|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 20, 2018 21:16:13 GMT
First off, evolution qua evolution tells you nothing about "how it got started" as a broader metaphysical issue. Secondly, ignoring the nonsense of the idea of anything "supernatural," it's entirely possible--that is as a logical possibility--for there to be a God who set up a world where evolution was a non-necessary natural possibility (where it contingently turned out to obtain), and it's possible for evolution to have be set in motion via some supernatural means (again, ignoring whatever the heck "supernatural" is supposed to amount to, exactly), where it turns out that there's no entity like a god. So you're not at all exhausting the logical possibilities in your comment above. Aside from that, "miracle" is just a vague fantasy idea, so it's vacuous to say that anything would be "akin to a miracle" with respect to any concrete properties, and the notion of calculating "the chances of x occurring ," where there's no actual frequency data for multiple instantiations is just as much complete balderdash. (And even if there were frequency data, it doesn't necessarily follow that it signifies anything other than what contingently happened in those instances.) So it's just ignorant nonsense to believe that evolution says anything about whether there's a god or not. LOL Why I bother typing all of something like that when you just respond like a befuddled imbecile, I don't know. Wish I could talk to you in person because then at least you couldn't just ignore stuff, just saunter off when you don't get something.
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Sept 20, 2018 22:03:18 GMT
WL Craig is a liar and an ignoramus. His arguments are bullshit.
1. Evolution is irrelevant to theism. No it isn't. There are plenty of theists who would strongly deny that humans are cousins to apes, pigs, horses and other creatures. The opposition to evolutionary theory is exclusively religious although Creationists like to lie about it.
2. Saint Augustine of Hippo believed that our planet was much older than a few thousand years old. No, Augustine was very much a young-earther. 3. Some WL Craig bullshit about the extreme unlikelihood of the human genome evolving. Some 61 people are right now looking at the Politics board. Going back 16 centuries to Augustine's time, say 80 matrilineal generations, the probability that all 61 would exist today is astonishingly small. After all, each proper sperm would have to unite with the proper egg at the proper time for many generations. If otherwise, our distant ancestors would never have been born and we would not exist.
It's a miracle, no? No it isn't. If we didn't exist then somebody else would exist to argue this nonsense. Similarly, human beings would not exist today if any of our ancestors from the Cambrian to the present had done something different. However, other creatures would have evolved and some would like human. 4. Fine tuning. More deceptive BS from a professional liar.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Sept 21, 2018 7:40:46 GMT
WL Craig is a liar and an ignoramus. His arguments are bullshit.1. Evolution is irrelevant to theism. No it isn't. There are plenty of theists who would strongly deny that humans are cousins to apes, pigs, horses and other creatures. The opposition to evolutionary theory is exclusively religious although Creationists like to lie about it. 2. Saint Augustine of Hippo believed that our planet was much older than a few thousand years old. No, Augustine was very much a young-earther. 3. Some WL Craig bullshit about the extreme unlikelihood of the human genome evolving. Some 61 people are right now looking at the Politics board. Going back 16 centuries to Augustine's time, say 80 matrilineal generations, the probability that all 61 would exist today is astonishingly small. After all, each proper sperm would have to unite with the proper egg at the proper time for many generations. If otherwise, our distant ancestors would never have been born and we would not exist. It's a miracle, no? No it isn't. If we didn't exist then somebody else would exist to argue this nonsense. Similarly, human beings would not exist today if any of our ancestors from the Cambrian to the present had done something different. However, other creatures would have evolved and some would like human. 4. Fine tuning. More deceptive BS from a professional liar. Yet none of his debate opponents, all of which more intelligent and informed than you, have ever been able to conclusively refute his arguments. What does that tell you? You also either misinterpreted or purposefully misrepresented Craig about Saint Augustine.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 21, 2018 10:32:48 GMT
WLC explained why the chances of it occurring naturally would be akin to a miracle. He has done no such thing unless he publishes his argument in a respected journal of biology, which will never happen since he has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to that subject. Next you'll being saying the stork doesn't bring babies. That was supposed to be a joke. I know it's difficult to tell sometimes. They don't always work, as you know. If you ever say something funny put it in a different font or something so I'll know.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 21, 2018 10:50:32 GMT
Thinking that it's evidence for either is idiotic. Why is it not evidence for either? Evolution got started either naturally or supernaturally. A natural explanation would clearly support atheism(no God) whearas a supernatural one would obviously point towards theism(God). WLC explained why the chances of it occurring naturally would be akin to a miracle. Seems to me the existence of a god who can create matter and energy, time and space out of nothing would be a miracle. How in the world can such a being simply "exist" and do all it does with no "time" in which to do all those things? It's like explaining something that is difficult to explain with something that is astronomically more difficult to explain. Positing a supernatural world at all, much less a supernatural being only adds to the conundrum of how things got to be the way they are and solves nothing. The theist still doesn't know how a supernatural being in a supernatural world does what it does...just like naturalists can't explain all that they believe the natural world is, or has been, capable of.
