₦airaland Forum

ElCount:
Oh cmon! You said "that the particular genetically marked cells can be passed to an offspring"
Is this info still valid or are we just talking about it tallying.

Because I was of the opinion that what made the ERVs unique was its transferability to offsprings

I haven't typed anything different.

I know why I'm taking this little by little I hope you are not bored? Perhaps you now see why I dropped every other argument and focused on this at least I hope by the end I may have benefited from the argument not just for the sake of it

Well, get on with it then.

ElCount:
Fantastic! Quite how I pictured it just so we are sure of what we are talking about. Its actually a Brother-Sister esque kind of relationship with the apes it does hold in this context albeit meaningless like you said.
So according to this ERVs process, the genetic markings where actually passed down to the humans and the apes from the hominoidae who is at the apex right?

"Brother-Sister esque kind of relationship"? No. On shared ERVs, the presence and the location of those shared retroviral incidents strongly tally with the various splits in the hominoidea family. It's not singular markings from one common ancestral line.

OLAADEGBU:
You should note that execution is not murder get your facts right.

I guess we have different ideas of morality, then. I consider the execution of children to be immoral, and can never find any reason to justify their wholesale execution. But that's just me. Perhaps it's why I don't appeal to your god for "moral objectivity".

ElCount:
You know when you talk about common ancestry you are talking of something like a blood line or better still pedigree, so it will have to play out like a Tree or Chain right?

Or a bush.

So by Shared Ancestry you will be talking about either Parent-Child kind of shared or Brother-Sister kind of shared isn't it?

I really want to get you in this

I'm not sure what's not clear. Humans and other apes share common ancestry. The phrase "Parent-Child kind of shared or Brother-Sister kind" is meaningless in this context. Here's an image to give you an idea (edited to use an image with a simpler tree):
https://i.imgur.com/imoERfn.jpg

OLAADEGBU:
Why is it necessary to appeal to God for objective morals?

Example of an Objective Moral
"It is always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure."

This way, we can account for objective morals because they are rooted in God Himself who is absolute and invariant.

I agree:

1st Samuel 15:2-3

2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants...

ElCount:
I'm not evading, not even close. I just don't engage in an argument for the sake of it. However I may come back to that termite-microbe love story later, I'm just interested in the ERVs now.

I don't believe your claim that you don't engage in an argument for the sake of it. In any case, there points addressing your questions and questions I asked in return. Since your previous stance seemed to be that unanswered questions meant you were right (or something), then...

Anyway, yes do come back to the evolution of termits and bacteria when you feel like it. No harm in that.

Still on the Ape-Human-ERV, one can confidently say that the Apes are intermediary species between the ape ancestors (whoever they are) and humans right?

Goodness, no! I'll repeat it: Humans and modern apes share common ancestry. I'm not sure why that's not clear. Hope this helps: the divergence in Hominidae happened at several points, but humans didn't evolve from modern apes.

I'm not starting up any thread to talk about abiogenesis I believe it has no evidence and its not even worth debating about

Well I guess you'll never know, then.

UyiIredia:
It may not reproduce but there should be lots of it so that some would have fossilized. Remember random mutations made the species that were selected for and it couldn't possibly have made them perfectly at a go. There had to be lots of mistakes along the way before a final form was reached. But there are no fossils of the evolutionary dead ends as I like to call them.

What's the difference between a species that goes extinct and one that's an evolutionary dead end? Speaking of final forms, are you under the impression the theory of evolution works in the pokemon fashion? In any case, remember that evolution occurs in a population.

ElCount:
I'm just gonna ignore every other thing you said because an argument on it will just take us in circles.

That doesn't surprise me. Speaking of evading...

However this ERV just caught my attention so let me tag along.
Given the way this ERVs works in both Apes and Humans, I believe I would be right when I say that the Apes are the DIRECT ancestors of Humans right?

Humans and other modern apes share a common ancestry. The genetic evidence - one of which is shared ERVs - shows that to be the case.

Secondly, you keep reiterating that Abiogenesis has evidence please what is this evidence?

Start a new thread and tag me.

UyiIredia:
http://www.icr.org/article/carbon-14-found-dinosaur-fossils/

Copy/Pasta:

The research by Miller et al.

A research team from the CRSEF, or Creation Research, Science Education Foundation, led by Hugh Miller, has claimed to have dated dinosaur bones using radiocarbon methods, determining them to be no older than several dozens of thousands of years old. Let's look at their research methodology in detail (indicated by bullet points):

As it turns out, Miller's research group obtained their sample in quite a remarkable way. In fact, the creationist posed as chemists in order to secure a number of fragments of fossilized dinosaur bone from a museum of natural history, misrepresenting their own research in the process of doing so.

When the museum provided the bone fragments, they emphasized that they had been heavily contaminated with "shellac" and other chemical preservatives. Miller and his group accepted the samples and reassured the museum that such containments would not be problematic for the analysis at hand. They then sent it to a laboratory run by the University of Arizona, where radiocarbon dating could be carried out. To get the scientists to consider their sample, the researchers once again pretended to be interested in the dating for general chemical analysis purposes, misrepresenting their research.

Let's take a little pause to consider the general issue of misrepresenting your own research. It is understandable that Miller et al. did this, since there would have been a slim chance (at best) of the museum curator providing them with any dinosaur bone fragments if he or she had known what the true intent of the supposed chemists was. In particular, it is implausible that it would have been considered worthwhile to try to use radiocarbon dating methods on these bones, since the rocks that they were taken from were determined to be 99+ million years old, as shown in this paper by Kowallis et al. Now, it is known that 14C decays at a fast enough rate (half-life ~6000 years) for this dating method to be absolutely useless on such samples. Thus, it appears that Miller et al. would not have been able to obtain this sample, had they been honest about their intent. This, of course, raises some ethical questions, but let's brush these aside for now. We proceed with the examination of the research done by Miller and his fellow researchers from the CRSEF.
What exactly are we dating here? Sample contamination and general trustworthyness.

After the samples were submitted by the laboratory, Miller et al. were informed by a professor from the University of Arizona that the samples were heavily contaminated, and that no collagen (where most of the carbon for 14C dating comes from) was present.

(rest here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154588/is-it-a-problem-with-radiometric-dating-that-carbon-14-is-found-in-materials-dat)

That's my point. They are still dogs, bananas and elephants never mind the changes.



Incmpleteley assembled animals and the likes. Random mutations cannot make an organism perfect from the start yet all so-called transitional are perfectly formed species in their own right.

Fundamental misunderstanding of the theory. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

ElCount:
For any theory to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable, can't say that about your evolution theory.
There's nothing scientific about the birds evolving from reptiles, nothing scientific about a plant cell becoming an animal cell just because you said it will happen in millions of years.

I suspect I'll be repeating a lot of what Cloudgoddess has already written, but, if nothing else, it will hopefully emphasise the point. The theory of evolution IS scientific and falsifiable. It is the fact that it can be so easily potentially falsified that makes it one of the stronger scientific theories around today. If, for instance, the same pattern of shared ERVs seen in primates is found in canines then the theory of evolution will have been falsified.

Your argument involving the Newtonian law of gravity bothers on Fallacy of accident. The fact that it was still used at the time doesn't justify it being the appropriate thing to do, besides you rightfully pointed out that it was true in some occasions.

