Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 33 of 33 FirstFirst ... 23 29 30 31 32 33
Results 641 to 642 of 642
  1. #641
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Because the Earth/universe is here because A&E fell from Heaven as I recall.
    Hmm, not in any mainstream Christian theology I know about. I'm not aware of any theology that puts them in Heaven before the fall. The way I'm reading your response is that you seem to think that we live in Heaven, then are born, then die? Christians don't hold that souls pre-exist in Heaven before birth. Physical life is the first part of your existence.

    I think more to your point though, you are concerned about why there would be such a complex material universe when individual humans live for only a short period of time.

    I would point out that individual life spans aren't the right metric. It isn't as if each generation starts anew, we learn from prior generations, so the life span of humanity has to be in the picture if we are talking about how should a universe be created. Fully granted that this particular universe is pretty complex. The question is, how could it have been done "better?"


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    I really don't see the relevance to this comment. We are here 100yrs give or take.
    Sure, but I live in a world that stands on a hundred previous generations and use resources that take millions of years to form. If it had been created differently a lot of that could not happen. If mammals arise first for example, even during my short lifespan, I wouldn't have all those things, nor the learning that came from discovering them. Regardless of my short lifespan, those pre-existing criteria and conditions have a large impact on me and on any other generations before or after.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    An alien observer that had the advantage of seeing Earth go from lifeless, to simple cells, to much more complex structure, then SUDDENLY, a sentient creature "appeared" would have a MORE objective view of life on Earth (evolution) than humans can possibly have.

    You have not responded to my point at all after several attempts now
    Maybe I have and you haven't quite grasped the metaphor? :-)

    Your hypothetical alien would still be burdened with all the baggage of their own evolutionary understanding. The alien wouldn't be observing us as some kind of blank slate with no background, no prior assumptions, no philosophic framework. They would be interpreting that data (life evolving) with all of those in tow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    And I think they take a culture, make a suitable habitat for the bacteria (simple life) to thrive and watch what happens.
    Not at all. That would be a pretty boring experiment. Rather, they are usually invoking some kind of environmental stress on the bacteria (or more often, fruit fly) to observe how the organisms change to the external stress. That is similar to how the natural ecosystem works, even if the stresses here are controlled so we can measure the results. I also think it would be pretty poor experimental design if the evolutionary biologist wasn't thinking about something as basic as external stressors.

    The point though is, even if their experiments completely sucked and were without merit, we don't hold a hypothesis as true until we get confirmatory evidence (and specifically, when we get experiments that fail that should have failed).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Life on Australia started as life near by. Now separated, Australia has life seen no where else. How do you explain this if not evolution?
    Genetic diversity. Poodles and Mastiffs have a lot of genetic diversity in them that do not rely on genetic mutation.

    I think it would be one thing if we could trace those unique individuals back in ancestoral line to shared ancestors with other traits. IE we saw that a Kangeroo and a deer could both trace their lineage to a joint ancestor. The problem is that we can't really do that. The "Island Effect" that creates all these weird animals in Australia (as well as micro elephants and possibly homo florensis) doesn't rely on macro-evolution, it relies on exentuating traits from pre-existing genetic diversity. Similar to how we've been able to transform wolves into all kinds of weird little animals without actually relying on genetic modification or mutation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Dark matter we have NO idea what it is and the BB which we KNOW we don't have right yet, really???
    Can you point out a piece of validated evidence that is contradictory to the Big Bang hypothesis? Remember there are areas where the Big Bang hypothesis doesn't make definitive predictions (like expansion rate), and that sub-theories are developed to understand. Some (or maybe all) of those theories are wrong for sure. It is similar to light. We've had a pretty good understanding that light emits from charged particles for a very long time. The fact that one of the sub-theories of how it travels (Flogiston) was ridiculously incorrect doesn't change our holding to the theory that light is an emission of a charged particle. We still have a large amount of confirming evidence (and no conflicting evidence) that the emission theory of light is true.

    Likewise, we have a ridiculously large amount of evidence that the Big Bang group of theories is true, that the universe began roughly 13.8 Billion years ago. We have literally thousands of data points and theorems related to the expansionary nature of the universe and its beginning at a singularity (or at least that it had a leading edge in time and space). Now, there is uncertainty on some of the details in how it got to where it is (how did the forces seperate in the early universe for example, what is the expansion rate of the universe in the earliest moments). That latter section is where dark matter lives, the inner working discussion of how the universe went from very small to very large, not a question of whether it went from very small to very large.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    It isn't compatible with ANY current theory
    I'm not sure that that is true. Regardless, it is incompatible with darwininan macro-evolutionary theory and so that theory is incorrect. There doesn't necessarily have to be a suitable replacement to discard a hypothesis, even if the new state is unsettling.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Out of time.
    Till another night to finish, have a great evening
    No worries. I'm looking forward to it.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  2. #642
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The point being that that set of evidence (the Cambrian explosion) is incompatible evidentiary-wise with the macro-evolutionary model. Thus, the model is wrong.