I find those experiments fascinating when thinking about the possible origins of life. It suggest to me that self-organization into long-chained self-replicating molecules might not have taken millions of years, but might've happened in a matter of years [or even shorter] given the right environment. Of course the time for a population of those long-chained thusly self-organized molecules to advance to the simplest cell-like organisms given the hit or miss aspects of natural settings stable enough to allow that to happen, might have required millions of years for the right combination of conditions to allow evolution to proceed. But AFAIK, that part of the process...from conjectured long-chained molecules TO the simplest one-celled organisms took over a billion years.
The one thing these experiments debunk is that abiogenesis would have had to depend on a purely random assemblage of billions of atoms into DNA molecules out-of-the-blue, so to speak. It suggests DNA evolved from other, simpler, molecules which themselves evolved from simpler molecules, etc. just like many believe mammals evolved from other previously existing, perhaps simpler, life forms.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 21, 2018 11:28:17 GMT
Why is it not evidence for either? Evolution got started either naturally or supernaturally. A natural explanation would clearly support atheism(no God) whearas a supernatural one would obviously point towards theism(God). WLC explained why the chances of it occurring naturally would be akin to a miracle. Seems to me the existence of a god who can create matter and energy, time and space out of nothing would be a miracle. How in the world can such a being simply "exist" and do all it does with no "time" in which to do all those things? It's like explaining something that is difficult to explain with something that is astronomically more difficult to explain. Positing a supernatural world at all, much less a supernatural being only adds to the conundrum of how things got to be the way they are and solves nothing. The theist still doesn't know how a supernatural being in a supernatural world does what it does...just like naturalists can't explain all that they believe the natural world is, or has been, capable of.
I find those experiments fascinating when thinking about the possible origins of life. It suggest to me that self-organization into long-chained self-replicating molecules might not have taken millions of years, but might've happened in a matter of years [or even shorter] given the right environment. Of course the time for a population of those long-chained thusly self-organized molecules to advance to the simplest cell-like organisms given the hit or miss aspects of natural settings stable enough to allow that to happen, might have required millions of years for the right combination of conditions to allow evolution to proceed. But AFAIK, that part of the process...from conjectured long-chained molecules TO the simplest one-celled organisms took over a billion years.
The one thing these experiments debunk is that abiogenesis would have had to depend on a purely random assemblage of billions of atoms into DNA molecules out-of-the-blue, so to speak. It suggests DNA evolved from other, simpler, molecules which themselves evolved from simpler molecules, etc. just like many believe mammals evolved from other previously existing, perhaps simpler, life forms.
It remains true that the steps in the original assembly of life observed in the lab are rather simple. They also depend on being set up in ways that are not explained in terms of a history of natural conditions. It's always "if" these natural conditions existed then this simple step could occur. One of my favorites is the phospholipid bilayer. It is the beginning of the protective environment necessary for RNA replication to avoid the ravages of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, to play a sort of "Maxwell's Demon" role (stretching terms a bit) in the advancement of the system of molecules. Experiments with the early stages of RNA replication typically avoid using a phospholipid bilayer. Perhaps among the reasons are that although the conditions to develop a phospholipid bilayer are easily set up in a lab, and the conditions to get a set of amino acids are easily set up in a lab, trying to do both at once proves to be most difficult. How do you get not just amino acids but the beginnings of chains of RNA to form inside the phospholipid bilayer? Then you have another problem. Although you've reduced the agencies of disassembly, you've also reduced the agencies of forward assembly. If the chains were sitting there doing nothing before, they're even more determined to do nothing now. The great philosophical question then becomes which came first, the long "smart" RNA chain or the phospholipid bilayer?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 21, 2018 15:40:38 GMT
Seems to me the existence of a god who can create matter and energy, time and space out of nothing would be a miracle. How in the world can such a being simply "exist" and do all it does with no "time" in which to do all those things? It's like explaining something that is difficult to explain with something that is astronomically more difficult to explain. Positing a supernatural world at all, much less a supernatural being only adds to the conundrum of how things got to be the way they are and solves nothing. The theist still doesn't know how a supernatural being in a supernatural world does what it does...just like naturalists can't explain all that they believe the natural world is, or has been, capable of.
I find those experiments fascinating when thinking about the possible origins of life. It suggest to me that self-organization into long-chained self-replicating molecules might not have taken millions of years, but might've happened in a matter of years [or even shorter] given the right environment. Of course the time for a population of those long-chained thusly self-organized molecules to advance to the simplest cell-like organisms given the hit or miss aspects of natural settings stable enough to allow that to happen, might have required millions of years for the right combination of conditions to allow evolution to proceed. But AFAIK, that part of the process...from conjectured long-chained molecules TO the simplest one-celled organisms took over a billion years.
The one thing these experiments debunk is that abiogenesis would have had to depend on a purely random assemblage of billions of atoms into DNA molecules out-of-the-blue, so to speak. It suggests DNA evolved from other, simpler, molecules which themselves evolved from simpler molecules, etc. just like many believe mammals evolved from other previously existing, perhaps simpler, life forms.
It remains true that the steps in the original assembly of life observed in the lab are rather simple. They also depend on being set up in ways that are not explained in terms of a history of natural conditions. It's always "if" these natural conditions existed then this simple step could occur. One of my favorites is the phospholipid bilayer. It is the beginning of the protective environment necessary for RNA replication to avoid the ravages of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, to play a sort of "Maxwell's Demon" role (stretching terms a bit) in the advancement of the system of molecules. Experiments with the early stages of RNA replication typically avoid using a phospholipid bilayer. Perhaps among the reasons are that although the conditions to develop a phospholipid bilayer are easily set up in a lab, and the conditions to get a set of amino acids are easily set up in a lab, trying to do both at once proves to be most difficult. How do you get not just amino acids but the beginnings of chains of RNA to form inside the phospholipid bilayer? Then you have another problem. Although you've reduced the agencies of disassembly, you've also reduced the agencies of forward assembly. If the chains were sitting there doing nothing before, they're even more determined to do nothing now. The great philosophical question then becomes which came first, the long "smart" RNA chain or the phospholipid bilayer? Well, maybe a person like me, not versed in biochemistry at that level has an easier time believing that just "somehow" it happened in ways yet to be determined, that may never be determined or even that never can be determined. I don't have to worry about the details....of how, for example, agents of assembly overcame agents of disassembly and stuff like that.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 21, 2018 15:47:09 GMT
Yet none of his debate opponents, all of which more intelligent and informed than you, have ever been able to conclusively refute his arguments. What does that tell you? It tells us that no matter what anyone would say in a debate with WLC, you'd never consider WLC refuted.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Sept 21, 2018 19:50:45 GMT
if you should see an old couple
i can't remember: was it the crooked corner on the narrow street? or the narrow corner on the crooked street?
but there they were. he was maybe a little tired, so his head was nestled next to hers. i think he was pretend sleeping to get some noon time action.
all i can remember was: it was in the city of guanajuato, mexico.