It most certainly doesn't border on fallacy. It's probably one of the best examples of the scientific method. That scientists could see that Newtonian gravity didn't explain every instance of gravity, didn't mean they decided to go with an explanation involving angels pulling the planets around the sun. Instead the pursuit of knowledge continued, and with each incremental step, the formulation of a newer theory explaining gravity. That's still not the end of the story because there are still instances where the theory of general relativity doesn't apply... but that's another thread. The point here is, you need to understand how science works.

Please the fact that similar processes occur in different animals doesn't mean that one animal is the ancestor of the other. there are saloon cars that run on diesel engine just like trailers and luxury buses that doesn't tell us that trailers, luxury buses evolved from saloon cars or that they evolved from lister generators, that argument doesn't follow when will you guys understand this?

No, when I referred to shared ERVs, I meant the genetic evidence of shared common ancestry between humans and other apes. I'm just gonna copy/paste:

Human beings and other apes share endogenous retroviruses in unique sites. Endogenous retroviral insertions occur most likely because of failed invasions by viruses in the germline cells. The particular cells are then genetically marked and if passed to an offspring, the offspring possesses said marker. This, in turn, ensures that they can act like genetic markers. Further, that human beings and other apes have the shared ervs in a way that supports models of common ancestry should tell you something. End of short summary.

Evolutionists keep searching for evidences that they tend to obfuscate their ideas in yet more theories that need more evidence. Abiogenesis has no evidence whatsoever but you can believe it that's up to you but just try not to pass it off as science.

Nah, there's evidence for abiogenesis. I doubt anyone expects you to know that, though. In any case, like I said, even if the earth and all life were created by some unspecified deity, the theory of evolution is still best explains the change in allele frequencies in a population of living organisms. It stands apart from the origins of life.

Ancient and few select tribes involving in murder, rape etc doesn't answer the question of how we came to know right from wrong. And are you trying to say that lying is mainly for self preservation and yet we all consider perjury as a crime? You guys are so full of contradictions.

Actually, that most tribes (not a few) are/were violent does help to explain why we, as individuals in tribes, have internalised the ethics built to strengthen our tribes. Yes, lying is founded on self-preservation (of not only oneself, by the way). However, it comes with pitfalls in a society of social animals. That's because trust is an important aspect of social cohesiveness. Losing that social currency can be costly. The preservation of that currency has understandably been codified in the instance of court proceedings - not that it stops people from lying. Codification comes with societally determined punishments.

Well if scientist can't recreate a simple cell in a lab then its proof that life didn't originate by accident and if eventually they do it will be proof that life needs an intelligent designer to have existed and yet again that it didn't come by accident. So yes they are in a dilemma which I could really care less about.

Or you're being intentionally disingenuous. You stated that scientists haven't even created a simple living cell in their labs. Hence that section of my post. Seems to me you don't know what you want. What if they create the conditions, and let that simple cell arise organically?

Evolution theory does not have a gap it has gapssss and shouldn't be called a theory in the first place its all speculations.
I asked the OP several questions and she has avoided all of them one of which was the termite and the microbe in its gut that helps it digest wood which evolved first owing to the fact that both can't survive without the other? perhaps you could help her out because I believe they ve always existed side by side since inception

Is that the only gap? If a poster can't explain which would have come first, does that invalidate all the data that show evolution?

In any case, the termite's ancestor evolved with bacteria in its gut. With time said ancestor will have evolved with any bacteria. Think of it this way: the same thing can be found in humans and the digestion of cow milk.

ElCount:
The label indoctrinated militant is apt. You consider your evolution theory as science even though it does not abide by the scientific method. Take for example the Newton's first law of motion, if I were to ask you for examples/evidence to support that law you will come up with an unending list without blinking just as you would be unable to come up with a scenario where the law does not hold, now that's the science I know, the science that we all appreciate. If there is to be so much as a gap in a scientific theory it will be dropped or suspended pending when the gap has been rectified. Same cannot be said about your evolution theory. (That's the scrutiny I was referring to)

I'm not quite sure you understand the scientific method as well as you think you do. Just a statement of fact based on what you've typed.

First, the theory of evolution most certainly abides by scientific principles. It's one of the foremost theories in science because of how deeply it's been subjected to scrutiny (and still is). Many examples to show evidence of evolution can be proferred. My favourite example is the genetic one: the incidence of shared endogenous retroviruses in humans and other apes.

Second, science doesn't work in the way you stated: "If there is to be so much as a gap in a scientific theory it will be dropped or suspended pending when the gap has been rectified". That's simply not true. In fact, going back to Newton, physicists knew the Newtonian law on gravity wasn't the right explanation for gravity. Although it worked in many instances, aberrations, like the orbit of Mercury, showed there were gaps and Newton was probably wrong to some extent. However, the theory sufficed until Einstein's theory centuries later. That's science. The theory of evolution is the best explanation of the data we have concerning the evolution of populations.

I asked you some questions earlier and you avoided it like a plague for reasons best known to you, these are pertinent questions that should have made any scientists to drop/suspend the theory and seek for answers unless you are an indoctrinated militant.
My christian beliefs are based on religion and I never passed them off as science unlike the evolutionists, so whatever evidence you might require from me will bother on FAITH.
I don't know why the emphasis on gay, are you? Anyway
*If your parents were gay would you have existed?
*If all of mankind decides to be gay, what better definition would you give to extinction?
*If we were to go by your evolution theory, what if your ancestors turned out gay what would have become of the evolution process?

That's not how evolution works.

Its a shame that you should bring up altruism as an evidence of how we came to know right from wrong!
How then does altruism explain the fact that murder is okay among lower animals, but not okay among humans?

It's okay amongst some human societies (and some human individuals). You seem to be overlooking history and reality. Groups/tribes justify murder all the time, and since this is a religious forum, one need only look to religous texts to see favoured humans and their tribe justify the wholesale slaughter of other humans. That's plenty evidence to suggest societies have developed their ethics based on factors that are natural and physically explainable. Altruism can explain in-tribe kindness to foster cohesion. One can use the same methodology to explore the reverse against those considered outside of the tribe.

How does altruism explain the fact that rape among humans is bad but we can watch as a rooster rapes a hen and it will be just fine.

Pretty much the same as above. We of modern society know it's bad. Some humans don't. Many early human ancestors were willing to rape women (or in some religious texts, forcibly marry them before raping them) as spoils of war. They knew they were right.

Altruism bothers on selflessness so why can't I comfortably kill someone to protect the interest of my friend after all I killed for him didn't I?

That's a philosophical argument, nothing to do particularly with any science. However, you can. Our courts may find you guilty of a crime, though.

You look at a child and even without telling him/her anything the childs' first instinct would be to lie so as to avoid the punishment of the father/mother which is yet an evidence that evil is inherent in humans.

Or evidence of self-preservation.

You talk about Abiogenesis, let me ask you this- Is Abiogenesis not the foundation upon which the evolution process was based?

No. Two separate sciences. Life could have been started naturally or by a deity, it won't change the evidence that underpins the theory of evolution.

Now Abiogenesis has no evidence yet it has been accepted by you lot. You guys said life came by accident and yet scientists have been unable to create a simple cell in a lab.

Abiogenesis does have evidence, but considering how well this thread is going, I'm sure you're interested in the evidence for abiogenesis. In any case, why would you expect scientists to have created "a simple cell in a lab"? And if they have, will you accept it can happen naturally, or will you claim that shows life needs an intelligent creator?

Let's look at an accident, take for instance a car accident.
At least I can come up with the conditions for a car accident to occur, namely: bad road, drunk driver, bad tire, disregard for traffic rules... etc, combine any of these conditions and you are certain that a car accident would occur.
Scientists can't recreate a simple cell neither can they come up with the conditions necessary for this accident called life to occur and yet you guys are trying to tell us that its science, sorry your evolution theory is a DUD

I think best to ignore the rest of that, no? I haven't been around these parts in a while, but the M.O. hasn't changed all that much. Look, you're clearly a smart guy, so my advice will be to actually understand the theory of evolution before trying to argue against it. I don't think you know anything about the subject.

justcool:
It will help people see that scientific terms are not exactly the same as the lay man’s terms. I have said this many times, that often scientific terms should not be viewed in the ordinary sense. Everybody knows what “time”; the “time” that Deep sight is talking about; the “time” that everybody intuitively knows, but very difficult to put in words. This “time” is what I refer as to “the real time” or “the lay man’s time” But when science talks about “time” they are not talking about the layman’s time or the real time.

That's all well and good; however, when someone starts a thread or line of discussion that is heavily centered on science, then it becomes a given that, unless defined otherwise, the scientific definitions of terms hold sway. The onus is on the person supposedly using "lay man's terms" to define their terms and ensure that they aren't mistaken for the scientific ones.

Further, I don't know what "time" Deep Sight is, or was, talking about. He doggedly refused to provide any workable defintions or evidence that could have cleared that up. So, what do you mean by this "real time" that everybody knows? Any way of concretising it?

Of course every rational person knows that the idea that time was born at the big slam is not possible in view of the real “time” or the lay man’s time. What science calls time is simply a dimension of motion, or a derivative of motion; a derivative of the speed of light to be more exact. Scientific time is referenced to the speed of light because at that time light was the fastest thing the scientist can conceive of.

While I agree that time is predicated on motion, I disagree that light was the fastest thing that scientists could conceive. The special theory of relativity made provisions for massless particles that could travel faster than the speed of light: hence, tachyons.

Hence if anything moves at the speed of light, time becomes stand still in respect to that thing. Just as when two cars move at the same speed, they appear standing still to each other. And consequently, if anything can move beyond the speed of light, that thing will be time-traveling because it’s moving faster than time, i.e. moving backward in time.

Relatively.

Real time, intuitive time, or the lay man’s time, I believe is what Deep sight has been talking about, which obviously cannot be born at the slam. This time, real time can be defined as the continuum onto which events happen. This time existed before the big slam, indeed the big bag is just an event that happened within it. Only that the big slam commenced the physical time or the scientific time which scientist reference with the speed of light.

Evidence?

People keep trying to marry scientific concepts with ordinary concepts. These ordinary concepts like “time”, “work” and etc. existed before modern science. Modern science only borrowed these terms to define scientific concepts.

Yes they did, but so did a term like "electric". I I started a discussion on electricity with references to scientific reports, but I meant something other than the scientific understanding of eletricity, then I would have no grounds for complaint if others erred on the side of science. It isn't a case of marrying disparate comprehensions of terms. It's a case of no one has declared these lines of discussion exclusively theological nor philosophical.

Deep sight’s notion of time is right.

Why?

He is talking about the real time, the lay man’s time.

Concretise that concept and ground it in something tangible.

Posters are refuting his argument with the scientific concept of time which is only limited to the physical, i.e. the duration of physical events. This scientific concept of time is referenced to the speed of light because up till now “light” is the fastest physical phenomenon that science has observed.

Again, science discussion. Scientific terms until otherwise disputed and alternate terms defined.

I will give an analogy: Deep sight is talking about motion in general, posters are refuting his argument by talking about the motion of a particular car. Of course just as motion is not limited to a particular car, time is not limited to this our particular universe. If there are other universes, their time frames will be different. And of course the motion of a particular car is born the minute the car started moving, yet the car itself is on earth which is in turn in motion; by the same token, the speed or duration of events (which science calls time) in our universe was born with the big slam; but even the big slam is an event which occurred in a lager time frame.

Yes, I have said as much about time. To wit, I wrote previously:

"If there are other universes with time, those universes would have a different time structure from ours. However, to use an analogy, that that there be liquids on other planets and "water" in other universes, doesn't change the fact that water on Earth is formed from a particular bonding of hydrogen and oxygen."

The fact remains that Deep Sight introduced the"totality of time itself, which is infinite, etc". Which he has so far failed to define nor provide an inkling of evidence or tangibility that would make it intelligible. If you subscribe to his conception, then may I ask that you do what he will not?

But I think every good scientist knows that the concept of time is not limited the scientific time. Science creates models that help them visualize and represent certain phenomena in numbers so that they can be solved mathematically to predict or give an idea of the behavior of the phenomena. It will be very misguided to expect that the phenomena itself is limited to numbers and scientific models. Certain phenomena in nature can never truly be captured on the blackboard or in a test tube. Real Time existed before the big slam will still exist afterwards.

Thanks.

What is real time, by your estimation? If it seems like I have asked that question several times, it is because you've used that phrase several times without offerring a defintion . . . or evidence . . . or really anything other than the phrase being somehow different from time as a scientific concept.

Thank you, too.

davidylan:
the typical red herring atheists throw out ad infinitum.

Red-herring? What was the red-herring in my response?

fusion of chromosome 2 is usually thrown up as an excuse for why we humans have one less pair of chromosomes than other primates . . . arguably because its much harder to argue for a chromosome either appearing by magic in apes or disappearing by magic in humans for no concrete reason.

Except, it's not an excuse but a factually based explanation for the noticed fusion of two chromosomes. While the Creationist is left fumbling for what amounts to a trickster god (or as you say, magic), a fusion is well supported by the banding patterns in chromosome 2. Again, unless you resort to a trickster deity or magic, there's no other parsimonious explanation for the presence of telomeres in the center of a chromosome that somehow shows a fusion where there should be one.

I take it you still have nothing against shared ERVs and what they show, then?

frosbel:
What is the origin of MAN !!

Is he a product of evolution or creation.

I think to believe in the type of evolution that makes the crazy suggestion that we evolved from specie to specie over a billion years is not only impossible based on scientific logic but also on common sense.

Please state your case !!!!!!

Further to previous answers. Humans do share common ancestors with other primates. The evidence to support that view is outstanding. Two lines of evidence that I have previously mentioned in this forum to support shared ancestry are genetic. The first is the presence of Chromosome No.2 in humans. The second is the indication of shared Endogenous Retroviruses. In my opinion, unless some god was trying to deceive us, or humans evolved we shouldn't have those hallmarks that point to a shared history with other apes.

Deep Sight:
So fellas, question is - does the new experiment cast any new light on the subjects we have discussed in relation to time and the universe?

If verified, it won't change what we know of time. At least, I don't see how it could. It might not even affect Einstein's theory of relativity, especially if it is discovered that neutrinos can behave like, or even become, tachyons. That's my initial instinct, anyway.

