ideals and those of evolution. Hopefully this shift in rhetoric indicates that you're finally prepared to evaluate the theory on its merits rather than against some religious ideal that is at odds with everything we know about life on this planet. I'm interested to see how this plays out.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I am not religious, but I see no conflict between religious ideals and those of evolution.

I wish more people were like that, atheists and theists alike. I forgot which thread it was, but I expressed some idea derivative of my religious beliefs. I don't remember what exactly it was eigther anymore, I think something philosophical or ethical in nature. Some guy went totatly apeshit on me and accused me of all sorts of things, including belief in ID, which had no logical connection to what I said whatsoever. I guess I should add that it's pretty ridiculous to assert a 'scientific theory' based on theological concepts (for a number of reasons I won't get in to right now).

Alot of 'areligious' people are just as presumptuous and ignorant as 'religious' people, and both assert themselves with equal arrogance. It seems like ideologically homogenous groups of people anywhere usually tend to be fairly narrow-minded, judgemental, and impose on anyone that doesn't fully share their ideological perspective, a conclusion I came to quite a while ago. It's a good thing that everyone's not like that though.

I'm digressing here, but I have a question. I was wondering what place morality has in a strictly rational world view? I'm not asking this because I think being athiest implies someone is amoral, but because I've been labelled by some fellow athiest PDDers as "irrational" which they seem to imply is a necessary implication of having religious beliefs. Not only did that come across as condescending, but it's simply false as being "rational" doesn't require strictly deductive reasoning. And it's pretty presumptious to assume that all 'religious' people are brain dead and haven't critically analyzed their beliefs or have any rational or intellectual basis for them (deductive reasoning). It's also intellectualy hypocritical since the implication is that the definition of "rational" is strictly derivative of 'rationalism' (i.e. the criterion of truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive). I see no "rational" basis for morality if you stick strictly to deductive reasoning and reject abductive reasoning, emotion, feeling, and intuition. There aren't any deductively provable morals or moral absolutes that appeal strictly to the intellect, which makes it impossible to deductively construct any system of morality, therefore making morality inherently irrational by that definition of rational. I hope I'm not coming across as highly confrontational or anything, I'm just curious what your take on all this is.

EDIT: I guess I should add that assertions like that come across as even more arrogant and annoying when the virtually know nothing about the religious doctrine in question.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade If you are sincere here, then I applaud you. It's difficult to abandon beliefs that you are passionate about and if you are serious about being "open" to arguments about the origin of species of life on Earth then I am genuinely impressed. If you really want to understand evolution, then I'm sure we'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. But first, a few of my own: 1) What do you understand about the "theory of evolution"? What do you think it is exactly? Why is it that you reject it (or, at least, have in the past)? 2) Why do you think it is that there's a unanimous consensus in the scientific community about the veracity of the evolutionary theory? Do you believe that there is any controversy here? Why do you think it is that scientists (and pretty much everyone else with a functional understanding of evolutionary theory) accept this theory for the origin of species above all others? 3) What would it take for you to accept the veracity of the theory of evolution above all others? I am not religious, but I see no conflict between religious ideals and those of evolution. Hopefully this shift in rhetoric indicates that you're finally prepared to evaluate the theory on its merits rather than against some religious ideal that is at odds with everything we know about life on this planet. I'm interested to see how this plays out.

1) I see the theory of evolution as the change of genes in successive generations, that over time, eventually create new species from existing ones. It is an undirected process by which the process is not guided by some intelligent outside force, but by natural selection. The basis for my rejection of this theory is because of the apparent 'design', and purposeful functions of the laws of physics, and of biological processes. I just can't see how the physical laws of nature could have come about simply by chance. There's too much purpose. From grandiose galaxy clusters to the smallest sub-atomic particles, they all come together in just the right way that allows for the predictable nature of the universe to operate. Therefore, I cannot eliminate the implications of a 'fine-tuned' universe, that would be a higher power. Of course, there is the probability that I am wrong, but the probability that a higher power is the reason behind the universe, I simply can't ignore.

2) First, the widely accepted intellectual authority of science, with the belief that Intelligent Design theory is religion rather than science means that evolution is the only view of the origins of life that can claim the backing of reason. This relegates ID to level of private opinion. Therefore, belief in ID is tantamount to a rejection of reason, which I disagree with. What makes ID scientific is that it attempts to answer the questions such as, 'Why does the universe seems to be fine-tuned?', by using an empirical, scientific method approach as scientists are supposed to do. But when ID and evolution come to debate, the debate isn't (ID evidence vs. evolution evidence). It becomes a controversial arguement over who has the backing of reason. So the evidence isn't even considered, because ID is considered religion.

Secondly, evolution provides an excuse for a non-belief in a higher power, because it assumes that the cosmos is all there is, was, and ever will be. If someone doesn't want to believe in an absolute moral authority, they have evolution as a great excuse to believe so. To say 'this is what drives evolutionists', is stereotypical, I think it may be true for some.

3) If a higher power were to exist, it would transcend time, and space, because it is not bound by the physical laws of nature. If we were to know for a fact that other universes exist, and that somehow the Big Bang could have come about by some interaction of these universes (M-Theory), then I would be forced to look at evolution in a new light. Because physical laws and time stop at 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang, we go into the rhealm of the supernatural, which can't be explained thru' natural means. I come to the belief that all things cannot be explained thru' natural means, and so I cannot ever accept the veracity of the theory of evolution.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I'm digressing here, but I have a question. I was wondering what place morality has in a strictly rational world view?