    That is all that is required to dismiss a theory.
    Ok, then pretty much all current models/theories are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We didn’t need a coherent theory of the dual nature of light (I’m not sure we even have one now) in order to reject Phlogiston as an explanation, for example.
    You don't suppose this "dual nature" is really a single nature that we don't fully understand? As in, it may not really be a particle part of the time and a wave the rest?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    When we talk about the kinds of changes that macro-evolution would need to change, we are talking about traits that are controlled by genes that are activated very early in a creature’s development. Add to that that we know that virtually all random mutations are fatal, and it would seem to be a very high hurdle to overcome.
    Ya, seems bizarre huh?
    Yet, here we all are, so it happened somehow?
    I propose a natural answer and you are proposing what again???

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    2) and much smaller of a note. I don’t think you are correct that all eyes developed from common ancestors. Eyes seem to have developed on multiple occasions in history. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781862/
    I have seen the eye theory go both ways as well. however, humans do share a common ancestor with all other life on Earth do we not?

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...mmon-ancestor/
    "Despite the difficulties of formally testing evolution—especially back across the eons to the emergence of life itself—Theobald was able to run rigorous statistical analyses on the amino acid sequences in 23 universally conserved proteins across the three major divisions of life (eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea). By plugging these sequences into various relational and evolutionary models, he found that a universal common ancestor is at least 10^2,860 more likely to have produced the modern-day protein sequence variances than even the next most probable scenario (involving multiple separate ancestors).*"

    Just looking for some kind of common ground here between us.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But we also wouldn’t care what a bird thinks about our biological taxonomy. If our hypothetical aliens are smart enough for us to care what they think, they will have to have some form of categorization and differentiation.
    Well, I was more thinking about them differentiating all the "homo's" more than all life forms. IOW, would they see/notice/observe sentience in these humans suddenly appearing or would they just see another "monkey"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well, I'm not sure that is what the historical evidence says. It would seem to indicate the opposite, that humans have very rarely engaged in multiple-partner relationships or had multiple partners throughout their lives. And I think we are ok with the primary point being that when humans do engage in that behavior as a norm within society, the historical evidence is that those societies are not stable.
    Show me support that most humans have had only one sexual partner.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Related to your point on the OP and selecting a specific version of theism rather than the concept as a whole, I would say that this section of our argument would indicate that a version of theism that supports these kinds of relationships as societal preference would be questionable given the outcomes.
    You don't think a god would approve of promiscuity?
    (god worries a lot about sex it seems. wonder why?.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The reason I'm picking my language so carefully is because it is easy to (and we have done it earlier) conflate homosapien sapien and human. Those are related, but not identical concepts. Hence, how you get to this point;
    I would like to meet your wife. An INCREDIBLY patient angel to be sure!!


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is why we need to be careful in conflating humans and homosapien sapiens. Those are concepts from two different fields that are describing different traits. Nothing about sentience is required to be a homosapien sapien. Though some of their definitional traits are correlated with sentience. If I were to reword your statement to use the correct vergabe it would say:
    Ok, semantics again. I appreciate your "correctness" but I sense it only serves to give your world view wiggle room. God doesn't seem to play word games. He created "man" (humans). All these little categories you seem to think are sooo important, are clouding my understanding of what you mean....

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Soooo, these two homosapien sapiens you refer to, I guess after how ever many generations of sentient humans here on Earth, these two were picked to be "Adam and Eve" for all future humans.
    Ok. Per you:
    There had been generations of "homosapien sapiens" until one day God picked two of them to be "sentient".

    Correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And I would generally agree with that if we are proposing that this was, in fact, a 1:1 concordance. In fact, if we replace the last word with homosapien sapiens, that is exactly what the science is telling us. That these two are the ancestors of all homosapien sapiens today. The point where the account and the evidence conceptually overlap for sure is that there was a male and a female from whom all humans are descended. And that is the point that both the evidence and the account agree on.
    (Now just "humans" instead of Squatch/techno garble humans??)

    1. I thought Adam was created from "dust" and Eve was created from Adams rib?

    2. Science tells us absolutely nothing of when humans/homo sapien sapien/what the hell ever, became sentient

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It was BG Anthony McAuliffe, commander of the 101st Airborne during the battle of Bastone. And I don't think an intellectual Patton is coming to relieve your encirclement this time. ;-)
    YES!!
    That is the guy. It would be DAMN funny, if it wasn't just soooooo tragically sad (WWII and that battle)

    I appreciate your humor (I wish more of ODN members engaged in such a way. I think it helps reduce tension in conflict).

    However sir, me thinks it is you that seems to be treading water with little land in site and using overly technico garble to shield your point. Again, feel free to make as technical a statement as you like, but also translate into terms the average reader can understand.

 

 
Page 33 of 33 FirstFirst ... 23 29 30 31 32 33

Similar Threads

  1. Philosophy: Does a necessary beng exist, and is it consistent with the theistic God?
    By cstamford in forum Member Articles & Essays
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 15th, 2015, 05:02 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 25th, 2015, 08:37 AM
  3. The Theistic Definition Thread
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 26th, 2007, 01:13 PM
  4. Theistic Evolution????
    By nanderson in forum Religion
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: April 13th, 2006, 05:53 AM
  5. Theistic Death
    By Iluvatar in forum Religion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2005, 07:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •