You Don't Know God -- How Sad
-
Sorry for the late reply; while there are some pretty glaring problems with your mental arithmetic (for example, you ascribe the ability to be some ill-defined 'entity' to be eternal without granting the same possibility to the universe itself) but I'll stick mostly to what I happen to know really well:
Alan Burkhart wrote:
the fossil record not only makes a case for evolution but also for intelligent design.
There is absolutely no reason to hang all of evolutionary theory on the fossil record when ample DNA evidence exists for change over time, DNA/RNA studies of homology are consistent with evolution, chemical components of RNA self-assemble under proper initial conditions, laboratory examples of speciation exist, examples of speciation found in the wild that are consistent with the timeframe required for drastic evolutionary change. All of these are far more consistent with an evolutionary explanation than one for a traditional argument for intelligent design - which would suggest we should both find structures and organisms that are inconsistent with evolution AND are clearly suited to some intelligent purpose - which would also require a characterization of the 'intelligent designer' in order to test that hypothesis, something that intelligent design proponents can't/won't do. Empirical evidence simply does not support a case for intelligent design.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Empirical evidence simply does not support a case for intelligent design.
Yes it does. :) There is no evidence against the possibility that an intelligent creator set the process in motion. Remember - I'm not referring to a divine entity. I'm referring to another natural entity far older and more intelligent than you or me. Human scientists set processes in motion every day in labs all over the world and watch the results of those processes. There is no reason to think we are not the result of something similar, though on a much larger scale.
XAlan Burkhart
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Empirical evidence simply does not support a case for intelligent design.
Yes it does. :) There is no evidence against the possibility that an intelligent creator set the process in motion. Remember - I'm not referring to a divine entity. I'm referring to another natural entity far older and more intelligent than you or me. Human scientists set processes in motion every day in labs all over the world and watch the results of those processes. There is no reason to think we are not the result of something similar, though on a much larger scale.
XAlan Burkhart
Alan Burkhart wrote:
There is no evidence against the possibility that an intelligent creator set the process in motion.
There is also no evidence against the theory that I have an invisible, undetectable unicorn sitting next to me who telepathically helps me code. That is not the same as saying there is evidence that supports it is there, though.
And sometimes when you're on, you're really f***ing on And your friends they sing along and they love you But the lows are so extreme that the good seems f***ing cheap And it teases you for weeks in its absence Rilo Kiley - "A Better Son/Daughter"
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Empirical evidence simply does not support a case for intelligent design.
Yes it does. :) There is no evidence against the possibility that an intelligent creator set the process in motion. Remember - I'm not referring to a divine entity. I'm referring to another natural entity far older and more intelligent than you or me. Human scientists set processes in motion every day in labs all over the world and watch the results of those processes. There is no reason to think we are not the result of something similar, though on a much larger scale.
XAlan Burkhart
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
Yes it does.
Oh, okay. Such as?
Alan Burkhart wrote:
There is no reason to think we are not the result of something similar
Except that there's absolutely no evidence for it?
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Except that there's absolutely no evidence for it?
I mentioned in another thread that it reminded me of usenet... this thread is a nearly word for word reproduction of countless discussions on talk.origin.
And sometimes when you're on, you're really f***ing on And your friends they sing along and they love you But the lows are so extreme that the good seems f***ing cheap And it teases you for weeks in its absence Rilo Kiley - "A Better Son/Daughter"
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
There is no evidence against the possibility that an intelligent creator set the process in motion.
There is also no evidence against the theory that I have an invisible, undetectable unicorn sitting next to me who telepathically helps me code. That is not the same as saying there is evidence that supports it is there, though.
And sometimes when you're on, you're really f***ing on And your friends they sing along and they love you But the lows are so extreme that the good seems f***ing cheap And it teases you for weeks in its absence Rilo Kiley - "A Better Son/Daughter"
David Kentley wrote:
There is also no evidence against the theory that I have an invisible, undetectable unicorn sitting next to me who telepathically helps me code.
I'd have to say neigh to that.
David Kentley wrote:
That is not the same as saying there is evidence that supports it is there, though.
I know. I was simply being a bit contrary in my last comment. There isn't enough room here for me to fully explain why I believe what I believe and I doubt any of us would ever sway the other. But it's generally a fun topic as long as no one starts pounding on their King James.
XAlan Burkhart
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
Yes it does.
Oh, okay. Such as?
Alan Burkhart wrote:
There is no reason to think we are not the result of something similar
Except that there's absolutely no evidence for it?
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Oh, okay. Such as?
Already expounded on that in an earlier reply.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Except that there's absolutely no evidence for it?
As I said earlier (at least I think I did ;)), the fact that it is apparent that all life forms are based upon one of several prototypes is evidence that someone sat down and sketched all this stuff out.
XAlan Burkhart
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
There is no evidence against the possibility that an intelligent creator set the process in motion.
There is also no evidence against the theory that I have an invisible, undetectable unicorn sitting next to me who telepathically helps me code. That is not the same as saying there is evidence that supports it is there, though.
And sometimes when you're on, you're really f***ing on And your friends they sing along and they love you But the lows are so extreme that the good seems f***ing cheap And it teases you for weeks in its absence Rilo Kiley - "A Better Son/Daughter"
I knew there had to be an explanation for your code!
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Oh, okay. Such as?