Not much, in my opinion. I wrote the following in this thread:

quote:

As I see it, there are two fundamental flaws in the most common approaches to constructing a moral system: 1) The notion that "correct" moral beliefs can be deducted via reason (that if we think long and hard enough, the "right" mode of action will be revealed to us) and that modes of action can be thus be evaluated and modified based upon these "higher", rationally formed, more "general" principles of morality (the top-down approach). 2) That morality should be considered as a logically perfect (or at least self-consistent) system and/or that any system of morality that fails this consistency test can be rendered invalid as a result. Mortality, it must be remembered, is not inherently rational or logical in nature. On the first point, contrary to what Kant and the rationalists thought, no amount of contemplation will bring you to an inherently correct moral principle or axiom. This is because, a la the second point, morality is not inherently rational (from a neurological perspective, it originates in different parts of the brain to where we process logical decision making - more closely tied to emotion than rationale) and because it makes no sense to believe that specific actions should be dictated by general, universal axioms and principles. In Eastern philosophy, general moral principles are derived from specific actions ("murder is wrong because we shouldn't kill Billy without any good reason") rather than the other way around in western philosophy ("we shouldn't kill Billy without any good reason because murder is wrong"). As Satre pointed out, there are many circumstances in which no system of morality or general moral principle is going to assist us in our moral quandry. Here he cites the example of a young man torn between fighting for his country and staying home to care for his frail mother. In this situation, as with many others, no Golden Mean, Categorical Imperative or Hedonic Calculus is going to be of any assistance to him. Each man must create his own moral stance for himself, ex nihilo, by committing to a decision in cases like this. By making moral decisions like this, man defines his own morality (and, by extension, himself) and creates for himself a moral system by which to act (from the bottom-up). Although simply expressed here, this subjectivist method of the creation of moral principles and convictions forms the basis of Satrean and most existentialst morality.

That is not to say that reason has no place at all in the development of functional moral systems, but I agree with you that reason alone won't lead you to discover what is right and what is wrong in a moral sense.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: 1) I see the theory of evolution as the change of genes in successive generations, that over time, eventually create new species from existing ones. It is an undirected process by which the process is not guided by some intelligent outside force, but by natural selection.

Yep, good enough.

quote:

The basis for my rejection of this theory is because of the apparent 'design', and purposeful functions of the laws of physics, and of biological processes. I just can't see how the physical laws of nature could have come about simply by chance. There's too much purpose. From grandiose galaxy clusters to the smallest sub-atomic particles, they all come together in just the right way that allows for the predictable nature of the universe to operate. Therefore, I cannot eliminate the implications of a 'fine-tuned' universe, that would be a higher power. Of course, there is the probability that I am wrong, but the probability that a higher power is the reason behind the universe, I simply can't ignore.

You're confusing stability for order. All existent things in the universe - on the scale of the atom right up to the scale of large clusters of galaxies - are stable structures: if they weren't stable than they wouldn't exist. In this sense, all systems - from solar systems, to ecological systems, to molecular systems, to biological systems - tend, in a sense, towards stability. This is not through design or omniscient forethought, but for the simple tautological reason that if these systems did not tend towards stability then they just simply wouldn't exist. If you ever find your credulity stretched about how something seemingly so "ordered" could have arisen without design, think about how it could have arisen though some system - or process - tending towards stability: just about everything, from evolution to the motion of the planets, no longer seems quite so extraordinary if you can conceive of them in these terms.

In any case, even if you were to successfully argue that what we see in the structures of the universe is order rather than stability and purpose rather than inexorable necessity, then I'm not sure why that would lead you to the automatic assumption that there must be a God behind it all. Positing a supernatural being of infinite power and knowledge only poses more questions than it solves: if it is impossible to accept that the rather tenuous stability we see in the universe could have arisen without prior cause, how is it possible to accept the idea that something as stable and 'perfect' as God could have come into existence without prior cause?

quote:

What makes ID scientific is that it attempts to answer the questions such as, 'Why does the universe seems to be fine-tuned?', by using an empirical, scientific method approach as scientists are supposed to do.

That isn't really a scientific question though. If the question can't be phrased in a "what" or "how" format, that's usually a pretty good indication that it has no scientific merit. There is no empirical or scientific way of answering the question you just posed: it demands and presupposes a higher purpose just by the way it's phrased.

If the question was rephrased "How did the laws of the universe come to be the way that they are?" then we can attempt a scientific response. At the moment there is no clear answer, but that is not to say that there will never be. Super-string theory, for instance, posists an explanation for origin of the universe and the reasons behind some of the more seemingly "extraordinary" coincidences of the universe (the fact that all the matter and energy in the universe balances out in such a way so as to ensure that space-time has virtually no positive or negative curvature whatsoever, for instance) without the need for a God. I think once we come to understand the nature of dark-energy (which accounts for some 70% of the energy in the universe), we will be much better placed to answer these questions. But until then the only reasonable response is "we don't know".

quote:

But when ID and evolution come to debate, the debate isn't (ID evidence vs. evolution evidence). It becomes a controversial arguement over who has the backing of reason. So the evidence isn't even considered, because ID is considered religion.

