What started as an answer to an Atheist regarding the debunking of “evolution as Truth”, has exploded into a full blown article on “What Qualifies As Knowledge?” (working title only). I currently have it only a quarter done, but I promised it out too soon and the massive expansion from a single point (wait; that was the Big Bang)… ok the increase in density (no wait that’s looking backward into the Big Bang)….
It’s just taking longer than I thought. Here’s a contingent outline that might not apply at all:
What Can Be Known
Introduction
A. The use and misuse of Logic in Pursuit of Ideology
B. The Rational Necessity of Supporting One’s Worldview
C. Inability to Support One’s Worldview
D. Evidential Theory, primary.
Part I Induction As Knowledge
A. Empiricism as disciplined induction (w/deductive subcomponents)
B. Hypotheses vs Knowledge
C. Limits
D. Dependencies
E. Application to Evolution Arguments (and Atheism/Materialism)
Part II Deduction As Knowledge
A. Logic, a summaryPart III Evidentiary Theory
B. Mathematics, an overview
C. Necessary Precursors to Empiricism
D. Deduction
(1) Deductive FormattingE. Applicability to Evolution Arguments (and Atheism/Materialism)
(2) Grounding
(3) Reductio Ad Absurdum
(4) Probability
A Types and Quality of EvidencePart IV What Qualifies As Knowledge?
(a) Physical(B) Evidence As Truth
(b) Inductive
(c) Deductive
(d) Historical/
(a) Kinds of Truth
(b) Incorrigibility
A. Subjectivity As Defeater Of Objectivity.Part V. Is Evolution Knowledge?
B. Is Materialism Knowledge?
C. Is Skepticism Knowledge?
D. Probability And Bayes’ Theorem
A. What is actually knowable from the fossils.
B. What is Actually Knowable from DNA
C. What is Actually Knowable from Empirical Observation
D. Power of Predicition; Utility for Biological Research.
E. What is Disallowed Under The Ideology of Exclusivity of Materialism.
F. What Can Be Rationally Concluded Regarding Evolution?
Addendum:
Also a section called:
How Atheists make non-rational demands of theists' evidence, which they cannot in any manner produce in defense of their own beliefs (i.e., completely irrational).
51 comments:
"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program."
Karl Popper
Apparently, most atheists are randroids (addicts on randian thought)and do not understand the fallacies of objectivist epistemology.
I will accept evidence that has done the following within the constraints of empirical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable scientific methodology:
a) Explore every cubic inch, every cubic angstrom of space, during every femtosecond of time – historically, current, and future, for proof that evolution never happened, with instrumentation data on the lack of discovery
at every point on the universe;
AND,
b) Explore everything before the Big Bang using the best material technology to provide instrumental data that there is proof that evolution never happened.
I will not accept mathematical, preponderance of evidence, reasonable doubt, etc.
Darwinism is testable, but only inductively.
1. If evolution is true, we should find X when we look at Y
2. We find X when we look at Y
3. Therefore, evolution is true
It's only inductive, not deductive (else it would be committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent), and so will not produce Truth, but it will lend support to a hypothesis.
Evolution has passed hundreds of such tests.
alcorol,
I am not concerned with what you will accept; I will explain why your parroting has no basis for being in the discussion, which was the original point of my making clear that Atheists cannot make claims without backing them up - within the constraints of their own religiously held belief system. Apparently you resent being held to that, and since you keep bringing it up, I'll devote an entire section to it: How Atheists make non-rational demands of theists' evidence, which they cannot in any manner produce in defense of their own beliefs (i.e., completely irrational).
Believe me, that will be addressed. So continue to with what you will accept, and I will explain what is rational, and what you should expect, were you rational... since you seem to be asking for that explanation.
I'm thinking about adding the article I'm writing on "Child Men: The Product Of Government Education Since The 1960s" to the same article.
I'm looking forward to this article. I will dictionary any words I don't understand.
That's an impossible standard, alcorol. You'll never disprove anything like that.
I searched for randoid by so-called rationalwiki showed up and it is a den of known and confessed antiChristians so I won't read it.
"Apparently you resent being held to that..."
OK, let's get down to some straight talk.
Look, I know where the burden of proof lies and I think "prove it false" is a ridiculous method of trying to sort fact from fantasy. And I think you know it to. I think you invested too much of your ego to think rationally about certain issues. If this was about people who didn't believe in Big Foot then you would have no such trouble. You wouldn't apply this method to any other belief and quoting you should help you see that. I don't think you are irrational or a bad person. You just seem to have a blindness to this gaping wound in your arguments.
I think you've invested to much time to First Cause arguments to consider the objections, which is why people just name the philosophers who defeated the argument hoping that others will at least look into it. And this was in the days before quantum physics!
I care about my beliefs being as close to reality as they can be and I've changed my mind often when new information has arisen. I saw a description of you on a philosophy board: "seize any excuse to believe - demand absolute certainty to disbelieve". I think it fits and I don't think it's a good method of seeking truth.
@Stan: 151 alcohol seems to be throwing chairs right now. Minimal content, majority of it snipped from your own previous words (if I am not mistaken).
The need to refute such laziness is there, but wasted on the current bait, as he/she/it demonstrates from their choice of words that they are not transparent to actual applications of reason.
They know what they know, if you know what I mean. Their position changes every six minutes to suit their mood. You will never get such a creature to sit still and take the rational drubbing they have earned.
It will not improve them. But! it may certainly provide the rest of us a lesson in the practical application of reason and logic. I could use such a lesson.
This is excellent as I'm taking a course on evolution and genetics in January next year.So I'll have enough ammo to crap on the atheist's most sacred tenet.
142 alcorol, I've yet to witness a species perform this evolutionary leap in nature; that is, have offspring which are their own species and can only procreate after its own kind, which mind you would generally require both a male and a female be present.
I wanna witness this take place in nature, so prove it, and don't try and shove viruses developing immunity or other such nonsense. I will only accept observable and testable confirmation which occurs within nature, not in a science lab (i.e. guided by intelligence).
alcorol says,
”OK, let's get down to some straight talk.”
Finally. That would be good. Care to address the theist deduction?
Ah. Apparently not THAT straight:
”Look, I know where the burden of proof lies and I think "prove it false" is a ridiculous method of trying to sort fact from fantasy. And I think you know it to.”
Then you are anti-empirical science. That has been obvious from the get go. You, like virtually all Atheists want to merely declare, “I am unconvinced by anything you will ever present, so it is enough for me to just say – it is false, without having any responsibility for saying why it is false”.
That’s a sweet position, as it falls exactly into the modern position of having no responsibility for anything whatsoever – especially when it comes to the absolutes, which include no logical analysis of one’s own position, much less rational analysis of the opposite (threatening) position. No analysis: no reason to believe that it is rational.
” I think you invested too much of your ego to think rationally about certain issues."
Ah. Demanding rational analysis is now a mental problem. How inverted can this become?
"If this was about people who didn't believe in Big Foot then you would have no such trouble."
False. Big Foot and Atheism have the exact same basis: All claim and no basis in fact; at least Big Foot is plausible, rationally. Atheism is not, and does not pretend to give a rational reason for rejecting theist claims. As you have demonstrated (including with this False Analogy) you have no intention of providing a deductive analysis OR any empirical evidence for your claim that theist claims are false. You want to merely dictate that they are false, with no reason required for your having dictated that to be the case.
”You wouldn't apply this method to any other belief and quoting you should help you see that.”
If rational deduction cannot be applied to any belief X, then X is without reason to be believed – how many times need I say that before Atheists respond to it? Theism has deductive power; Atheism has none, and is easily deductively attacked, which is why Atheists won't talk about it.
”I don't think you are irrational or a bad person. You just seem to have a blindness to this gaping wound in your arguments.”
I’m not concerned with your opinion of me. It is no more demonstrable than your support of your reasons for rejecting theism without any rational reason.
”I think you've invested to much time to First Cause arguments to consider the objections...”
Really? What objections? That they are false, and no reasons need be given? Where are these purported refutations? Why don't you give one, since you are the one making the claim that you do not support.
”…which is why people just name the philosophers who defeated the argument…"
Really? Where have you done that? And why should that give you any ethical or rational permission to avoid discussing your reasoning for your own conclusions?
"”… hoping that others will at least look into it.”
And they should, because most objections are like yours: no content. Nothing to discuss. Empty and without any value.
”And this was in the days before quantum physics!”
Absolutely no details to discuss; nothing. Empty of meaning.
”I care about my beliefs being as close to reality as they can be and I've changed my mind often when new information has arisen.”
Bully. You like reality, which for you is solely material, with no hope of proving that to be the sole existence: blind Philosophical Materialism. But you do NOT accept new information which challenges your ideology of Philosophical Materialism. You are unable to think beyond that, because it might challenge your ideological premises. So you avoid challenging your blindly held ideological premises by denying any intellectual responsibility to do so by addressing actual deductions - which are based on material existence. Got it. Your philosophy is to avoid, NOT to analyze. Given that, your basis is not rational, it is by default emotional.