sjw 09/21/18
from the 'beauty series' of poems
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 22, 2018 1:52:10 GMT
It remains true that the steps in the original assembly of life observed in the lab are rather simple. They also depend on being set up in ways that are not explained in terms of a history of natural conditions. It's always "if" these natural conditions existed then this simple step could occur. One of my favorites is the phospholipid bilayer. It is the beginning of the protective environment necessary for RNA replication to avoid the ravages of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, to play a sort of "Maxwell's Demon" role (stretching terms a bit) in the advancement of the system of molecules. Experiments with the early stages of RNA replication typically avoid using a phospholipid bilayer. Perhaps among the reasons are that although the conditions to develop a phospholipid bilayer are easily set up in a lab, and the conditions to get a set of amino acids are easily set up in a lab, trying to do both at once proves to be most difficult. How do you get not just amino acids but the beginnings of chains of RNA to form inside the phospholipid bilayer? Then you have another problem. Although you've reduced the agencies of disassembly, you've also reduced the agencies of forward assembly. If the chains were sitting there doing nothing before, they're even more determined to do nothing now. The great philosophical question then becomes which came first, the long "smart" RNA chain or the phospholipid bilayer? Well, maybe a person like me, not versed in biochemistry at that level has an easier time believing that just "somehow" it happened in ways yet to be determined, that may never be determined or even that never can be determined. I don't have to worry about the details....of how, for example, agents of assembly overcame agents of disassembly and stuff like that. The mistake a lot of people make especially in their earlier years is trying to extend Darwin's theory to an abiotic environment. The reason that doesn't work is that living things have mastered the art of reversing entropy with of course the required input of energy from sunlight or food. Abiotic molecules have no such talents for reversing entropy whatever outside energy is available. They are far too simple. The most likely way life began is from short strands of RNA building longer ones. In the lab however they don't get longer than about 40 links (last I checked). That's because the shorter strands have the competitive advantage and will break apart the longer ones, unwittingly of course. In that case "natural selection" is preventing the progress of life, or rather the progress of nonliving things toward life. By the way your links have nothing significant to add. Very short RNA chains self replicate rather successfully and this has been known for decades.
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Sept 22, 2018 2:20:22 GMT
WL Craig is a liar and an ignoramus. His arguments are bullshit.1. Evolution is irrelevant to theism. No it isn't. There are plenty of theists who would strongly deny that humans are cousins to apes, pigs, horses and other creatures. The opposition to evolutionary theory is exclusively religious although Creationists like to lie about it. 2. Saint Augustine of Hippo believed that our planet was much older than a few thousand years old. No, Augustine was very much a young-earther. 3. Some WL Craig bullshit about the extreme unlikelihood of the human genome evolving. Some 61 people are right now looking at the Politics board. Going back 16 centuries to Augustine's time, say 80 matrilineal generations, the probability that all 61 would exist today is astonishingly small. After all, each proper sperm would have to unite with the proper egg at the proper time for many generations. If otherwise, our distant ancestors would never have been born and we would not exist. It's a miracle, no? No it isn't. If we didn't exist then somebody else would exist to argue this nonsense. Similarly, human beings would not exist today if any of our ancestors from the Cambrian to the present had done something different. However, other creatures would have evolved and some would like human. 4. Fine tuning. More deceptive BS from a professional liar. Yet none of his debate opponents, all of which more intelligent and informed than you, have ever been able to conclusively refute his argume nts. What does that tell you?I don't know that all of Craig's debate opponents are more intelligent and better informed than I am. That may be the case but I don't know how many people Craig has argued with or what their capabilities are. I rather doubt that no one can "conclusively refute his arguments" since what he says is really stupid and dishonest. WL Craig seems to think his fine tuning argument is a winner but it's crap. You can watch the debate Craig had with Sean Carroll, a real physicist who points out why it's shit. Craig's purpose is to talk shit and impress the yokels at debates like the one at Biola with Hitchens. The task of his opponents is to tell the truth and refute his patently stupid points. That's not so easy since Craig employs the Gish Gallop, named after the late Creationist liar Duane Gish. In the Gish Gallop a Creationist makes several pronouncements and proclaims them irrefutably true. The rationalist opponent needs time to demonstrate that those points are shit and that takes time and is boring. Nope, Craig is the one who did that. Craig lied when he says that the Theory of Evolution is irrelevant to theism. No it's not.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Sept 22, 2018 7:26:01 GMT