There is no direct evidence to support ID, though. At best, ID is just the placid acceptence of science with arguments from personal incredulity and "God did it" tacked on the end. What direct evidence is there for any of the claims made by ID proponents?

quote:

Secondly, evolution provides an excuse for a non-belief in a higher power, because it assumes that the cosmos is all there is, was, and ever will be. If someone doesn't want to believe in an absolute moral authority, they have evolution as a great excuse to believe so. To say 'this is what drives evolutionists', is stereotypical, I think it may be true for some.

To quote Camus:

quote:

"Everything is permitted" exclaims Ivan Karamazov. [...] [This] is not an outburst of relief or of joy, but rather a bitter acknowledgement of a fact. The certainty of a God giving meaning to life far surpasses in attractiveness the ability to act with impunity. The choice would not be hard to make. But there is no choice, and that is where the bitterness come in. The absurd does not liberate; it binds. It does not authorise all actions. [...] [It] does not recommend crime for this would be childish, but it restores remorse to its futility. Likewise, if all experiences are indifferent, that of duty is as legitimate as any other. One can be virtuous through a whim.

Sartre wrote about the same passage from The Brothers Karamazov:

quote:

The existentialist, on the contrary, finds it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. It is nowhere written that �the good� exists, that one must be honest or must not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men. Dostoevsky once wrote: �If God did not exist, everything would be permitted�; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself. He discovers forthwith, that he is without excuse. For if indeed existence precedes essence, one will never be able to explain one�s action by reference to a given and specific human nature; in other words, there is no determinism � man is free, man is freedom. Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimise our behaviour. Thus we have neither behind us, nor before us in a luminous realm of values, any means of justification or excuse. � We are left alone, without excuse. That is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet is nevertheless at liberty, and from the moment that he is thrown into this world he is responsible for everything he does.

I don't think anyone could find joy or relief in the realisation that there are no absolute morals. People do not become atheists to abandon moral responsiblities - in fact, I'd argue that responsibility is stronger within atheistic world-views, for the simple reason that we recognise that we and we alone are responsible for how we treat each other: there is no God to judge or punish us, so we are left personally responsible for the consequences of our actions.

I have never met anyone who believes that he can act with impunity just because God does not exist. If the only thing stopping you from raping or mudering someone is the idea that there is a God who would not look favourably on such actions, then I am genuinely concerned for you. Whether you like it or not, it is you - not God - that is responsible for your actions and for treating other people with the respect they deserve. The existence of God then, in this regard, is completely irrelevent.

quote:

3) If a higher power were to exist, it would transcend time, and space, because it is not bound by the physical laws of nature. If we were to know for a fact that other universes exist, and that somehow the Big Bang could have come about by some interaction of these universes (M-Theory), then I would be forced to look at evolution in a new light. Because physical laws and time stop at 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang, we go into the rhealm of the supernatural, which can't be explained thru' natural means. I come to the belief that all things cannot be explained thru' natural means, and so I cannot ever accept the veracity of the theory of evolution.

None of this has anything to do with evolution, though. The theory of evolution must necessarily accept that the laws of the universe are as they are and it does not require an explanation for the origin of these laws to be an accurate explanation for the biological processes we observe here and now on Earth. Is there any part of the evolutionary theory specifically that you have issue with, or is your problem solely with the unlikelihood of the physical laws of the universe being as they are?

Also, as an aside, why do you presume that Plank time necessitates a supernatural explanation? All Plank time represents is the point as which all our current systems of physics break-down, which is not the same as saying that what occurred prior to Plank time necessitates an explanation that transcends the physical laws of our universe. As I said earlier, an understanding of dark energy will likely give us an indication of what happened prior to 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang: at the moment, the physical laws that we are familiar with (gravity, electromagnetic forces etc.) are incapable of explaining the conditions that must have existed before this time. This, yet again, does not require a supernatural creator: the explanation is far more likely to be natural in origin, given that we don't have any reason whatsoever to suspect that a supernatural realm exists to begin with.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade You're confusing stability for order. All existent things in the universe - on the scale of the atom right up to the scale of large clusters of galaxies - are stable structures: if they weren't stable than they wouldn't exist. In this sense, all systems - from solar systems, to ecological systems, to molecular systems, to biological systems - tend, in a sense, towards stability. This is not through design or omniscient forethought, but for the simple tautological reason that if these systems did not tend towards stability then they just simply wouldn't exist. If you ever find your credulity stretched about how something seemingly so "ordered" could have arisen without design, think about how it could have arisen though some system - or process - tending towards stability: just about everything, from evolution to the motion of the planets, no longer seems quite so extraordinary if you can conceive of them in these terms.

There is no data whatsoever saying that anything anywhere leans towards either stability nor chaos. As a matter of fact, both terms, "stability" and "entropy", are made-up terms that human beings have applied to systems to explain their erratic behavior.

quote:

In any case, even if you were to successfully argue that what we see in the structures of the universe is order rather than stability and purpose rather than inexorable necessity, then I'm not sure why that would lead you to the automatic assumption that there must be a God behind it all. Positing a supernatural being of infinite power and knowledge only poses more questions than it solves: if it is impossible to accept that the rather tenuous stability we see in the universe could have arisen without prior cause, how is it possible to accept the idea that something as stable and 'perfect' as God could have come into existence without prior cause?