”I saw a description of you on a philosophy board: "seize any excuse to believe - demand absolute certainty to disbelieve". I think it fits and I don't think it's a good method of seeking truth.”
What I do is to prove that Atheists cannot have any certainty in their disbelief. That’s all. And it is so easily done with the demonstration of such intellectual avoidance, that it demonstrates the intellectual intansigence of Atheists virtually immediately and with out any effort at all. If an ideology of disbelief without cause exists, then it cannot be held with certainty, and if it refuses to analyze either arguments which it is given, or the contents of its own premises, then it is irrationally held, and a de facto emotional position.
That is the thrust of this blog.
Here’s a good approach: at least discuss the argument you are given. You do not because you cannot, so you desperately defend avoiding it, as if that is your “seeking truth”. That is not “seeking truth”. So nothing you have said has even the slightest ring of validity.
Michael I don't think you understand how evolution is presented. Offspring are the same species as their immediate parents. They may not be the same species 1000 generations later.
"Here’s a good approach: at least discuss the argument you are given. You do not because you cannot, so you desperately defend avoiding it, as if that is your “seeking truth”. That is not “seeking truth”. So nothing you have said has even the slightest ring of validity."
Huh. I think that is the other identifying feature of the AtheoLeft - the first being their habit of sawing off the branch they're sitting on, in every sense of the word.
The words atheists use may be big, but I have a dictionary.
Their words may be shouted or repeated ad nauseum. That's why I have earplugs, so to speak.
The words may be heavily spiced with insult and slander and outright lies. Those may be ALL there is in the atheist response.
That's why I come here - to learn to distill an atheist's answer to a specific question for actual, discuss-able content. What I am learning is that atheists (or at least the ones we get here - though Dawson, Dennet et al seem to be more of the same) are just as Stan says.
They will not answer or discuss a straight question about themselves because *they have no answer* beyond repetition, volume and insult.
shinget says,
"Michael I don't think you understand how evolution is presented. Offspring are the same species as their immediate parents. They may not be the same species 1000 generations later."
And why would that be? 1000 generations causes speciation, because it is... 1000 generations?
Time is not explanatory for changing out of a genome. That is the issue: the standard explanation doesn't hold up.
"And why would that be? 1000 generations causes speciation, because it is... 1000 generations? "
a) you still don't understand
b) if they cannot reproduce anymore, you got your new species
Evolution's sole premise is that time itself is responsible for increased complexity and speciation. This is a purely faith-based hypothesis, born out of necessity in defense of the evolutionists' beliefs, which can never be observed in nature. Needless to say, this explanation doesn't even pass the small test. To make matters worse, abiogenesis (i.e. life from non-life) would first need to be possible before evolution even got off the ground. Not only that but it would need to defy the laws of thermodynamics and gradually progress towards greater complexity.
Needless to say, this defies all logic.
PassingBy,
Good'n.
Yes, if every offspring is a sterile hybrid, that might fulfill the definition, alright. That's like outsourcing until you starve.
Interesting.
Martin,
Sorry to take so long with this, but finally here it is:
”Darwinism is testable, but only inductively.
1. If evolution is true, we should find X when we look at Y
2. We find X when we look at Y
3. Therefore, evolution is true
It's only inductive, not deductive (else it would be committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent), and so will not produce Truth, but it will lend support to a hypothesis.”
Evolution has passed hundreds of such tests.
IF [E = True], Then [IF X then Y];
[IF X then Y] = True;
Therefore, E =True.
Um. This appears to be affirming the consequent anyway.
Let’s try this:
If [ IF X then Y], then [ E = True ].
[ IF X then Y] = true (declaration)
Therefore, E = True.
There are issues:
Is it the case that [IF X then Y] is always True? (this argument needs the same level of support)
Has it never failed? (partial correlation certainly does not prove causation).
Does Y always result from the premises of X, or is it an epiphenomenon?
Does Y possibly exist without X? (species with no heritage of descent?) (viruses).
Does Y have more than one meaning? (Is a Y fossil a successful mutated species or a failed hybrid or a retrogression of lost genetics, or other?)
I’m sure there are more things to consider.
As an aside, induction can be expressed like this:
IF [instances x1 to Xn demonstrate Q], THEN [x(n+1)] will also demonstrate Q]
The premise and the predicate can't be reversed, so the argument actually is affirming the consequent.