Deep Sight:
^ Amazingly, or perhaps not amazingly, you regugitated your former response completely ignoring that which is raised in this thread: namely the fact that there is a possible change in the science involved. Please do not tell me that the co-relation with the nature of time escapes you.

Look, you started the thread with the inclusion of a thread in which you discussed, so as to pretend, or seemingly imply, that you had raised and debated coherently the subject of Einstein's theories and time; with this new finding- if verified - vindicating you. Not so. That's why I posted my response to the part you quoted.

Note that at no point did you present any evidence. Worse, in fact, you didn't even define any terms you introduced. You pretty much ducked around and engaged (and it has become a theme) in empty rhetoric. That's why I reposted my response in its entirety.

I'll address the neutrino subject in the next post

Deep Sight:

Yes, it's a definitive statement. It's as positive a declaration of my view as the ones that have appeared numerously in your posts both in this thread and other ones of a similar vein. So, you're either being the worst of hypocrites, or blissfuly ignoring the implied nuances in what I have written. It's apparent that I'm not omniscient, but as I have made my arguments for the lack of a need for an overarching purpose for the universe previously, it should have been clear why I have no trouble in a strong declaration where the usual caveats of "based on currently available evidence, etc" are implied.

Counter-accusation does not answer the question.

The fact remains that you have positively asserted that the universe has no purpose. To make that statement, you need to be omniscient.

Counter-accusation? Or pointing out the inherent hypocrisy or dishonesty in decontextualising my assertion? Also, no one needn't be any more omniscient when asserting the universe lacks an overarching purpose, than the person who makes a claim based on available data. Having said that, I'll be careful to use less strong terms in future. Now let's get back to where you define what you mean by a being.

Hand-waving at my own propositions does not do anything – I simply have conveyed my own impressions as to the purpose of the universe – I have not come to you affirming positively anything in that regard. You, on the other hand, have stated severally and positively that the universe does NOT have a purpose.

I don't think you know what the term "hand-waving" means. Yes, you have indicated that the earth and humans are enough to suppose the universe has a pupose. However, you've also strongly affirmed positively those claims and more. Of course, anyone not trying to mess around realises the context and implied nuance. Unlike you, one needn't offer the red-herring of "ooh, you're trying to be omniscient" to rebutt.

Aside from requiring omniscience, it is also a hugely presumptuous statement for a tiny being living on a tiny speck of a planet to make. We do not even know the reaches of our own galaxy alone, and yet, one tiny individual, living on one speck of a planet, boldly affirms that the entire super-structure – of which he knows next to nothing – has no purpose.

The insignificance of our planet, particularly when it's noted that it is surrounded by innumerable lifeless planets and rocks lends itself to the idea that the universe lacks an over-arching purpose. Parsimoniously, the universe appears to just be, with the evidence not revealing any purpose on a grand scale. Philosophically, the argument may go either way, but I see more merit and coherence in syllogisms that don't have to resort to the unnecessary personage of deities.

[quoteI am struggling to be very polite when I respectfully state that [-----!#$%&?!@$%!!!-----]. . . . . . , well – that is beyond the borders of the most ridiculous presumptions that could possibly be imagined.

[/quote]Go with the data.

Aside from this, you may not appreciate that it is a contradictory, self-defeating and nihilistic statement for a sentient being to make.

On the contrary, it is life affirming.

Neither you nor anyone even knows what exactly that singularity was, how it was, and why it was. And yet, sitting on this speck of a planet - - you yawn affirmatively that the entire universe has no purpose.

It's what the evidence indicates. You without any evidence, "sitting on this speck of a planet [. . .]yawn affirmatively that the entire universe [b] has [a purpose]. Implying - often subtly - that we are it.

You are God! I bow down! I worship you!

Get off your knees, man! No worshipping before the 21st of October.

Despite being God you do not read. Or perhaps you don’t need to read since you are God. Because if you had read, surely you would have grasped the argument made. Despite being God, you failed to grasp the argument made. Here – I’ll simplify it – non conscious unicellular organisms survive and thrive sufficiently and indeed excellently - and thus have no conceivable evolutionary need to develop any senses whatsoever – given that unconscious life is more successful than conscious life on earth

Nonsense. Will you stop arguing against things of which you clearly have little knowledge. While it has often cropped up in many of our discussions, it's getting over the top now. By the way, still keeping the score on positive affirmations? You just made more, despite a lack of omniscience.

Anyway, to address your argument. Several "non-conscious unicellular organisms" do survive with senses. They have had an evolutionary pressure to develop those senses. Euglena (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euglena), for instance, have a very basic eyespot with which they use to observe their habitat. I won't even get into the ridiculous misuse of the terms "conscious" and "unconscious".

Senses aid survival: whether it be in unicellular or multicellular species. What we find, then, are the many ways mutation and selection (a lot of the time aided by pressure) effect changes in both predators and preys.

[quote]Besides, are you suggesting our "pale blue dot" in a small corner of the universe is the purpose of the universe? Waste of space, it would seem (to paraphrase Sagan).

It cannot be such a small pale blue dot, if it is the abode of a being such as yourself, who is so important and knowledgeable of the entire universe as to be able to make statements about the purposelessness of the entire system, can it?

Well, not until aliens recognise pancake Friday and milkshake Wednesday as holy earth days, I suppose.

And no, I am not, and would never suggest that the earth alone is the purpose of the entire universe. Although not proven yet, I am of the view that there exist hordes of planets out there bearing intelligent sentient beings. But that is a matter for another day. Or another lifetime.

Fair enough.

Anyway, some species also evolve a disuse of those organs. They don't think about it.

That a disused tool will wither away is commonsensical, and does nothing to suggest that the tool would have come into being by itself through blind and purposeless selective pressure.

Except when the evidence suggests it. If a species evolves out of using eyes because it impinges their survival, it goes to show that survival plays an aspect in the use and disuse of organs.

Also, do you mind not using the terms "conscious" and "self-conscious" interchangeably. They mean different things.

If you had read anything I wrote you would have seen the very careful pains I went to exactly to differentiate these.

You did not take careful pains to differentiate between the two terms. Look, here's an example:

"Conscious, self-aware creatures come into existence. I hope you appreciate already the massive leap which I tried to draw your attention to – to wit – unconscious to self-conscious – but let us not tarry there. There is more. The self-conscious life forms further develop highly complex organs such as eyes which are tailored to observe their environment."

That's just one example. It makes what is already a tough discussion that much harder when you blur disparate terms and won't even define others.

Yeah, that's all nonsense. The simplest eyes (which have arisen in several different ways, and independently) have been noted to have come about through mutations that render a patch of skin with nerves capable of differentiating in a way that lends rudimentary surveillance possible.

You are into voodoo.

Worse, you did not read what I wrote about the argument from consciousness. I informed you that only self-conscious creatures would require powers of observation. You clearly have not taken the time to assimilate the very basic facts inherent therein, or the obvious implications.

When you say "self-conscious", what exactly do you mean? Are Euglena self-conscious? Evidence? Are Flies? Worms? Do you have any evidence to back up the view that the creatures I mentioned - who are all capable of observance - are self-conscious?