I think you have some wisdom to garner still from life, BUT I will say that you have the foundations of intellect planted.

So please explain to me why you're bothering worrying about monotheists, when you're obviously intelligent enough to realize that your time and energy can be put to better use by ignoring their ludicrous insanity?

I mean, if I took time to worry about every nutball who bows down before statues of executed corpses and their beliefs, I would never get anything done! LOL

quote:

That isn't really a scientific question though. If the question can't be phrased in a "what" or "how" format, that's usually a pretty good indication that it has no scientific merit. There is no empirical or scientific way of answering the question you just posed: it demands and presupposes a higher purpose just by the way it's phrased. If the question was rephrased "How did the laws of the universe come to be the way that they are?" then we can attempt a scientific response. At the moment there is no clear answer, but that is not to say that there will never be. Super-string theory, for instance, posists an explanation for origin of the universe and the reasons behind some of the more seemingly "extraordinary" coincidences of the universe (the fact that all the matter and energy in the universe balances out in such a way so as to ensure that space-time has virtually no positive or negative curvature whatsoever, for instance) without the need for a God. I think once we come to understand the nature of dark-energy (which accounts for some 70% of the energy in the universe), we will be much better placed to answer these questions. But until then the only reasonable response is "we don't know".

Interesting how you use the word "science" as if it an antithesis to all other ways of viewing reality.

Remember, it's all subjective collections of objective data. Science just does it in a fabulously structured way.

Have you ever done an experiment in your life? Do you understand the process of weeding out the unknowns and the possibles in order to derive just one fraction of a piece of data that could be potentially correct?

Science deals almost completely in this. A real scientist questions everything he's been taught, and everything that he knows and does himself.

For example.

Super-String theory is no longer functional; it has been replaced with 11-dimensional M-Brane. A lot like a matrix of universes altering each other by their overlapping wavelike edges. In theory.

You say "the fact that all matter and energy balances out.....".

You do realize that this is not a fact, right? Starting your sentence like that is not wise, especially since there are very few facts and very much conjecture.

You think the universe balances because of positive and negative curvatures? I assume you were trying to say that the universe is probably (as we can tell now by our current tools) essentially flat like a plate. Because I assure you, if you go by einstein's (and all future physicists after this) papers on relative space-time, then there are curvatures, else there will be no more days and nights and no more revolutions of the earth and moon (and sun even).

As for "dark energy", that doesn't really mean anything. I assume you meant dark matter.

Guess what?

There may be entire civilizations of things living all around you that you can't detect with any instrument we have, or with any of our five senses. Crazy, eh?

Keep an open mind, the universe is guaranteed to display two traits: ridiculousness & awesomeness.

quote:

There is no direct evidence to support ID, though. At best, ID is just the placid acceptence of science with arguments from personal incredulity and "God did it" tacked on the end. What direct evidence is there for any of the claims made by ID proponents?

I don't like ID proponents either; they're pushing an agenda that doesn't belong in the world of discovery and innovation.

The word 'intelligence' means nothing. A turtle will never think about the cosmos the way we do. And so too will we not be able to look at the universe in the same way that our future progeny (whether flesh or machine or both) may. Intelligence itself is altogether a subjective and egotistical term.

Is it possible that we are a reflection of the inherent, as-of-yet unknown and unaccounted functions of a very strange universe?

Yes.

I would not call it GOD, nor would I think it mattered. But it's very possible that we are the echoes of a complex series of events taking place in the past that specifically created our potential existence for some purpose (or no purpose).

quote:

To quote Camus: Sartre wrote about the same passage from The Brothers Karamazov: I don't think anyone could find joy or relief in the realisation that there are no absolute morals. People do not become atheists to abandon moral responsiblities - in fact, I'd argue that responsibility is stronger within atheistic world-views, for the simple reason that we recognise that we and we alone are responsible for how we treat each other: there is no God to judge or punish us, so we are left personally responsible for the consequences of our actions. I have never met anyone who believes that he can act with impunity just because God does not exist. If the only thing stopping you from raping or mudering someone is the idea that there is a God who would not look favourably on such actions, then I am genuinely concerned for you. Whether you like it or not, it is you - not God - that is responsible for your actions and for treating other people with the respect they deserve. The existence of God then, in this regard, is completely irrelevent.

Blah blah blah, you want to dance with the bible-thumpers by thumping your own doctrines? Whatever.

quote:

None of this has anything to do with evolution, though. The theory of evolution must necessarily accept that the laws of the universe are as they are and it does not require an explanation for the origin of these laws to be an accurate explanation for the biological processes we observe here and now on Earth. Is there any part of the evolutionary theory specifically that you have issue with, or is your problem solely with the unlikelihood of the physical laws of the universe being as they are?

Correct. One would have to be foolish to be a human living in 2006 who openly judges evolutionary theory based on theology. I don't mind scientists judging it if they have a better theory, or something to add to it.

By the way, there are no "laws of the universe" necessarily.

quote:

Also, as an aside, why do you presume that Plank time necessitates a supernatural explanation? All Plank time represents is the point as which all our current systems of physics break-down, which is not the same as saying that what occurred prior to Plank time necessitates an explanation that transcends the physical laws of our universe. As I said earlier, an understanding of dark energy will likely give us an indication of what happened prior to 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang: at the moment, the physical laws that we are familiar with (gravity, electromagnetic forces etc.) are incapable of explaining the conditions that must have existed before this time. This, yet again, does not require a supernatural creator: the explanation is far more likely to be natural in origin, given that we don't have any reason whatsoever to suspect that a supernatural realm exists to begin with.