Yet none of his debate opponents, all of which more intelligent and informed than you, have ever been able to conclusively refute his argume nts. What does that tell you?I don't know that all of Craig's debate opponents are more intelligent and better informed than I am. That may be the case but I don't know how many people Craig has argued with or what their capabilities are. I rather doubt that no one can "conclusively refute his arguments" since what he says is really stupid and dishonest. WL Craig seems to think his fine tuning argument is a winner but it's crap. You can watch the debate Craig had with Sean Carroll, a real physicist who points out why it's shit. Craig's purpose is to talk shit and impress the yokels at debates like the one at Biola with Hitchens. The task of his opponents is to tell the truth and refute his patently stupid points. That's not so easy since Craig employs the Gish Gallop, named after the late Creationist liar Duane Gish. In the Gish Gallop a Creationist makes several pronouncements and proclaims them irrefutably true. The rationalist opponent needs time to demonstrate that those points are shit and that takes time and is boring. Nope, Craig is the one who did that. Craig lied when he says that the Theory of Evolution is irrelevant to theism. No it's not. I’ve seen it. Carroll didn’t actually refute a single one of Craig’s arguments and spent most of the debate using non-sequiturs and thus lost the debate.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 22, 2018 12:27:35 GMT
Well, maybe a person like me, not versed in biochemistry at that level has an easier time believing that just "somehow" it happened in ways yet to be determined, that may never be determined or even that never can be determined. I don't have to worry about the details....of how, for example, agents of assembly overcame agents of disassembly and stuff like that. The mistake a lot of people make especially in their earlier years is trying to extend Darwin's theory to an abiotic environment. The reason that doesn't work is that living things have mastered the art of reversing entropy with of course the required input of energy from sunlight or food.
The most likely way life began is from short strands of RNA building longer ones. In the lab however they don't get longer than about 40 links (last I checked). That's because the shorter strands have the competitive advantage and will break apart the longer ones, unwittingly of course. In that case "natural selection" is preventing the progress of life, or rather the progress of nonliving things toward life. By the way your links have nothing significant to add. Very short RNA chains self replicate rather successfully and this has been known for decades. "Abiotic molecules have no such talents for reversing entropy whatever outside energy is available. They are far too simple."
At least as far as they've been able to determine in the short lab experiments they've conducted. And yes, a few decades or even centuries of testing would be considered "short." It is possible they've not presented these "short" strands with enough varied environments and competition that might lead to longer strands having an competitive advantage. It would seem the greater the variation in the environment with more "obstacles" and "hardships" to overcome, and the more and varied the other molecules are, the greater the opportunity for mutations with longer chains to be more successful. The devil is in the details and it seems most of the details aren't known. All the links suggested to me is that some molecules self-assembled that can reproduce, pass on information based on molecular structure, mutate (and pass on those mutations) to subsequent generations and it would seem to me, based on that, that abiogenesis isn't out of the question.
And then we need to consider the other option(s) for how natural life came to be. By "people in their earlier years" I assume you mean those who just don't know enough about it. I heartily agree but that was kind of my point. I would pose that as little as I, or some other neophyte in the field of biochemistry, knows about "it", my ignorance is nothing in comparison to the ignorance of the/a supernatural world, a supernatural entity or divine attributes which some assert must exist, is behind the wonderful complexity of life and which is able to overcome the problems that cannot be overcome by nature in an abiotic environment. I am operating under an assumption similar to the one you are operating under...I take it you believe that it is likely that I know very little of biochemistry...and you are right. But my assumption is that no one who is espousing God as the designer/builder of physical life knows anything about the God they are positing, how it might function or even if its "god-like" functioning is possible.
As little as we know about the natural world, people know nothing of a supernatural world. So there's no "out" or "solution" to be had by simply positing "god" and thinking that solves any problems or overcomes any lack of capacity of the natural world.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 22, 2018 12:37:28 GMT
WL Craig is a liar and an ignoramus. His arguments are bullshit.1. Evolution is irrelevant to theism. No it isn't. There are plenty of theists who would strongly deny that humans are cousins to apes, pigs, horses and other creatures. The opposition to evolutionary theory is exclusively religious although Creationists like to lie about it. 2. Saint Augustine of Hippo believed that our planet was much older than a few thousand years old. No, Augustine was very much a young-earther. 3. Some WL Craig bullshit about the extreme unlikelihood of the human genome evolving. Some 61 people are right now looking at the Politics board. Going back 16 centuries to Augustine's time, say 80 matrilineal generations, the probability that all 61 would exist today is astonishingly small. After all, each proper sperm would have to unite with the proper egg at the proper time for many generations. If otherwise, our distant ancestors would never have been born and we would not exist. It's a miracle, no? No it isn't. If we didn't exist then somebody else would exist to argue this nonsense. Similarly, human beings would not exist today if any of our ancestors from the Cambrian to the present had done something different. However, other creatures would have evolved and some would like human. 4. Fine tuning. More deceptive BS from a professional liar. Yet none of his debate opponents, all of which more intelligent and informed than you, have ever been able to conclusively refute his arguments. What does that tell you? You also either misinterpreted or purposefully misrepresented Craig about Saint Augustine. I'm curious what you think a "conclusive" refutation of a made up entity which can be defined and redefined ad infinitum and as needed would actually look like.
I challenge you to refute the existence of, say, Santa Claus or elves. I can rebut any argument you might have thus making all your refutations "inconclusive." Would my ability to make up stuff about Santa, elves or any other imaginary things to counter every argument against their existence get anyone closer to affirming Santa Claus or elves exist? Note that EVERYTHING about God is made up and is malleable.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 23, 2018 10:18:07 GMT
The mistake a lot of people make especially in their earlier years is trying to extend Darwin's theory to an abiotic environment. The reason that doesn't work is that living things have mastered the art of reversing entropy with of course the required input of energy from sunlight or food.
The most likely way life began is from short strands of RNA building longer ones. In the lab however they don't get longer than about 40 links (last I checked). That's because the shorter strands have the competitive advantage and will break apart the longer ones, unwittingly of course. In that case "natural selection" is preventing the progress of life, or rather the progress of nonliving things toward life. By the way your links have nothing significant to add. Very short RNA chains self replicate rather successfully and this has been known for decades. "Abiotic molecules have no such talents for reversing entropy whatever outside energy is available. They are far too simple."
At least as far as they've been able to determine in the short lab experiments they've conducted. And yes, a few decades or even centuries of testing would be considered "short." It is possible they've not presented these "short" strands with enough varied environments and competition that might lead to longer strands having an competitive advantage. It would seem the greater the variation in the environment with more "obstacles" and "hardships" to overcome, and the more and varied the other molecules are, the greater the opportunity for mutations with longer chains to be more successful. The devil is in the details and it seems most of the details aren't known. All the links suggested to me is that some molecules self-assembled that can reproduce, pass on information based on molecular structure, mutate (and pass on those mutations) to subsequent generations and it would seem to me, based on that, that abiogenesis isn't out of the question.
And then we need to consider the other option(s) for how natural life came to be. By "people in their earlier years" I assume you mean those who just don't know enough about it. I heartily agree but that was kind of my point. I would pose that as little as I, or some other neophyte in the field of biochemistry, knows about "it", my ignorance is nothing in comparison to the ignorance of the/a supernatural world, a supernatural entity or divine attributes which some assert must exist, is behind the wonderful complexity of life and which is able to overcome the problems that cannot be overcome by nature in an abiotic environment. I am operating under an assumption similar to the one you are operating under...I take it you believe that it is likely that I know very little of biochemistry...and you are right. But my assumption is that no one who is espousing God as the designer/builder of physical life knows anything about the God they are positing, how it might function or even if its "god-like" functioning is possible.
As little as we know about the natural world, people know nothing of a supernatural world. So there's no "out" or "solution" to be had by simply positing "god" and thinking that solves any problems or overcomes any lack of capacity of the natural world.
You might be surprised how much I agree with you when (and if, I know how boring I can be) you read this about mass media.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2018 22:44:41 GMT
Yet none of his debate opponents, all of which more intelligent and informed than you, have ever been able to conclusively refute his arguments. What does that tell you? It tells me that you're biased in your judgments of what happens in his debates.
|
|