[quote][quote]Darwin himself recognized the implausibility of the development of the eye,

No, he didn't

Yes he did.[/quote]It is pathetic sir, to deny that which exists in writing, and which you have earlier referred to yourself.

Again, Yes he did.

It is pathetic sir, to deny that which exists in writing, and which you have earlier referred to yourself.[/quote]How about you read the Origins of Species first, or at least not get your information from Creationists' quote-mines. Darwin's rhetorical style in his writings was to present a point as if insurmountable, then demolish said problem. Thus, we find that on the subject of the eye, Darwin raises the question, assures there must be some difficulty in approaching its evolution, then goes on to explain how it may have happened, beginning with:

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)"

What, exactly, in the human eye (for example) could not have developed through evolution? Also, why is it ludicrous that an eye could have developed as a result of mutations and selection that caused its beginnings as a spring out of bare skin? It's not like there aren't species with that particular quirk, you know.

Simply the fact that unconscious creatures do not require eyes, sir – in addition to the fact that the argument from survival collapses on account that unconscious life forms thrive in even greater and more successful abundance than conscious life forms – where then is the evolutionary impetus towards consciousness!

This singular fact gives a damning and irretrievable lie to your entire magical and voodoo-istic supposition.

So, basically, you have no physical aspect of the human eye that couldn't have developed through evolution? It would seem all you have at this point is empty rhetoric.

Unless, of cause, you know of causes for radioactive decay and virtual particles.

Your ignorance on this subject has been repeatedly exposed – and I needn’t refer you to the thread where you tendered an apology for making wrong suppositions after I specifically corrected your wrong (un)scientific suppositions on the matter.

So, you don't know any causes for radioactive decay and virtual particles? Empty rhetoric again. You should dig up that thread and realise that I apologised for making a mistake in mis-defining terms. Unlike some, when I'm wrong I'll always acknowledge said mistakes.

Now, do you acknowledge that the evidence suggests there's no known cause for radioactive decay and virtual particles? If not, why?

Amazing, for one who constantly states that others “do not understand the science” they are discussing.

Oh, you clearly do not understand most of what you argue against when it comes to science or philosophy.

I will not rehash the matter here. It has long since been closed against you.

Really? Is this the part where we proclaim internet victory?

No. The evidence suggests that time started after inflation. There's nothing to suggest time outside of our universe.

Strange. Why then did you say this –

”The trouble is, one is always hard pressed to find terms for an ante state that aren't dependent on, or founded in, time.’

Unless you are willfully and irretrievably confused, you would recognize that you cannot speak of “ante” outside the precept of time. Notions of “before” and “after” are evidentially time based notions. You also stated that time commenced “after” inflation.


You cannot use the word “after” outside a precept of time. Just like the word- “before”, the word - “after” is also an evidentially time-bound notion. I will not debate that with you even for a million dollars.

Exactly!Well, apart from the "confused" part. Time - irrespective of how you choose to define it - started after inflation. What this means is that because of linguistic problems, we're going to struggle to define and describe the start of time and "before" it, particularly when language is predicated on time. ~It can be represented mathematically, though.

You don't have to argue it with me. For the most part, you just repeated what I wrote and its implications in different words.

To which I replied:


What is this "totality of time itself, which is infinite, etc", of which you speak? Where is the evidence or data for it? Time may very well be a construct of the human mind, but as it stands the evidence points to something existing independent of views and, instead, dependent on space.

2. What if at this very second, as we speak, another big slam is going off outside our universe, bringing another universe into being? Do you not see the possibility that our Universe is existing within an already existing larger "Space" and that every new "slam" that occurs is a slam within already existent time and space? To crystalize this for you: Let's imagine a civilization on a far off planet within this universe that was so primitive that they thought that their galaxy was all there was to the universe. For them, they would imagine time began when their galaxy was formed. They would not realize that their galaxy was just one within a universe already existing in a steady state of time! So i ask you: what if our universe is just like that: existing within ONE larger MULTIVERSE! If that is the case, surely, time could not be said to be created by the slam that made this universe. Rather, time would be an already existing steady state..

Yawn. I wrote this earlier as a response to you:

"Not quite. If there are other universes with time, those universes would have a different time structure from ours. However, to use an analogy, that that there be liquids on other planets and "water" in other universes, doesn't change the fact that water on Earth is formed from a particular bonding of hydrogen and oxygen.

To be clear, the reference point of time as we know it is this universe, and is affected by the big slam because as far can be told right now, we discover Planck time and then "no time" as we head backwards. Essentially, time and space are bound together."

In any case, space is inseparable from our universe. The universe wouldn't be expanding into space. If there is anything beyond our universe, it would be branes, not space.

3. Want to change your understanding of time? Uncle Einstein was only human you know, and yes, i know the enormity of the scientific thinking that i am up against.

If I'm given good reason to change my understanding, then yes. SO far all you've offered are gross misunderstanding and homilies. I think I'll stick with the science community and the evidence on this one.

You have still not been able to answer this question:

Into what is the universe expanding?

Because so long as the universe is able to expand, then there must be a space for it to expand into, no?

Thus that space was already there before the big slam, no?

Yeah, I understand that it's easier to debate someone when you don't bother to read what they wrote, but it's just bad form to make it so plain. Here's the response I wrote earlier. You can read it now:

"The universe is probably not expanding into anything. If the universe is all there is, [then] it is just expanding and space is derivative of the expansion within the universe. There would be nothing outside of the universe."

Just so you understand, no, there doesn't have to be a space into which it has to expand. Space itself is caused by the expansion of the universe. It is within the universe.

Let's be brilliant enough to think beyond what Einstein and co have fed the world.

Let's. I say stars are cause by pixie dust. What say you? Elves?

I am bold enough.

Are you.

I'm bold enough to at least engage with what you write and not ignore things - especially the most egregious ones - you have written. Are you bold enough to actually understand the science and concepts that at play here? This is not just "let's spite 'Einstein and co', spout rubbish, pat ourselves and feel we've accomplished a day's work". You can start by presenting a concrete argument with evidence for an infinite, extra-universe "totality of time", or whatever.

Deep Sight:
Now here we are. It is intriguing to me that you open up the possibility of “being” existing either “with some sort of awareness” or “preferably self awareness”. Correct me if I am wrong, but what this means is that you countenance the possibility of the existence of beings in a state of “some sort of awareness” – even if such an entity is not self aware.

Is this the case?

Yes. At the basest level of my definition of what it means to be a being, yes, some sort of awareness that gives the entity, at the very least, a rudimentary appreciation of its existence. It's a generously broad defintion.

Now, again, what's your defintion of a being?

Yes, humans have constructed purpose in a purposeless universe.

Do you realize that this is a positive statement? It is a positive affirmation that the universe IS purposeless. To be absolutely certain of that, you need to also be absolutely certain of how the universe came about. You would require omniscience.

Clearly you are neither omniscient nor aware of how the universe came about: ergo, you cannot affirm positively that the universe is purposeless.

The best, and most honest thing that you could do would be to state that you do not know if it has a purpose or not.

It is odd that you are able to make such definitive statements in vacuums the very same way you accuse the religionist of doing.