This entire paragraph is built upon the conceptions of men.

That's okay; what else can we really know? Nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade You're confusing stability for order. All existent things in the universe - on the scale of the atom right up to the scale of large clusters of galaxies - are stable structures: if they weren't stable than they wouldn't exist. In this sense, all systems - from solar systems, to ecological systems, to molecular systems, to biological systems - tend, in a sense, towards stability. This is not through design or omniscient forethought, but for the simple tautological reason that if these systems did not tend towards stability then they just simply wouldn't exist. If you ever find your credulity stretched about how something seemingly so "ordered" could have arisen without design, think about how it could have arisen though some system - or process - tending towards stability: just about everything, from evolution to the motion of the planets, no longer seems quite so extraordinary if you can conceive of them in these terms.

that is a fucking sensational post. ive tried many times to put that viewpoint forward and struggled with my explanation. cheers!

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby There is no data whatsoever saying that anything anywhere leans towards either stability nor chaos. As a matter of fact, both terms, "stability" and "entropy", are made-up terms that human beings have applied to systems to explain their erratic behavior.

no, thats the same as saying height, width, depth & time are just human constructs which theyre clearly not. the laws of the universe are a type of stability in and of themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no, thats the same as saying height, width, depth & time are just human constructs which theyre clearly not. the laws of the universe are a type of stability in and of themselves.

They are human constructs, actually...

It's your way that you've been taught, and an effective way, to view the world to explain why objects get larger and smaller as they move.

I'm not saying that they're necessarily wrong, because they're not.

But you've adapted to that way of viewing reality. There are actually no dimensions, but that doesn't mean that M-Brane's eleven dimensions don't exist. They exist if we make use of them and can define them, though our constructs will always be breakable since they are not the actual reality around us.

I'd like to see your height, width, and depth in certain areas of space-time; I bet they would curve into all sorts of craziness that we have not yet created constructs for.

I'm still waiting to hear what these "laws of the universe" you keep blathering about are. What are the laws of the universe, hmm?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade You're confusing stability for order. All existent things in the universe - on the scale of the atom right up to the scale of large clusters of galaxies - are stable structures: if they weren't stable than they wouldn't exist. In this sense, all systems - from solar systems, to ecological systems, to molecular systems, to biological systems - tend, in a sense, towards stability. This is not through design or omniscient forethought, but for the simple tautological reason that if these systems did not tend towards stability then they just simply wouldn't exist. If you ever find your credulity stretched about how something seemingly so "ordered" could have arisen without design, think about how it could have arisen though some system - or process - tending towards stability: just about everything, from evolution to the motion of the planets, no longer seems quite so extraordinary if you can conceive of them in these terms.

I mostly agree with what you're saying, but any stable system needs some sense of order for stability to be possible in the first place. I don't see them as completely distinct ideas with no interrelation.

NOTE: I didn't read your entire post, only the section PKC quoted. So my comment isn't in related to the original context. I'm just adding on to what you said.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby They are human constructs, actually...

insofar as we are limited by language to describe anything in existance, then yes, you are right. however all these things exist outside human experience or construction, so as such they are not "human constructs", merely the words to describe them are. why argue about anything if everything can be termed a construct?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I'm still waiting to hear what these "laws of the universe" you keep blathering about are. What are the laws of the universe, hmm?

well, laws concerning gravity or the speed of light etc. again, our understanding of them might be a human construct, but they exist and function whether we understand them or not.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I mostly agree with what you're saying, but any stable system needs some sense of order for stability to be possible in the first place. I don't see them as completely distinct ideas with no interrelation.

but it doesnt necessarily follow that the system of order is created by a deity. is there a reason your "sense of order" doesn't/can't exist in the same way that the stable system exists?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but it doesnt necessarily follow that the system of order is created by a deity. is there a reason your "sense of order" doesn't/can't exist in the same way that the stable system exists?

No, it doesn't. And I didn't say it did. I also don't see how that's evidence for the contrary.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby There is no data whatsoever saying that anything anywhere leans towards either stability nor chaos. As a matter of fact, both terms, "stability" and "entropy", are made-up terms that human beings have applied to systems to explain their erratic behavior.

Of course "stability" and "entropy" are human concepts: all concepts are. That is not to say, though, that these terms are not demonstrably congruous with the world we experience and therefore likely a property of nature rather than the mind. In fact, the definition you inadvertantly offered there - the propensity of a system towards erratic behaviour - is a pretty good means of objectively distinguishing a stable system from an entropic one.

quote:

I think you have some wisdom to garner still from life, BUT I will say that you have the foundations of intellect planted.

I'm not sure when it was that you were annointed as the ultimate arbiter of human wisdom, but thanks I guess.

quote:

Interesting how you use the word "science" as if it an antithesis to all other ways of viewing reality.

I was responding to what TVD said about ID and whether the claims it makes are scientific, not making claims myself about the epistemological validity of science. Nonetheless, I would still argue that the philosophy of science is most certainly an antithesis to all other philosophical systems: name me one epistemology that even approaches the success of science in defining the nature of the world we experience?

quote:

Remember, it's all subjective collections of objective data. Science just does it in a fabulously structured way. Have you ever done an experiment in your life? Do you understand the process of weeding out the unknowns and the possibles in order to derive just one fraction of a piece of data that could be potentially correct? Science deals almost completely in this. A real scientist questions everything he's been taught, and everything that he knows and does himself.