Already expounded on that in an earlier reply.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Except that there's absolutely no evidence for it?
As I said earlier (at least I think I did ;)), the fact that it is apparent that all life forms are based upon one of several prototypes is evidence that someone sat down and sketched all this stuff out.
XAlan Burkhart
Alan Burkhart wrote:
Already expounded on that in an earlier reply.
Okay. We have a difference of opinion as to what "evidence" means. To me, it means something useful, testable, and falsifiable that can pragmatically direct opinion. To you, it means... thought experiment?
Alan Burkhart wrote:
the fact that it is apparent that all life forms are based upon one of several prototypes is evidence that someone sat down and sketched all this stuff out.
You keep saying this, but you offer no evidence for it. What are these prototypes? What is the evidence that these 'prototypes' are inconsistent with evolution from a common ancestor? You can't just say that it's 'apparent' - because to someone like me, who has a degree in and has studied biochemistry and molecular biology, it's not.
- F
-
Alan Burkhart wrote:
Already expounded on that in an earlier reply.
Okay. We have a difference of opinion as to what "evidence" means. To me, it means something useful, testable, and falsifiable that can pragmatically direct opinion. To you, it means... thought experiment?
Alan Burkhart wrote:
the fact that it is apparent that all life forms are based upon one of several prototypes is evidence that someone sat down and sketched all this stuff out.
You keep saying this, but you offer no evidence for it. What are these prototypes? What is the evidence that these 'prototypes' are inconsistent with evolution from a common ancestor? You can't just say that it's 'apparent' - because to someone like me, who has a degree in and has studied biochemistry and molecular biology, it's not.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
You keep saying this, but you offer no evidence for it. What are these prototypes? What is the evidence that these 'prototypes' are inconsistent with evolution from a common ancestor? You can't just say that it's 'apparent' - because to someone like me, who has a degree in and has studied biochemistry and molecular biology, it's not.
I don't have a degree in anything, although I have delivered building materials to a few universities while they were under construction. That probably doesn't count. I never said that the concept of prototypes I mentioned is inconsistent with evolution. What I'm saying is that if you look at the various life forms, from single-cell life to humans, whales and so on you'll see a number of "basic designs" that many species share. Some are adapted for swimming, some for flight, etc. One would never mistake a Yugo for a Ferrari, but both are based upon the same concept (4 wheels, headlights in front, tail lights behind, etc). And yes, this is the result (life, not the Yugo) of a long and ongoing process of evolution. I have no dispute with that. Where we differ is that I believe the process itself is by design. Can I point to a peer-reviewed study on the topic? No. But neither can I accept the notion that the universe and all the life within it exists purely by chance. Anyway, we could debate/discuss forever and probably neither of us would sway the other. But it's been fun. :)
XAlan Burkhart
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
You keep saying this, but you offer no evidence for it. What are these prototypes? What is the evidence that these 'prototypes' are inconsistent with evolution from a common ancestor? You can't just say that it's 'apparent' - because to someone like me, who has a degree in and has studied biochemistry and molecular biology, it's not.
I don't have a degree in anything, although I have delivered building materials to a few universities while they were under construction. That probably doesn't count. I never said that the concept of prototypes I mentioned is inconsistent with evolution. What I'm saying is that if you look at the various life forms, from single-cell life to humans, whales and so on you'll see a number of "basic designs" that many species share. Some are adapted for swimming, some for flight, etc. One would never mistake a Yugo for a Ferrari, but both are based upon the same concept (4 wheels, headlights in front, tail lights behind, etc). And yes, this is the result (life, not the Yugo) of a long and ongoing process of evolution. I have no dispute with that. Where we differ is that I believe the process itself is by design. Can I point to a peer-reviewed study on the topic? No. But neither can I accept the notion that the universe and all the life within it exists purely by chance. Anyway, we could debate/discuss forever and probably neither of us would sway the other. But it's been fun. :)
XAlan Burkhart
Alan Burkhart wrote:
Where we differ is that I believe the process itself is by design.
When you started this you said that the fossil record is compatible with "intelligent design" and evolution and now you say that it's completely consistent with evolution. So we agree that evolutionary process is sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth. Now it seems the problem is that since your concept of "design" seems to be based on fuzzy feelings and is so vague and unspecific (since if life arising by the process of evolution is evidence of design, ostensibly anything else would qualify) that as a concept it also loses all utility - if your idea of life by design is empirically indistinguishable from life by evolution, really, what's the point of insisting that it must be by design and that you just CAN'T accept it's not all by chance?* *characterizing evolutionary processes as "chance" is also a pretty egregious misrepresentation.
- F
-
MatthysDT wrote:
Is it worth the gamble?
First, I cannot imagine how one could simply say, "Given the current situation, I think I shall believe such and such." What we believe (or not) is based upon what we experience as we go thru life. I cannot simply tell myself to believe in an immortal soul because there might be a Hell. Hell by the way is a myth based upon a garbage dump outside Jerusalem. Sad but true. That said, I do embrace the possibility of an afterlife. There is some evidence here and there of those who persist after physical death. But if this is the case, it would be a natural thing. There is no "supernatural" side of existence, and I rather doubt that even the most vile criminal would be consigned to a "Lake of Fire" for all eternity. These are tales conjured up thousands of years ago to scare people into good behavior.
XAlan Burkhart