That's false, and is the reason that 49 heads in a row do not mean that the 50th flip will be heads (if the coin is fair). What it might mean is the the coin might not be fair, and the result is rigged to be outside of rational projection.
IF
No Stan, nothing to do with sterility... if two population of the same species are isolated, when they meet again they may not be able to interbreed anymore, that's speciation. Not sterilization... It's not simple though as genetic drift is a slow complex process involving both random events such as mutation and non random events in the form of selective pressure. The line between species is also complex and not hard cut. That's why you get tigers and lions being able to interbreed, but not their offspring.
"...defy the laws of thermodynamics.."
No it doesn't.
"...abiogenesis (i.e. life from non-life) would first need to be possible ..."
No it wouldn't. Once life begins, regardless of its origin, evolution can occur.
"... time itself is responsible ..."
No it isn't. Time just gives things room to happen.
The Theory of Evolution doesn't rule out the existence of gods, just accounts for change and diversity of life without magic.
Everything that exists had a beginning.
God did not have a beginning.
Therefore, God does not exist.
Stan
About your coin-flipping example: After 49 heads in a row what could be reasonably claimed about the coin?
Would that be reasonble evidence to claim the coin is rigged? If not then how many instances would make it so? Would you continue to put money on it coming up tails?
"It's not simple though as genetic drift is a slow complex process involving both random events such as mutation and non random events in the form of selective pressure."
This is a cop-out, claiming time is responsible. Validate your claim with observable, testable proof of this as occurring in nature.
That's the thing about genuine scientific inquiry: it can undergo rigorous scrutiny. Taking fossils and then mapping out an imaginary lineage does not qualify. Heck, I could create my own 'tree of life' if I so desired but that wouldn't be science, would it?
modus tollens,
"Everything that exists had a beginning.
God did not have a beginning.
Therefore, God does not exist."
Not quite:
Everything that exists physically had a beginning.
God did not have a beginning.
Therefore, God does not exist physically.
Shinget,
Using your identical reasoning:
""...defy the laws of thermodynamics.."
No it doesn't.
Yes it does.
"...abiogenesis (i.e. life from non-life) would first need to be possible ..."
No it wouldn't. Once life begins, regardless of its origin, evolution can occur.
""... time itself is responsible ..."
No it isn't. Time just gives things room to happen.
The original argument by someone upthread is that time was the cause.
"The Theory of Evolution doesn't rule out the existence of gods, just accounts for change and diversity of life without magic"
And yet it requires a new magic. In fact, several types of magic.
(1) Minerals will form into a double helix with proper coding for the definition of a living thing which will seek sustenance, convert sustnenance into new RNA and DNA, discriminate against toxic waste, eliminate it, split successfully into two parts which are identical to the first, and which have the same coding. That's only a few of the requirements for the intitial conditions for the truncated version of evolution-of-living-things.
(2) There could be sufficient beneficial mutations incurred within 35 million years (Probably much less, but that is the vaunted fossil record) to create skeletonized, brain containing creatures such as dinosaurs, starting with sponges or algae, AND to create sexual reproduction.
(3) It is necessary to believe this, no matter how absurd it becomes as future fossil finds decrease the time frame further because: Materialism.
PasserBy,
" Not sterilization... It's not simple though as genetic drift is a slow complex process involving both random events such as mutation and non random events in the form of selective pressure. "
We all know the TENS mantra. What we want here is empirical proof. Not fatuous extrapolations of questionable fossil inferences.
" The line between species is also complex and not hard cut. That's why you get tigers and lions being able to interbreed, but not their offspring."
Which is exactly why I made that reference regarding your original comment, which was too inclusive, yet firmly and tersely stated as fact.
I wonder, what exactly is time, when did it begin and what set it in motion? What is life and what is its cause? What happens after we die? What is beyond the so-called cosmic microwave background (or CMB) of the universe?
"Using your identical reasoning:
""...defy the laws of thermodynamics.."
No it doesn't.
Yes it does. "
It was Mike's claim. I refuted it with just as much evidence as he presented. If he or you has more to add I'll answer that, too.
"The original argument by someone upthread is that time was the cause."
That was Mike's claim as well. And it's like claiming that time is the sole cause of erosion.
"There could be sufficient beneficial mutations incurred within 35 million years... "
Is this some specific time period you are referring to?
shinget,
Are you here for a discussion, or are you here as a troll, just to teach us a lesson by your behavior - or would you like to discuss actual principles of thermodynamics and evolution? Because so far you have just made sarcastic claims in the manner of the common troll.