Yes, thanks. I understand how science works.

Incidentally - intentionally or otherwise - you've just offered a pretty good justification as to why science is a superior philosophical system to all others. The concept of introducing doubt and seeking to eliminate it is the closest thing to a solid epistemological foundation we, as human beings, will ever reach.

quote:

Super-String theory is no longer functional; it has been replaced with 11-dimensional M-Brane.

Er, M-Theory is superstring theory.

quote:

You say "the fact that all matter and energy balances out.....". You do realize that this is not a fact, right? Starting your sentence like that is not wise, especially since there are very few facts and very much conjecture.

Okay, I'll bite: what would you say constitutes a "fact"? On what grounds would you argue that this is not a fact?

quote:

You think the universe balances because of positive and negative curvatures? I assume you were trying to say that the universe is probably (as we can tell now by our current tools) essentially flat like a plate. Because I assure you, if you go by einstein's (and all future physicists after this) papers on relative space-time, then there are curvatures, else there will be no more days and nights and no more revolutions of the earth and moon (and sun even).

I think you misunderstood me. The fabric of the space-time is curved by the existence of matter, but only in specific locations. If there was more than a certain "critical density" of matter and energy in the universe as a whole, then all of fabric of space-time would be positively curved. If there was less than this "critical density" of matter and energy in the universe, then the universe would be negatively curved. When we measure the curvature of the space-time, however, we find it to be neither:

quote:

General relativity relates the curvature of space (and of time) to the amount of mass (and energy) in the universe. Space is flat if the density of mass (plus energy divided by c2) is equal to a value known as the critical density. (It's negatively curved if the density is lower, and positively curved if the density is higher.) In an expanding universe like our own, the critical density depends on the expansion rate. The mathematical relations of general relativity reveal that the critical density is proportional to the square of the Hubble constant H0. For the measured value, H0 = 70 km/sec/Mpc, the critical density required for the universe to be perfectly flat turns out to be only 9 x 10-27 kg/meter^3.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu..._9/notes40.html

Space-time is flat because there is just the right amount of matter and energy in the universe to sustain this shape. It would therefore be tempting to suggest that the universe is "fine-tuned" in this reagrd, as TVD put it, but my argument is that there are credible explanations (especially in superstring theory) as to why the universe must take this shape, rather than it merely being a matter of coincidence or divine intervention.

quote:

As for "dark energy", that doesn't really mean anything. I assume you meant dark matter.

No, I meant dark energy - the energy we don't yet understand that is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate at an ever increasing rate:

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

quote:

I would not call it GOD, nor would I think it mattered. But it's very possible that we are the echoes of a complex series of events taking place in the past that specifically created our potential existence for some purpose (or no purpose).

Of course it's "possible": everything is "possible", which is what makes "possible" such a meaningless word. The fact that something is "possible", however, does not mean that it isn't demonstrably "untrue". As such, I can only ask you what it is that you find in the universe that might incline you to believe that the deliberate creation of our existence is "true" rather than merely "possible".

quote:

Blah blah blah, you want to dance with the bible-thumpers by thumping your own doctrines? Whatever.

You're equating the beautifully expounded philosophy of Camus and Sartre with the dogma of Christianity? Whatever.

quote:

By the way, there are no "laws of the universe" necessarily.

Elements within the universe behave within certain observable parameters measurable and predictable to the millionth decimal place. If these are not "laws" then the word has no meaning.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I don't think anyone could find joy or relief in the realisation that there are no absolute morals. People do not become atheists to abandon moral responsiblities - in fact, I'd argue that responsibility is stronger within atheistic world-views, for the simple reason that we recognise that we and we alone are responsible for how we treat each other: there is no God to judge or punish us, so we are left personally responsible for the consequences of our actions. I have never met anyone who believes that he can act with impunity just because God does not exist. If the only thing stopping you from raping or mudering someone is the idea that there is a God who would not look favourably on such actions, then I am genuinely concerned for you. Whether you like it or not, it is you - not God - that is responsible for your actions and for treating other people with the respect they deserve. The existence of God then, in this regard, is completely irrelevent.

I do not know whether or not people become atheists to abandon "moral responsibilities" and I do not know whether they "find joy or relief in the realisation that there are no absolute morals". It is not the point of this post to discuss these things. I want to contend with your statements about "absolute morals" and "God".

You are making these statements, whether you realize it or not, with the assumption that everyone agrees that acting "morally", i.e. not "raping or murdering someone", is the right/better/more beneficial for the individual/constructed society/propagation of genes thing to do. Only then do your statements about "responsibility" and "concern" have any meaning.

If someone does not agree that killing you and raping your wife are a "bad" thing and should be avoided, then you should not be "concerned" about the fact that they are afraid of God's punishment is the only thing that keeps them from doing so. You should thank that existant or non existant God.

For someone who does not believe in "absolute morals" they have no moral responsibilities except that which they make for themselves. To go on about "higher calling" or "greater good" means nothing if there is nothing "higher" or "greater" than humans and what they make up.