Yes, it's a definitive statement. It's as positive a declaration of my view as the ones that have appeared numerously in your posts both in this thread and other ones of a similar vein. So, you're either being the worst of hypocrites, or blissfuly ignoring the implied nuances in what I have written. It's apparent that I'm not omniscient, but as I have made my arguments for the lack of a need for an overarching purpose for the universe previously, it should have been clear why I have no trouble in a strong declaration where the usual caveats of "based on currently available evidence, etc" are implied.

To be clearer by analogy, by the same token, you wrote: "Everything in existence is a part of the infinite expression of the infinite mind of existence itself: which is what reality is." and

"The ultimate purpose is the infinite expression of the eternal and infinite mind that is itself reality"

Thus:

"Do you realize that th[ose are] positive statements? It is a positive affirmation that the universe HAS purpose. To be absolutely certain of that, you need to also be absolutely certain of how the universe came about. You would require omniscience.

Clearly you are neither omniscient nor aware of how the universe came about: ergo, you cannot affirm positively that the universe has purpose.

The best, and most honest thing that you could do would be to state that you do not know if it has a purpose or not.

It is odd that you are able to make such definitive statements in vacuums the very same way you accuse the religionist of doing."

By the way, we do have a good idea of how the universe may have become: expansion from a singularity.

Second,you are doind Dawkins's argument a disservice by slightly misrepresenting it. What he argues (and the evidence points in that direction) is that mutations can cause the incidence of eyes, and with continued genetic changes and selection, the human eye may naturally evolve. In a sense, mutations are "lucky" happenstances. What moves it beyond luck is selection.

Maybe I need to communicate better. Let's pause for a moment and understand carefully.

I said to you earlier on, or perhaps on another thread, that the phenomenon of consciousness is central to this matter. I do not know if you understood me accurately but I’ll try and explain what I was saying yet again.

I mentioned that with reference to a feature such as the eye – only a self aware and sentient creature would require such a development – as it would, being conscious, require the ability to observe its environment. Many creatures perform this function in other ways, such as through sound, touch, and other senses. At all events, what I seek to impress upon you cardinally is that all of these features are features of consciousness.

The question thus is – what impetus of selection within the evolutionary process leads from unconsciousness to consciousness. What drives and actuates this.

Survival. Species with senses have an evolutionary advantage.

If for example, there is (as there must be) a link, or several links which bridge the gap between unconscious, non-sentient life forms such as unicellular organisms and conscious life forms, such as the most simple self-conscious creature – what competitive impetus, what selective process, would derive any need whatsoever within our purposeless universe, to develop the feature of self-consciousness.

First, there's no evidence to suggest that most of the living species on earth are self-conscious. But I digress. To answer your question, it would seem apparent that species develop and discard sensory organs to aid their survival. No divine purpose needed for that. The organisms that survive get to pass their genetic make-up. The ones without the urge to survive have passed, or will pass, away. Sensory organs have developed in a myriad of ways in organisms. There's no need for consciousness, just nerve receptors.

Further, self-consciousness would have arisen not, from scientific observations, from the universe caring about the speck that is the earth, but because of increasing functions in brains. Which become more complex to, yet again, aid survival and beat both predators and preys.

It does not stop there. Conscious, self-aware creatures come into existence. I hope you appreciate already the massive leap which I tried to draw your attention to – to wit – unconscious to self-conscious – but let us not tarry there. There is more. The self-conscious life forms further develop highly complex organs such as eyes which are tailored to observe their environment.

And the unconscious creatures? Of what do they constitute evidence? That is, if your logic is to try to tie self-consciousness to a universe with a purpose, then are unconscious creatures evidence of a lack? Besides, are you suggesting our "pale blue dot" in a small corner of the universe is the purpose of the universe? Waste of space, it would seem (to paraphrase Sagan).

Anyway, some species also evolve a disuse of those organs. They don't think about it. Evolution of organs isn't thought into by the organisms (whether conscious, self-conscious, or unconscious) but is codified by selective pressure. Also, do you mind not using the terms "conscious" and "self-conscious" interchangeably. They mean different things.

It appears you are a scientist, and I certainly do not need to take you through the delicate complexity and fitness for purpose of the eye – or the more intriguing way in which it functions by being attached by message-bearing nerves to a super computer called a brain which then interprets signals into images – I am sure I needn’t explain to you the fact that this is a process of such intricate and delicate precision and complexity that it is frankly numbing that a suggestion could be made that this is not a definitively driven process. Now in thinking about this, do not lose sight of the original evolutionary leap that has to be made – inexplicably, and for no apparent reason – from unconscious life to self-aware life forms.

What we see is the feature of self-consciousness interpolated inexplicably in a puddle of non-consciousness – and that feature further advanced by powers of observation driven by incredibly delicate and complex mechanisms.

Yeah, that's all nonsense. The simplest eyes (which have arisen in several different ways, and independently) have been noted to have come about through mutations that render a patch of skin with nerves capable of differentiating in a way that lends rudimentary surveillance possible. The species doesn't need consciousness (or self-consciousness) for that advantage to become a selected trait. Eventually an eye not too dissimilar to that of humans may be gotten. However, the human eye is rather average, particularly when compared to that of many other species. They don't need self-consciousness for their eyes, either.

Also, there wasn't a great leap from unconsciousness to self-awareness. It happened gradually. Very gradually. If you have any tangible evidence that it was driven by anything else other than mutations, genetic drift and selection, here's the time to show your work. Otherwise, I'd have to ask why you think it's impossible for sensory organs and consciousness to have arisen naturally.

Darwin himself recognized the implausibility of the development of the eye,

No, he didn't.

and Dawkins in his write up forcibly conceded that it is altogether implausible.

No didn't.

What is strange is that which he then advanced – and which you have supported – the notion that such could have nonetheless developed through a combination of luck and natural selection. Any casual observation of the eye debunks this – especially in terms of Dawkins statement that it could have “sprung out of bare skin in a single lucky step”. KAG, that is ludicrous.

What, exactly, in the human eye (for example) could not have developed through evolution? Also, why is it ludicrous that an eye could have developed as a result of mutations and selection that caused its beginnings as a spring out of bare skin? It's not like there aren't species with that particular quirk, you know.

When you say “natural selection” with reference to the eye, I hope you grasp the full length of the argument I am making – namely that natural selection is driven towards needs and survivability. What could have been the impetus then for – first – self consciousness from non-consciousness (which is not needed in anyway by an unconscious creature by dint of its very unconsciousness) - - - and then complex powers of observation.

KAG, you must agree that this is wholly implausible. The least that you should accept is that it is not a position that could make sense to even the most simplistically commonsensical of people.

Strawman. You don't understand the philosophy nor the science you're trying to discuss in this instance. With all due respect.

Before you revert to me, please do take a moment to reflect on this, particularly with reference to the subject of consciousness. In what way and by what impetus would any non-conscious life form begin to become conscious – and self-conscious – to address exactly what evolutionary requirement?

Evolution of nerves, central nervous system, brain.

That which is unconscious is unconscious and has no further needs – and as such, an argument from survivability and thus selection is dead on arrival. I hope you understand this point – and how it leads in to the next point I made about the features of conscious observation such as the eye.

Good to know that you think viruses and bacteria are conscious. Right?