For example, I referred to 35 million years, as the time taken to succssfully mutate from algae/sponge to dinosaur, and you responded as if that information didn't matter.
"modus tollens,
"Everything that exists had a beginning.
God did not have a beginning.
Therefore, God does not exist."
Not quite:
Everything that exists physically had a beginning.
God did not have a beginning.
Therefore, God does not exist physically."
Now Stan's in special pleading territory. I think you are both wrong. I don't think things have a beginning. Not in the existence sense. Things are just other things changed. Conservation of mass. Think about it. Name five things that began to exist. They're all made of stuff that existed before because of conservation of mass.
alcorol,
First off, mass did not exist prior to the Big Bang (Hawking/Penrose). So there is no conservation of mass, energy, entropy, enthalpy, or any other principle pertaining to physical existence, until there actually was a physical existence. So your argument cannot be the case for existence prior to, or coincident with, the Big Bang, and that is pure cosmological science.
Second, There is no concept of Abrahamic deity which claims that God is a "thing", so the first argument is without meaning regarding Abrahmic religious propositions and arguments.
Third, your use of the term "existence" obviously is rendered by your usage to mean "physical existence". That definitional truncation is either intentionally prejudicial, or it is a manifestation of a subconscious refusal to consider anything outside of the ideology.
Name five things that began to exist.
"First off, mass did not exist prior to the Big Bang (Hawking/Penrose). So there is no conservation of mass, energy..."
There is no 'prior to the Big Bang'. The problem is that time is itself a part of the universe and is affected by matter and energy. It's like saying north of the north pole.
modus tollen's first premise is shaky. First, several things which we observe empirically, or which fit into theories built around our empirical evidence, appear not to have beginnings - for example, quantum fields, or space-time.
As to Stan's, I can see that if you ONLY operate by the premise that everything physical has a beginning, you'd have to then argue that either God is the only non-physical thing (which I also don't think theists agree with), or admit that non-physical things other than God could have come into existence without being created, or have a much more detailed taxonomy for "things that exist" that includes physical things, and, let's say spiritual things (as a subset of non-physical things), and then God, which would have to be non-physical yet also non-spiritual.
warmist,
”First off, mass did not exist prior to the Big Bang (Hawking/Penrose). So there is no conservation of mass, energy..."
There is no 'prior to the Big Bang'. The problem is that time is itself a part of the universe and is affected by matter and energy. It's like saying north of the north pole.”
Precisely the point. The universe cannot be said to have a material cause. Yet it had a cause. His question is logically absurd regarding material (only) existence.
” modus tollen's first premise is shaky. First, several things which we observe empirically, or which fit into theories built around our empirical evidence, appear not to have beginnings - for example, quantum fields, or space-time. “
At least not to have temporal beginnings. It is rash to say "no beginnings" as an absolute (you did say "appear").
The only reason to think that they either pre-existed without cause or began to exist without cause is: Materialism, which excludes thinking about any nontemporal existence, with no reason or reasoning.
…the premise that everything physical has a beginning, you'd have to then argue that either God is the only non-physical thing (which I also don't think theists agree with), or admit that non-physical things other than God could have come into existence without being created, or have a much more detailed taxonomy for "things that exist" that includes physical things, and, let's say spiritual things (as a subset of non-physical things), and then God, which would have to be non-physical yet also non-spiritual
I once saw a sentence (John Locke’s maybe) which had 97 words and 23 commas. Yours comes close (some of mine do too). I’ll have to break it down so that it can be understood.
Operating Principle :
Premise:
IF[everything physical has a beginning];
Conclusion (Predicate):
THEN EITHER C1: [God is the only non-physical thing (which I also don't think theists agree with)],
OR,
C2: [admit that non-physical things other than God could have come into existence without being created],
OR
C3a: [have a much more detailed taxonomy for "things that exist" that includes physical things]
AND,
C3b:[let's say spiritual things (as a subset of non-physical things)],
AND,
C4: [then God ]
AND,
C5: [ {which would have to be} non-physical yet also non-spiritual].
Now then, for Conclusion C1: This conclusion is not a necessary or even suggested feature of the premise. There is no relationship between the premise and the conclusion C1. Apparently C1 is an assertion of a new premise, unrelated to the premise, P, but asserted to be dependent upon P without any reason.
As for C2: there is no reason so far in this argument to claim this. Perhaps this is merely a second assertion of a premise which is dependent upon P without any reason.
As for {premise}C3: it seems to follow {premise} C2, and be saying that Category [all which exists] = Subcategory [material existence] AND Subcategory [non-physical existence];
Further, it is asserted that Subcategory [nonphysical existence] = Subcategory [spiritual] AND Subcategory [nonspiritual].