"Whether you like it or not, it is you - not God - that is responsible for your actions and for treating other people with the respect they deserve. The existence of God then, in this regard, is completely irrelevent."
Yes you are responsible for your own actions; and God is irrelevant for that. However what "the respect they deserve" means something different for each person and to say otherwise is untrue. Without a "God" or "absolute morals", saying anything else is merely you trying to force your opinion on someone else.

You can go on and on about how your "opinion" or "view" is the best way for humans to "get along" or "progress"; you can spew facts and figures about how history has shown that those who "get along" find the most "success"; you can argue that without agreeing to and following a set of "morals" society will collapse; you can resort to saying the the best way to propogate your genes is to, essentially, have "moral responsibility"; but all you are doing is blowing smoke up your own ass to hide the fact that you can't face the full implications of saying "God is dead".

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I really have a problem evolutionary psychology. I do not whether evolution is true or not nor do I know whether there is a God. I also do not know whether you were trying to argue evolutionary psychology there, but it sure sounded like it.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nonetheless, I would still argue that the philosophy of science is most certainly an antithesis to all other philosophical systems: name me one epistemology that even approaches the success of science in defining the nature of the world we experience?

Maybe this is true; maybe the problem with a lot of scientists (and pseudo-scientists) is that you're standing behind a bulk of knowledge created by others, with no capacity either spiritually or scientifically to unravel this universe for yourself.

quote:

Yes, thanks. I understand how science works.

Maybe; maybe not. We'll see, eh?

quote:

Incidentally - intentionally or otherwise - you've just offered a pretty good justification as to why science is a superior philosophical system to all others. The concept of introducing doubt and seeking to eliminate it is the closest thing to a solid epistemological foundation we, as human beings, will ever reach.

Superior philosophical system?

You missed the point. It's a different beast, just as religion and philosophy are different beasts. They go about different ways of connecting to what is going on in the world around you.

It's your own fault that your mind can't wrap around this concept due to your dependence on the stability of a singular concept (in this case science).

Is it superior system to others in some or many ways? Yes.

Would I ever be so daft and unwise as to say that is it offering justification for itself as a superior system to ALL OTHERS?

No, never. Maybe when I was 15, but not now.

quote:

Er, M-Theory is superstring theory.

Yes; and windows IS ms dos.

quote:

Okay, I'll bite: what would you say constitutes a "fact"? On what grounds would you argue that this is not a fact?

What constitutes circular logic? Sounds like you have a religious faith in something you should be questioning.

quote:

Space-time is flat because there is just the right amount of matter and energy in the universe to sustain this shape. It would therefore be tempting to suggest that the universe is "fine-tuned" in this reagrd, as TVD put it, but my argument is that there are credible explanations (especially in superstring theory) as to why the universe must take this shape, rather than it merely being a matter of coincidence or divine intervention.

You really believe space-time is mostly flat as a whole?!

Maybe it's POSSIBLE, but it's more likely that we simply don't have the proper capacity and the proper tools of measurement to see what is actually there.

Superstring Theory, if you insist, does itself build the fabric of a matrix of universes balancing around and into each other. You can't possibly bring up superstring theory in the same paragraph where you claim that the universe is flat.

Question everything, and maybe one day you'll come up with a unique idea.

quote:

No, I meant dark energy - the energy we don't yet understand that is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate at an ever increasing rate:

Oh, okay!

We don't understand it and yet it's *causing* the accelerating expansion of the universe, eh?

LOL

We don't understand something, that's for sure.

But I think you don't understand something, and that's the nature of energy.

You think you know shit about anything?

Ask any, ANY, physicist what "ENERGY" even is, and you'll get a surprise that will turn your little scientific bubble upside down! LOL

quote:

Of course it's "possible": everything is "possible", which is what makes "possible" such a meaningless word. The fact that something is "possible", however, does not mean that it isn't demonstrably "untrue". As such, I can only ask you what it is that you find in the universe that might incline you to believe that the deliberate creation of our existence is "true" rather than merely "possible".

That's cute... you picked up on the identifier word "possible" instead of picking up on the idea that I was trying to convey to you. I hope you can fix that error in your mind and then re-ask this question in a way that fits the idea I was presenting to you.

If you need me to elaborate for you, then just ask.

quote:

You're equating the beautifully expounded philosophy of Camus and Sartre with the dogma of Christianity? Whatever.

I LOLed at your use of ism jizzum to categorize your reality.

quote:

Elements within the universe behave within certain observable parameters measurable and predictable to the millionth decimal place. If these are not "laws" then the word has no meaning.

Ah... you should try your hand at chemistry then!