Now before I leave the subject let me just add for good measure that the entire house of cards becomes absolutely untenable when we recognize that the chain of implausibility stretches even further back – namely that whereas we have started with an assumption of unconscious life forms, in reality we are supposed to accept that the life forms themselves sprung spontaneously from dead elements!

Thus we are actually speaking about a chain that moves from dead matter to spontaneous life, and then – without any evolutionary impetus whatsoever, transits to conscious and self-conscious life – and further develops complex powers of observation.

Finally, all this is said to occur in a purposeless universe.

It’s heavy KAG.

You do not understand the science nor the philosophy against which you're attempting to argue.

It’s really a heavy load that you guys are pushing here, and the least you can do is to recognize that, and not seek to render anyone else who recognizes that as being in some fashion or the other simply thoughtless.

You're right. However, if someone that clearly doesn't know half of the science and less of the philosophy they think they are using to argue against said science, then it becomes easy to be, unfortunately, somewhat dismissive.

Science also indicates that some phenomena may not need a cause to operate (again: virtual particles and radioactive decay). There's no getting around that.

This is a hundred per cent false, as has been shown to you SEVERAL TIMES before.

You know, just simply utterring that something is false, etc, doesn't deviate from the validity of what I stated. Unless, of cause, you know of causes for radioactive decay and virtual particles.

The trouble is, one is always hard pressed to find terms for an ante state that aren't dependent on, or founded in, time.

Which is a very simple and clear logical pointer to the existence of a timeline over and beyond that which commences with this universe.

No. The evidence suggests that time started after inflation. There's nothing to suggest time outside of our universe.

frosbel:
Can the atheist present a logical reason how his worldview can account for the abstract laws of logic?  I think not.  But, the Christian worldview can.  The Christian worldview states that God is the author of truth, logic, physical laws, etc.  Atheism maintains that physical laws are properties of matter, and that truth and logic are relative conventions (agreed upon principles).  Is this logically defensible?

I present this outline in hopes of clarifying the issue and presenting, what I consider, an insurmountable problem of the atheistic worldview.  I hesitate to state that this is a proof that God exists, but I think it is evidence of the Absolute Nature of God.

This argument is adapted from the Transcendental Argument championed by Greg Bahnsen.

Bahnsen hasn't thought his arguments all the way through. His argument is quite idiotic.

How does a Christian account for the laws of logic?
The Christian worldview states that God is absolute and the standard of truth.

Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God.

Good luck with that.

Nevertheless, the a

theist might say this answer is too simplistic and too convenient.  It might be, but at least the Christian worldview can account for the existence of logic itself.

No, the Christian worldview doesn't account for the existence of logic. Instead, what's happening is that Bahnsen is claiming that it does. Two different things

Examples of the laws of logic
Law of Identity:  Something is what it is.  Something that exists has a specific nature

Like the Christian God's ability to be both Transcendent and Immanent. Oh wait. . . I just divided by zero, ate a babel fish and your god poofed into non-existence.

Law of Excluded Middle:  a statement is either true or false.  Thus, the statement, "A statement is either true or false," is either true or false.

Yeah, like "this statement is false". See also "Gödel's incompleteness theorems", which in some respects contravene the above claim, no?

How does the atheist account for the laws of logic?

Human conventions based on the properties of our world and worldviews, and yes, axioms which we implicitly or overtly accept. Language also plays a big part in logic. Not gods.

If the atheist states that the laws of logic are conventions (mutually agreed upon conclusions), then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to a "vote."

They are. You're just not aware that you're voting to accept or reject those laws of logic.

Deep Sight: Why is a painting done by an artist?

Reflect closely on that, and therein you might find your answer.

Hint: self expression.

Deep Sight: The innate purpose of art is the imitation of life.

Hence the common place saying - "Art imitates life."

Now, if God is understood to be the core of life itself, the encapsulation of life itself, you can then understand what I meant about creation being an imitation of life - God - itself.

Neoplatonism meet Deep Sight. Deep Sight, Neoplatonism. You two should get along. The rest of us will skip to the critiques and apparent holes in the arguments and utterances upon which you two will most certainly agree.

P.S. If at any point you have anything but fallacies, false syllogisms and utterances, I'll respond duly.

Deep Sight: What do you understand to be a "being"?

At best Dasein. At worst, an entity with some sort of awareness, preferably self awareness. The ability to appreciate, to some degree, its existence and construct a view of living from it.

What do you understand to be a being?

Green with envy. Enjoy India!

Um . . .

I am sorry to answer you with links and pictures, but my conviction is that people who discountenance intelligent design simply have yet to grasp the nature and design of the biological elements of conscious life. It's that simple.

No one could have a thorough understanding of the working of the biological elements of conscious creatures and deny intelligent design. No one.

Those that claim they do, factually do not. Its that simple.

But worst of all, such people do not have a grasp of the import of sentience in a being.

It's refreshing to know that you're arrogant enough to dismiss with mere utterances the view of many scientists and philosophers, many of whom are biologists (or involved somewhat in the subject of evolution), who assert that no intelligent designer is necessary for the emergence of species and their respective features. Of course, that many of them are in fact heavily involved in the study of the nature and design of the "biological elements of conscious life" shouldn't stop you, who clearly knows very little on the subject, from asserting that they should aspire to your personal worldview, or else.

Deep Sight: I've never claimed that "complex forms with purpose-oriented functionalities" have sprung into existence magically.

Yes you have: and you have also done worse: such as argue the existence of purposeful beings in a purposeless universe, as well as support the claim that the human eye could, as Dawkins said, (emerge in its first stage), in a a single "lucky" evolutionary step.

Stop erecting Strawmen: You are making an awful habit of it. Yes, humans have constructed purpose in a purposeless universe. That is the essence of dasein (stick with me, there's a reason I'm reintroducing the term into this post). It is anthropocentric humans, much like the drop in a puddle, that imagines the hole it finds itself situated was purposefully made for its comfort. In any case, I have never claimed that because the universe lacks an over-arching purpose, humans appeared magically. I live that to the theists.

Second,you are doind Dawkins's argument a disservice by slightly misrepresenting it. What he argues (and the evidence points in that direction) is that mutations can cause the incidence of eyes, and with continued genetic changes and selection, the human eye may naturally evolve. In a sense, mutations are "lucky" happenstances. What moves it beyond luck is selection.

It's not a story. It's based on currently available data.

Your understanding of it has been severally proven to be woeful, friend.

Except it hasn't, buddy.

[Quote author=Deep Sight]

KAG:

When a man sees a painting, it is not gut instinct but reason and commonsense that suggest it has a painter, No?

Yes. Comparatively, when some humans saw the disappearance of the sun, gut instinct and commonsense suggested that the gods were driving the sun from the sky. As it were, by diverse methods, depending on your culture, moving it from one part of the stationary earth (know, yet again, bygut instinct and common sense) to somewhere else.

What does a primitive misconception of a solar eclispe have in common with the logical and scientific idea of cause and effect and the idea that motion requires a propelling trigger?[/quote]They were arrived at through common sense, and sometimes, reason. The likes of Aristotle, even used reason to point to a stationary earth. Moreover, Hume (as I alluded to earlier) used logic to debase the idea that every thing must have a cause. Science also indicates that some phenomena may not need a cause to operate (again: virtual particles and radioactive decay). There's no getting around that.

Finally, your argument becomes flat when you continually equivocate most effects needing a cause (mostly naturalistic causes, I might add) with: therefore, an unspecified deity causing effects must exist. It's fallacious.

[Quote]
Virtual particles and radioactive decay. Not unless your definition of material is different from the lexicon.

I really hope you do not do this for a living.[/quote]Thanks for the affirmation. Handwave duly noted.

[Quote]

Why? By the way, to make by position clear, I haven't said the universe didn't have - for lack of a better word - a "precursor" (time, as we understand it, started within the universe). This should not be mistaken for having to constantly point out, though, that old syllogism that rests on the premise "everything has had a cause" is flawed. Heck, Hume pointed out the problem with the argument centuries ago.

Precursor. . . .lol. Now, semantics.[/quote]Semantics? How so? A singularity "precedes" the universe, space and time. The trouble is, one is always hard pressed to find terms for an ante state that aren't dependent on, or founded in, time.

Deep Sight:
A created universe is not only more believable, it is the only rational presumption that can be made. It is beyond absurd to reflect that -

Really? Created by a being? Evidence needed.



P.S. Going out to enjoy the Indian Summer and enjoy the company of my better half. I'll try to get back on any comments as soon as time allows.

phxc:
Well I'm not saying that the universe being created is right since no one really knows. The universe created is only an assumption, a more believable assumption the the idea that it is not.

Again, I'm still not clear why you think the former is more believable than the latter.

Deep Sight:
Because complex forms with purpose-oriented functionalities are not known to spring into existence magically, are they?

Could you perhaps cite just one such thing?

I've never claimed that "complex forms with purpose-oriented functionalities" have sprung into existence magically. That's both your strawman and a red-herring. However, other than the views of athropocentric humans, there's nothing to suggest that the universe has an underlying purpose. Is the strawman your reason for supposing it's more plausible that the universe has/had a creator?

. . .and oh no, you dare not return to your virtual particle story please. . . . .

It's not a story. It's based on currently available data.

When a man sees a painting, it is not gut instinct but reason and commonsense that suggest it has a painter, No?

Yes. Comparatively, when some humans saw the disappearance of the sun, gut instinct and commonsense suggested that the gods were driving the sun from the sky. As it were, by diverse methods, depending on your culture, moving it from one part of the stationary earth (know, yet again, bygut instinct and common sense) to somewhere else.

The universe is trillions of times more compelling in that regard than any painting, No?

Why?

You still have not been able to point to any uncaused material thing, have you?

Virtual particles and radioactive decay. Not unless your definition of material is different from the lexicon.

Aside that, for such a lover of science and logic as you posture as, an uncaused universe is patently unscientific and inherently illogical. Absurd, even.

Why? By the way, to make by position clear, I haven't said the universe didn't have - for lack of a better word - a "precursor" (time, as we understand it, started within the universe). This should not be mistaken for having to constantly point out, though, that old syllogism that rests on the premise "everything has had a cause" is flawed. Heck, Hume pointed out the problem with the argument centuries ago.

jayriginal:
Thank you KAG. You will understand however that people took offence to the term "evangelical atheist".
I do not have eyes everywhere, so I cannot say categorically that people do not hand out leaflets or go the "Jehovah's Witness Route". I am saying that that alone (if it is indeed true) does not reflect one bit on what atheism is.
In the same way that when a "man of God" does something scandalous, and you point him out, christians will be the first to say he is not a real christian.

Fair enough. I don't necessarily agree with the classifications used in the OP, but wouldn't you say that, like theists, there are many shades of atheists? Amongst whom are some who are religious and seek to proselytize? I can appreciate the offence taken at the use of evangelical atheist, though.

I agree that shouldn't impact on what atheism is. What it should show is that Atheists are not a monolithic block. What defines atheism is not believing gods exist.

In no place, did I boldy state that, no atheists handed out leaflets. I addressed the term "evangelical atheism" because of its religious connotations.

I know, I know.

Then they tried to show that Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Co were "evangelical atheists". They got their authority from spurious sources and when shown that they were wrong, they still continued. Then they dug up a judgement that on reading, did nothing to support their case.
In anycase, I get it now, as I addressed with my previous post. Toba is a Christian Jihadist, a polytheist, and Enigma until I can prove he is not, is also one as well.

Yeah, this thread is getting weirder by the minute.

debosky:
^^

That is a quite childish and non-professional 'rebuttal' if it can even be called that. It brings the credibility of the poster into question, although he does have other information that supports his assertions.

It's not meant to be a professional rebuttal; however, it's very sound in its content. And thorough, too, given the length of AIG's article.

phxc:
The idea that the universe is created is plausible and more believable than the the idea that it is not. Score one for the creationists.

Why? Why is the former more plausible than the former? Just curious, really. Bear in mind, also, that many things that were deemed plausible and more believable based on gut instict, etc, have been shown to be wrong.

Then the argument starts from here --- who created the universe?

Or what, if anything, caused the universe? No?

On that there are a lot of possibilities but the one that holds sway is that of a single creator who is male. Therein lies the crux of the matter, why do people think the universe originated from a single entity and that he is masculine and not feminine?

Strictly paternalistic societies creating their gods in their images?

It's been said many times, but atheism is about a religion as theism is. There are religious atheists as there are religious theists. However, neither is a religion and not all atheists nor theists are religious. Ignoring the context of the terms changes nothing and doesn't begin to add much to a discussion of gods and their seeming lack of existence.

manmustwac: What is an,evangelical atheist Huh I have never come across or seen an evangelical athiest with his loudspeaker shouting in the middle of bus stop oshodi that "GOD IS IMAGINARY" or "FREE YOUR MIND FROM RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION" at the same time handing out leaflets explaining that god dose not exist. Or going from door to door doing the same thing. You and I know that any freethinker that tries that could end up being severly beaten or even lynched. Our country which is still developing will never tolerate such freedom of speech.

Unfortunately, I have read of, and seen, a very small number of atheists handing out leaflets to that effect. I'll argue that it's a very small minority that will go the "Jehovah's Witness route", but it does happen. Not, I'm sure, in Nigeria, though, it would seem by your description.

White007:
Atheism isn't based on faith, it is the lack of. . . . Just like "off" isn't a tv channel, or "bald" isn't a hair color.

There's some element of faith involved. It doesn't mean that theists are let off the hook of providing a coherent argument for their gods, though. Nor, should it be automatically assumed that it is religious faith.

frosbel:
What arrant nonsense.

You are giving the same reason as Muslims give for their men having uncontrolled intimate passions !!

I personally think that Women should dress modestly and women who do not , have a morality problem. Also as is the case with many of these women who dress provocatively , they end up with men who love them only for their bodies and nothing else.

But to use this as an excuse for r.ape is madness to the highest degree.

For example in the UK, summer time, women almost dress half-n.aked but how many get violated , how many men carry out r.apes ??  1 out of every 100,000.

Lust is another issue, we agree that men will lust , but r.ape  

If these women were to live in the middle east they will all be r.aped based on your excuse because that is the same mentality they have !!

In my humble opinion, a r.apist  is a pervert who needs to be caged for life or until deemed a reformed person.

There is no excuse for violation either in or out of marriage.

If you have such tendencies call immediately for help, you might be possessed with a demon ?

This. QFT.