That’s OK, so far as structure from C2 to C3, but there are the following issues:
(1)there is no reason for making this assertion; it is entirely possible that the 'nonspiritual' category is an empty set.
(2) C2 doesn’t have any reason given to be believed. So C3 also has no reason to be believed, since it is dependent upon C2.
As for C4: The existence of God is not proven by having assumed any or all of the premises above. The original premise has no bearing on C4, and the premises C2/C3 are not valid as premises.
As for C5: its premises are C4, AND C3, AND C2, and can’t be isolated from any one of those three, all of which are necessarily not proven by the premise, P. Since C2 and C3 have no validation, and since P is not related to anything below it in the argument, then conclusion C4 does not follow and C5 does not follow.
alcorol,
"Name five things that began to exist."
1. Space
2. Time
3. Mass
4. Energy
5. The composite of 1 through 4, which is the physical universe.
universal entropic behavior of materials/energy in space/time.
Self-animation in pursuit of nourishment and reproduction, for no apparent reason.
Transfer of mass/energy along the arrow of time, for no apparent reason.
sustained existence, rather than instantaneous anihilation, for no apparent reason.
self-awareness (conscious level knowledge) for no apparent reason.
analysis of environment for rational content and behavior. (mind) for no apparent reason.
@Stan: 151 alcohol is trolling again; note the simple sentence thrown out and the enormous effort you expend answering it. When we all know 151 will probably respond with more illogic and/or another question.
But in this case? He/she won't be able to address any of it. I like what you did and darned if I didn't just copy this and save it as a Word file. Snappy and well-spoken. Thanks.
Hi Stan
Recently an atheist (also a student of evolution)mentioned to me on another site that there's empirical evidence from evolutionary biology that the brain produces consciousness.
I have not begun my studies yet,so I'm unable to confirm or deny if it's infact true.This what he said and can you tell me if it's infact true.
phylogenetic evidence refers to the evolutionary relationship between the complexity of the brain and a species' cognitive traits. To sum up this evidence "We find that the greater the size of the brain and its cerebral cortex in relation to the animal body and the greater their complexity, the higher and more versatile the form of life"
He may have been quoting Keith Augustine.
Initially I was here to correct some of Mike's interpretations. You have decided to step in on his behalf.
How have I been even remotely trollish or even sarcastic? Usually trolls have far more interesting ideas along the lines of Hitler or the Illuminati.
The 35 million years claim you made to go from sponge to dinosaur is a new one to me. Can you link to where you found it or does the period go by a particular name? My quick google search suggests sponges started about 580 mya, the first dinos about 231 mya. Did you mean 350 rather than 35 million years? Zero difference between the two figures after all.
The claim of ToE going against the laws of thermodynamics is something I have heard before. If Mike or you want to put some specifics to the claim we can have some back and forth. So far Mike had made the claim in only the vaguest possible way.
How does the the laws of thermodynamics prove evolution false?
*cough* THE SUN.
1. Space
2. Time
3. Mass
4. Energy
5. The composite of 1 through 4, which is the physical universe.
*sigh* Aren't most of these things the same? What would you have done if he asked you to name ten things?
And how come you mostly accept cosmology and then remove the natural cause and shoehorn a god in? What's the point of partially accepting science only to shove a god in when it gets confusing?
no name,
Those things are related yet separate; they are convertible to some extent via e=mc^2. Your sigh is sarcastic and elitist, yet you make only a claim with no support as you attack the list.
Finally, what natural cause? There is no proposed natural cause that can logically precede natural existence.
The point of answering his question was to demonstrate that it is the question's context which is absurd. It is pointless to ask for "n" instances when n has no bearing on the issue, and especially when n has an answer.
The actual question involves n = -1, a concept which is not physical, not imaginary, and logically necessary, and does not involve n = positive instances.
Shinget,
You are right, the time between pre-mollusks and first know dinosaur fossils is actually 250 mya max.; I used the wrong example.
The time from pre-mollusks to the existence of all (fossilizable) known phyla is 60 million years; the time from pre-mollusks to cartilaginous fish is 92 m.y. and the time from pre-mollusks to vertebrates (symmetrical, head and tail, etc.) was 100 m.y. (see my post today.
no name said,
"How does the the laws of thermodynamics prove evolution false?
*cough* THE SUN."
Thermodynamic second law entropy has two aspects: transfer of mass/energy to its lowest stable state in a closed system; reduction of complexity as energy is randomized into heat radiation.
The earth is not a closed system; humans are not a closed system.
However, not being a closed system does not lead one to suspect increased complexity while functioning as a system.
Considering the category of living things (and ignoring the anentropic jump from mineral to life), then living things increased in complexity (accidentally), adding organs and functions and capacities, due to the entropic action of mutation (the proposal of evolution).
For what other systems is this observed? None, no matter how complex at the start, they do not become more complex due to entropy.
Why should anyone suspect that a system of machinery taking in energy and nutrients would produce increased complexity, entropically?
Answering, "well it happened, didn't it" is not an answer, because no one can prove conclusively and incorrigibly that it did, in fact, happen that way.
"You got a better idea? If not, then mine is good/great." That is not an answer either, because a false answer is not better than no answer, it is worse because it shuts off intellectual conversation.
"No magic answers allowed", is just poisoning the well in order to predefine answers that are not compatible with the religiously held dogma of evolution to be religious, magic answers. It's an assertion of Philosophical Materialism, a false philosophy.
"For what other systems is this observed? None, no matter how complex at the start, they do not become more complex due to entropy.
Why should anyone suspect that a system of machinery taking in energy and nutrients would produce increased complexity, entropically?"
No other systems is like that because no other system is alive. You described precisely the difference between living and non-living things. Living things compete among each others in order to try to self-reproduce faster, better, more often. At the most basic level, they do nothing else than that: intake energy, try to reproduce, output the left overs.
So why would they become more complex? Because it provides an advantage. If a more complex organism can reproduce better, the average complexity of the population it is in will increase over time. It does not mean that it's always going to go that way though. Evolution does not necessarily lead to more complex things, which is what you seem to imply in your question.
Hope this helps
"No other systems is like that because no other system is alive. You described precisely the difference between living and non-living things. Living things compete among each others in order to try to self-reproduce faster, better, more often. At the most basic level, they do nothing else than that: intake energy, try to reproduce, output the left overs."
Good. Now explain why evolutionists such as triple PhD Massimo Pigliucci claim that life has no essence. it is differentiated from minerals only by possessing DNA. Given that, then, life is only a machine doing machine things ("a monkey is a machine up a tree" as Marvin Minsky said).
But you think that being alive is a differentiator from mineral-based machines. Why? What is the essence of life that allows for the differentiation? Under Materialism, life is only Material stuff doing Material things. So under Materialism, "life" is not explanatory for any deviation from Material existence.
"So why would they become more complex? Because it provides an advantage."
Really? You know that by empirical observation? Or is it a dogmatic premise of the ideology?
"If a more complex organism can reproduce better, the average complexity of the population it is in will increase over time."
Way off the point. How does complexity occur in an entropic, material machine?
"It does not mean that it's always going to go that way though. Evolution does not necessarily lead to more complex things, which is what you seem to imply in your question."
Yes and no.
Yes: evolution is a hypothesis which predicts everything and therefore has no discriminatory power. If science requires discriminatory power for its hypotheses (ability to predict cause and effect), then it is not science.
And No: If life is more complex than non-life and necessarily came from non-life then your statement cannot be the case.
A latent answer to my own question posed above:
"Really? You know that by empirical observation? Or is it a dogmatic premise of the ideology?"
It is not an observation, it is an extrapolation of individual factoids into a Narrative; assertion of that extrapolation as truth is an ideology.
- No idea what you mean by 'essence'
- Mineral-based machines don’t reproduce themselves
- Yes, live is only material stuff (why the capital 'M'?)
- If complexity provides an advantage, then complexity will be selected for by natural selection; fact of evolution
- Complexity also occurs in non-living things; rainbows, crystals, planets,etc... all pretty complex...
- Evolution is a fact and a Theory. As a theory, it generates hypothesis that can be tested. The result of the test is fed back into the Theory to refine it.
- Life is not necessarily more complex than non-life; see above. Life can certainly come from non-life. There are many scientific Theories explaining how this could have happened. They rely on facts about nature; not magic nor faith.
Hope this helps; let me know if you need resources regarding certain points you are doubtful about.
Stan
"Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate." Thankyou Wiki.
Life is a state within the material existence. And we have some overlap with the non-alive machines in the Venn diagram of Stuff: While we both function we are anentropic.
The "essence of life" (no dirty jokes please) has never been found that I am aware of. What do you mean by this? Should we be looking for it in some way? I like the idea that Life has some base element that could in theory be isolated and examined. There's a movie or two.