You'll absolutely LOVE how your precious elements love to follow rules! /sarcasm

Cheers, be well =)

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ I do not know whether or not people become atheists to abandon "moral responsibilities" and I do not know whether they "find joy or relief in the realisation that there are no absolute morals". It is not the point of this post to discuss these things. I want to contend with your statements about "absolute morals" and "God". You are making these statements, whether you realize it or not, with the assumption that everyone agrees that acting "morally", i.e. not "raping or murdering someone", is the right/better/more beneficial for the individual/constructed society/propagation of genes thing to do. Only then do your statements about "responsibility" and "concern" have any meaning. If someone does not agree that killing you and raping your wife are a "bad" thing and should be avoided, then you should not be "concerned" about the fact that they are afraid of God's punishment is the only thing that keeps them from doing so. You should thank that existant or non existant God. For someone who does not believe in "absolute morals" they have no moral responsibilities except that which they make for themselves. To go on about "higher calling" or "greater good" means nothing if there is nothing "higher" or "greater" than humans and what they make up. "Whether you like it or not, it is you - not God - that is responsible for your actions and for treating other people with the respect they deserve. The existence of God then, in this regard, is completely irrelevent." Yes you are responsible for your own actions; and God is irrelevant for that. However what "the respect they deserve" means something different for each person and to say otherwise is untrue. Without a "God" or "absolute morals", saying anything else is merely you trying to force your opinion on someone else. You can go on and on about how your "opinion" or "view" is the best way for humans to "get along" or "progress"; you can spew facts and figures about how history has shown that those who "get along" find the most "success"; you can argue that without agreeing to and following a set of "morals" society will collapse; you can resort to saying the the best way to propogate your genes is to, essentially, have "moral responsibility"; but all you are doing is blowing smoke up your own ass to hide the fact that you can't face the full implications of saying "God is dead". Sorry to hijack this thread, but I really have a problem evolutionary psychology. I do not whether evolution is true or not nor do I know whether there is a God. I also do not know whether you were trying to argue evolutionary psychology there, but it sure sounded like it.

Actually there is plenty of evidence for morals being an integrated system that has evolved in the human brain. I dont have time to post all the research and arguments because i have a midterm tomorrow and dont have time to locate all the relevant information but ill give you an example. Throughout most of the world deliberate, "unmerited" murder, rape, and other forms of violence are frowned upon. This is even before we had internet in cable, you can pick up a history books and check yourself. Now what valid explanation could you advance for this occurrence? Sure you could say there have always been dieties around the world, but not all dieties around the world "punished" or "condemned" "unmerited", deliberate violence, and yet as a species we shun upon acts like rape and murder. Research suggests that our whole moral system evolved due to the fact that living in organized socities, respecting others in order to be able to benefit from having multiple allies, requires that cheaters be punished, and thus those individuals that where able to punish others wihtout transgressing others are the ones who are still alive today.

let me reply little later!! no time.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Actually there is plenty of evidence for morals being an integrated system that has evolved in the human brain. I dont have time to post all the research and arguments because i have a midterm tomorrow and dont have time to locate all the relevant information but ill give you an example. Throughout most of the world deliberate, "unmerited" murder, rape, and other forms of violence are frowned upon. This is even before we had internet in cable, you can pick up a history books and check yourself. Now what valid explanation could you advance for this occurrence? Sure you could say there have always been dieties around the world, but not all dieties around the world "punished" or "condemned" "unmerited", deliberate violence, and yet as a species we shun upon acts like rape and murder. Research suggests that our whole moral system evolved due to the fact that living in organized socities, respecting others in order to be able to benefit from having multiple allies, requires that cheaters be punished, and thus those individuals that where able to punish others wihtout transgressing others are the ones who are still alive today.

Yeah..

I think that certain people who grow up with the wrong setting are more inclined to perform terrible acts. These people have a weakness usually: they fear authority and reprimand. Why? Because they care most about themselves. Else why would they harm others? It's all selfishness, and governments and laws apply that selfishness to keep people in line and attempt to keep people safe.

Unfortunately, this may have negative effects on people who are NOT inclined to selfishness.

A rational and fair man grows to know that he does to others as he would expect them to do to him.

Why does the quickie-mart clerk let you use the employee bathroom even though it's off-limits?

Because that same clerk is going to be out eventually and he'll be dying to use the toilet.



It's all relative.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN insofar as we are limited by language to describe anything in existance, then yes, you are right. however all these things exist outside human experience or construction, so as such they are not "human constructs", merely the words to describe them are. why argue about anything if everything can be termed a construct? well, laws concerning gravity or the speed of light etc. again, our understanding of them might be a human construct, but they exist and function whether we understand them or not. but it doesnt necessarily follow that the system of order is created by a deity. is there a reason your "sense of order" doesn't/can't exist in the same way that the stable system exists?

Just letting you know that I didn't respond to your post earlier because I basically agree with your response.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Yeah.. I think that certain people who grow up with the wrong setting are more inclined to perform terrible acts. These people have a weakness usually: they fear authority and reprimand. Why? Because they care most about themselves. Else why would they harm others? It's all selfishness, and governments and laws apply that selfishness to keep people in line and attempt to keep people safe.

Character has little to do with how people turn out if they develop in subpar conditions. I have argued this before. Your argument of selfishness and fear of autority apply mostly to people who developed with their basic need met. If you have to think everyday about getting food for yourself you cant really spend much energy on being altruistic and respectful now can you? As far as fearing reprimands go, most people that dont have some sort of social disorder tend to be fearful of reprimands, its the normal human condition. There is always deviations, but then they're not most people, there exactly that deviations, and hence a change in methods is required because they are not "normal" and "normal" methods won't apply.

Edit: Also i bolded that line because it goes with my argument not against it.

quote:

Unfortunately, this may have negative effects on people who are NOT inclined to selfishness. A rational and fair man grows to know that he does to others as he would expect them to do to him. Why does the quickie-mart clerk let you use the employee bathroom even though it's off-limits? Because that same clerk is going to be out eventually and he'll be dying to use the toilet. It's all relative.

I don't get how this realtes to my argument?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.