Ignore Pigliucci - he's a phlosopher.
I'm a bit confused by your claim that "...evolution is a hypothesis which predicts everything..."
Can you expand that a bit for the slow-of-mind?
Thanks
Evolutionist says,
”- No idea what you mean by 'essence'
Of course not.
”- Mineral-based machines don’t reproduce themselves”
False: unsupported assertion; no evidence. Here's some actual evidence:
http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2005/051805/Machine_reproduces_itself_051805.html
http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/149393/selfreproducing_robots_set_for_space_exploration/
”- Yes, live is only material stuff (why the capital 'M'?
So then a “thought” is a lump of stuff in the brain? A "realization" can be removed for examination, empirically? All motion and thought is predetermined by initial positions of mass such as electrons in the brain? Your proof?
Unsupported assertion: no evidence.
”- If complexity provides an advantage, then complexity will be selected for by natural selection; fact of evolution”
Unsupported assertion: no evidence. Further, non-comprehension of the term “fact”. Plus, this is no explanation for the origination of complexity out of material which did not have complexity and is entropically decaying constantly.
”- Complexity also occurs in non-living things; rainbows, crystals, planets,etc... all pretty complex...
False claim of complexity; refraction of light waves by wavelength is not complex, although it is rule-based (under external rules); crystals are not complex, they are atoms in a lower state of energy (ice is no more complex than water); planets are not complex, they are minerals, aggregated, with or without energy input. Life on planets is complex.
”- Evolution is a fact and a Theory. As a theory, it generates hypothesis that can be tested. The result of the test is fed back into the Theory to refine it.
Absolutely and egregiously false: there is one fact only in evolution: other fossils can likely be found. There is no predictive power from the Theory of Evolution, because it depends on random changes (mutations) to the genome of a species, mutations which might or might not even happen. So it predicts both everything and nothing, so it has no discriminatory power power against what evolution is not. Therefore, it is not an empirical science, it is an extrapolatory and inferential, non-falsifiable, non-replicable, and exclusivist ideology. It is not - repeat: not - useful for any biological science except for finding fossils.
- Life is not necessarily more complex than non-life; see above.”
Another statement of faith; no evidence, no support.
Life can certainly come from non-life. There are many scientific Theories explaining how this could have happened. They rely on facts about nature; not magic nor faith.
There is no scientific theory which explains First Life incorrigibly and without serious defects; the premises for such “theories” are speculation, and nothing more, period. And they presume that life has no characteristics which are not (a) material, (b) deterministic, (c) therefore totally without capability of the agency for intellect or freedom of decision for movement.
Further, scientific hypotheses must be empirically tested and testable; there is no possibility of testing for First Life, because it would have happened once, according to Common Descent.
Hope this helps; let me know if you need resources regarding certain points you are doubtful about.
Tell you what; let me know if you wish to step outside the meme and learn logical analysis so you can examine your conclusions rationally, with proper concepts of evidence, science, and essence.
"Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate." Thankyou Wiki.
Life is a state within the material existence. And we have some overlap with the non-alive machines in the Venn diagram of Stuff: While we both function we are anentropic. “
You cannot prove the bolded statement you made. It is a statement of blind faith in Philosophical Materialism. In order for you to make such a positive assertion, you must go far beyond wiki; Here is a rigorous definition of what is required of a living thing:
http://lifeorigin.org/
You can win $1 million if you can produce this category out of minerals. When you do that, AND you demonstrate that thought and qualia are physical lumps which can be analyzed empirically, then you are justified in making your statement, above.
”The "essence of life" (no dirty jokes please) has never been found that I am aware of. What do you mean by this? Should we be looking for it in some way? I like the idea that Life has some base element that could in theory be isolated and examined. There's a movie or two.”
Of course it has not been “found”. It is not a material thing. But go ahead and look for it. A good place to find it would be to analyze someone who just died to see what material thing they are now missing. (Weight measurements just before and just after death have produced no difference, once the weight of the air in the lungs is accounted for.)
Ignore Pigliucci - he's a phlosopher.
You seem not to know much about him; he’s been a philosopher for only two or three years; before that he was an “Evolutionary Biologist” with one of his PhDs in… evolutionary biology, and practice in the field; he taught evolutionary biology at the university level (SUNY I think), until he transferred into the Dept of Philosophy, and started calling himself a philosopher.
”I'm a bit confused by your claim that "...evolution is a hypothesis which predicts everything..."
Can you expand that a bit for the slow-of-mind?”
Kindly read my response to “evolutionist” above.
Post a Comment