The God Delusion?!

[Red Sky at Morning]

I just read an interesting article on AI which also touched on the questions under consideration here...

Deep down, we all know we’re more than biological robots. That’s why almost everyone rebels against materialism’s implications. We don’t act as though we believe everything is ultimately meaningless.

" In philosophy the underlying issue is known as the “qualia” problem. Our awareness of external objects and colors; our self-consciousness; our conceptual understanding of time; our experiences of transcendence whether simple awe in front of beauty or mathematical truth; or our mystical states, all clearly point to something that is qualitatively different from the material world. Anyone with a decent understanding of physics, computer science and the human mind ought to be able to know this, especially those most concerned about AI’s possibilities."

The article develops the ideas further but to me it certainly makes a distinction between matter and the meaning that rides on it... I don't agree with everything it says about AI but it hits on some very interesting issues nonetheless.

 

[Karlysymon]

We create things greater than ourselves all the time. The Large Hadron Collider is far greater than we are. So are the super computers we build, and we then use those computers to create even more complex computers. This ability isn't even unique to humans, an ant colony is far greater than an ant. So I don't accept any argument that our existence is evidence for the existence of a more complex creator.

For how long, do you think those great structures or creations, would survive after man becomes extinct? If they are so great, they should be able to maintain/sustain themselves and as we all know, that is impossible. Animals can survive man's extinction simply because they aren't dependent on him for survival. He didn't bring them into existence but man's creation (cars, shoes, clothes,buildings) cannot survive without him simply because it isn't greater than he is. Therefore, as complex as our universe is, or for that matter, Earth, its obvious there is a greater/higher power that upholds/sustains/perpetuates all animate forms.

 

[Hubert]

Do you believe the people involved in these complex constructions apply the principles of 'time and chance' or 'intelligent design' to their projects?

Unlike biological systems mechanical and electronic systems do not contain any mechanism for self replication with variation. If v8 engines could have sex and make baby v8's that were a combination of the traits of the parent v8s then evolution, which you are mistakenly calling time and chance, could be a viable way to produce a Large Hadron Collider.

I've heard versions of this argument before it goes something like this:
1) Obviously designed thing, the LHC for example, had a designer
2) Life looks like it was designed / I don't really understand evolution
3) Therefor life has a designer

Did I leave anything out?

 

[Hubert]

So this would be a theory that can't be proven by demonstrating any method to arive at the present state of the blood clotting system.

So considering the possibility that a system like this did not evolve is not any more ignorant than believing it didn't when there is no way to prove this one way or the other.

As it stands, the blood clotting system is irreducibly complex because it can not exist in one state or the other and reproduction is the method of evolution would have to take place.

If a entity cannot survive to a state where it can reproduce in one state or the other, then the system had to have existed in a point of origin in the state it is in.

As it stands, evolutionary theory can't determine a point where blood originates to say whether or not it is impossible that the blood clotting system ever existed in a different form.

There has been no greater understanding of how blood evolved anywhere from our present understanding of DNA.

So unless you can prove otherwise, maybe comments about ignorance should be kept to a minimum.

Also, a DVT is dangerous because it can travel to the lung. This is a very basic medical understanding from someone who thinks his science teacher was ignorant.

"A pulmonary embolism (PE) usually happens when a blood clot called a deep vein thrombosis (DVT), often in your leg, travels to your lungs and blocks a blood vessel. That leads to low oxygen levels in your blood. It can damage the lungand other organs and cause heart failure, too."
http://www.webmd.com/dvt/pulmonary-embolism-dvt

Without a blood clotting system you might not have a dvt or pulmonary embolus, but you would be a hemophiliac who couldnt survive the scratches you would natrually get trying to survive in the wild like tarzan. No swinging from vines allowed without a blood clotting system.

Your first argument seems to be that since I can"t replicate the multi million year long process that produced the blood clotting system the theory of evolution is just as viable as intelligent design. This is hog wash. The theory of evolution can make predictions that can be verified. It predicts that we would share more DNA with chimps than we do with cats, and more DNA with cats than we would share with tomatoes. It predicts the effects of the long term isolation of a group of creatures from the rest of their population. It explains why we see a great verity of life we see on this planet.

Intelligent design on the other hand does not predict anything. Anything that is discovered is explained with "God made it that way". You can't make any predictions about the future with that answer. You can only look back and try to make the past fit your narrative.

I never said a pulmonary embolus wasn't dangerous. I was just pointing out that you had no idea what you were talking about because you said that we could be killed by a blood clout to the lung if our blood couldn't clout.

die of a pulmonary embolus without a complete blood clotting system.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

@Hubert
What I said your scientific background? I only ask as I don't want to simplify or over complicate my answers?

 

[rainerann]

Your first argument seems to be that since I can"t replicate the multi million year long process that produced the blood clotting system the theory of evolution is just as viable as intelligent design. This is hog wash. The theory of evolution can make predictions that can be verified. It predicts that we would share more DNA with chimps than we do with cats, and more DNA with cats than we would share with tomatoes. It predicts the effects of the long term isolation of a group of creatures from the rest of their population. It explains why we see a great verity of life we see on this planet.

Intelligent design on the other hand does not predict anything. Anything that is discovered is explained with "God made it that way". You can't make any predictions about the future with that answer. You can only look back and try to make the past fit your narrative.

I never said a pulmonary embolus wasn't dangerous. I was just pointing out that you had no idea what you were talking about because you said that we could be killed by a blood clout to the lung if our blood couldn't clout.

No I pointed out there are two extremes that can happen in the blood clotting system. It either becomes coagulated and needs to be thinned in order to prevent blood clots or it isn't able to clot and you bleed to death. Two sides of the blood clotting pendulum or the center point where blood can clot when necessary to protect skin integrity and remain in a fluid state in the system to prevent blockage.

Since reproduction is the process evolution would have to take to establish this, I am unconvinced that this delicate balance is the created by chance.

If blood can't clot, you would bleed to death. You need it to clot, but not too much or it could kill you.

 

[Hubert]

For how long, do you think those great structures or creations, would survive after man becomes extinct? If they are so great, they should be able to maintain/sustain themselves and as we all know, that is impossible. Animals can survive man's extinction simply because they aren't dependent on him for survival. He didn't bring them into existence but man's creation (cars, shoes, clothes,buildings) cannot survive without him simply because it isn't greater than he is. Therefore, as complex as our universe is, or for that matter, Earth, its obvious there is a greater/higher power that upholds/sustains/perpetuates all animate forms.

So because cars need us to keep on running we need a creator to keep on existing? Sorry, no. You haven't even established that a creator actually exist you are just asserting that one does and that everything exist because of him. And you seem to be saying that animals can maintain themselves without any external assistance, why would we be any different?

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

@Hubert

Evolution or Creation? Which would you like to be true? Be honest as this really isn't a trick question. Which view is foundational to your other decisions and opinions?

 

[Hubert]

@Hubert
What I said your scientific background? I only ask as I don't want to simplify or over complicate my answers?

Bachelors degree in Bio-Psych, and a personal interest in biology. Basically go to town, if you are a PhD it's probably going to take me a while to respond because I will have to look up a lot of words.

 

[Hubert]

@Hubert

Evolution or Creation? Which would you like to be true? Be honest as this really isn't a trick question. Which view is foundational to your other decisions and opinions?

I like that question. If I had a say in how the creation went; then Creation, definitely. If I didn't, evolution.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Bachelors degree in Bio-Psych, and a personal interest in biology. Basically go to town, if you are a PhD it's probably going to take me a while to respond because I will have to look up a lot of words.

Ok - that's great - you sound a bit like me! I'm Bsc Biology/Biochem with an MSc in computing. Good to talk with you and as I lack a PhD I won't be using too many big words ;-)

P.s. I am very interested in the scope and limitation of the 'scientific' view (for reasons we might get on to ;-)

 

[rainerann]

Your first argument seems to be that since I can"t replicate the multi million year long process that produced the blood clotting system the theory of evolution is just as viable as intelligent design. This is hog wash. The theory of evolution can make predictions that can be verified. It predicts that we would share more DNA with chimps than we do with cats, and more DNA with cats than we would share with tomatoes. It predicts the effects of the long term isolation of a group of creatures from the rest of their population. It explains why we see a great verity of life we see on this planet.

Intelligent design on the other hand does not predict anything. Anything that is discovered is explained with "God made it that way". You can't make any predictions about the future with that answer. You can only look back and try to make the past fit your narrative.

I find it interesting that you use the word predict to describe evolution. I think the more appropriate word you are looking for is that evolution is creating a connection between two different species. To say that evolution could predict something is the same as saying that evolution is capable of predicting the next genetic change by observation of common traits between different species. This is something evolution cannot do.

When the theory of evolution was originally being investigated by Darwin, he was making observations, not predictions. It is very difficult to understand why you use the same word to describe evolution that we use to describe what a seer is capable of doing.

Either way, I also think I understand what you misunderstood looking at this post again because you seemed to miss what I was conveying with the word complete. When I said that you would get a pulmonary embolus without a complete blood clotting system, I was indicating that you would need to be able to have a clotting system that is complete and capable of clotting without forming a blood clot. The system has to be complete

I looked it up a little bit and found many things discussing how evolution is proven because of different blood types. However, even this discussion cannot predict new blood types. It is also a discussion at such a severe level of abstraction, it cannot be even considered a reasonable substitute for an explanation for how the blood clotting system could develop through evolutions which depend on reproduction to achieve. You don't risk extinction in the process of evolving different blood types.

I also refreshed my understanding of the difference between the blood clotting systems in insects, fish, etc. to try to determine what else might have been useful in making a counter argument in favor of evolution in regard to this subject.

I found an article by Ken Miller on the subject where he discusses a cascading process that doesn't make it seem any more likely that the blood clotting function in every single live creature happened by chance even if it is something that we have in common.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

At the end of the investigation, it would seem that this common function not only doesn't prove the theory of evolution, it proves that the system needs be balanced between the two poles even more so. Insects depend on blood clotting in order to evolve through the function of reproduction. Fish depend on blood clotting to evolve. Every living creature depends on the blood clotting system in order to survive and reproduce.

So, in theory, what we should see is the mass extinction of a variety of different species that existed in different stages of the development of this process. Outside of dinosaurs and a handful of other animals, there is no evidence that there was ever a variety of species that went extinct as the blood clotting system was evolving. No insects. No fish. No birds. No bears. On top of this all, every animal that we are capable of identifying as becoming extinct at some point in history, never became extinct because of a transitioning phase of perfecting the blood clotting system that has to exist in a balanced state and is needed for survival in order for the species to be able to reproduce and perpetuate the cycle of evolution.

So we would basically have to accept that when this system evolved, it became perfect across every single species universally existing with the only deviations being the recessive experience of hemophilia or the tragic chance that blood clots form. It cannot be proven that this ever caused one species to become extinct. Evolution sure seems pretty intelligent.

 

[Karlysymon]

So because cars need us to keep on running we need a creator to keep on existing? Sorry, no. You haven't even established that a creator actually exist you are just asserting that one does and that everything exist because of him. And you seem to be saying that animals can maintain themselves without any external assistance, why would we be any different?

Yes, we do need external assistance to perpetuate our existance, so do animals, inotherwords, every living thing. Man has a spiritual self, which evolution cannot account for, why man throughout time has had this desire to reach out to something greater than himself. Ofcourse the claim will be made that religion was created for control, except every culture around the world has always subscribed to a faith of sorts.

The other thing is the seeming obsession, evolutionists have, with achieving apotheosis/immortality, which is the last stage of evolution, because there's got to be a final point, right?

"Men die, planets die, even stars die. We know all this. Because we know it, we seek something more – a transcendence of transience, translation to incorruptible form. An escape if you will, a stop to the wheel. We seek, therefore, to bless ourselves with perfect knowledge and perfect will; To become as gods, take the universe in hand, and transform it in our image – for our own delight. As it is on Earth, so it shall be in the heavens. The inevitable result of incredible improbability, the arrow of evolution is lipping us into the transhuman – an apotheosis to reason, salvation – attained by good works."

 

[Etagloc]

 

[Hubert]

I find it interesting that you use the word predict to describe evolution. I think the more appropriate word you are looking for is that evolution is creating a connection between two different species. To say that evolution could predict something is the same as saying that evolution is capable of predicting the next genetic change by observation of common traits between different species. This is something evolution cannot do.

When the theory of evolution was originally being investigated by Darwin, he was making observations, not predictions. It is very difficult to understand why you use the same word to describe evolution that we use to describe what a seer is capable of doing.

Either way, I also think I understand what you misunderstood looking at this post again because you seemed to miss what I was conveying with the word complete. When I said that you would get a pulmonary embolus without a complete blood clotting system, I was indicating that you would need to be able to have a clotting system that is complete and capable of clotting without forming a blood clot. The system has to be complete

I looked it up a little bit and found many things discussing how evolution is proven because of different blood types. However, even this discussion cannot predict new blood types. It is also a discussion at such a severe level of abstraction, it cannot be even considered a reasonable substitute for an explanation for how the blood clotting system could develop through evolutions which depend on reproduction to achieve. You don't risk extinction in the process of evolving different blood types.

I also refreshed my understanding of the difference between the blood clotting systems in insects, fish, etc. to try to determine what else might have been useful in making a counter argument in favor of evolution in regard to this subject.

I found an article by Ken Miller on the subject where he discusses a cascading process that doesn't make it seem any more likely that the blood clotting function in every single live creature happened by chance even if it is something that we have in common.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

At the end of the investigation, it would seem that this common function not only doesn't prove the theory of evolution, it proves that the system needs be balanced between the two poles even more so. Insects depend on blood clotting in order to evolve through the function of reproduction. Fish depend on blood clotting to evolve. Every living creature depends on the blood clotting system in order to survive and reproduce.

So, in theory, what we should see is the mass extinction of a variety of different species that existed in different stages of the development of this process. Outside of dinosaurs and a handful of other animals, there is no evidence that there was ever a variety of species that went extinct as the blood clotting system was evolving. No insects. No fish. No birds. No bears. On top of this all, every animal that we are capable of identifying as becoming extinct at some point in history, never became extinct because of a transitioning phase of perfecting the blood clotting system that has to exist in a balanced state and is needed for survival in order for the species to be able to reproduce and perpetuate the cycle of evolution.

So we would basically have to accept that when this system evolved, it became perfect across every single species universally existing with the only deviations being the recessive experience of hemophilia or the tragic chance that blood clots form. It cannot be proven that this ever caused one species to become extinct. Evolution sure seems pretty intelligent.

Darwin used observations, to construct the theory of evolution which explains his observations, and can make predictions about the form of an animal based upon it's environment. One of the most famous was the prediction of a giant moth almost 40 years before it was discovered.

You have no new arguments against evolution, your just rehashing "I don't see how the blood clotting system could have evolved, therefor all of evolution is wrong". You are missing the forest for a singularly intelligently designed tree.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Darwin used observations, to construct the theory of evolution which explains his observations, and can make predictions about the form of an animal based upon it's environment. One of the most famous was the prediction of a giant moth almost 40 years before it was discovered.

You have no new arguments against evolution, your just rehashing "I don't see how the blood clotting system could have evolved, therefor all of evolution is wrong". You are missing the forest for a singularly intelligently designed tree.

You have a lot of faith in Darwin - I don't think his grasp on the requirements for life were quite what they are today!

Did you ever study cell biology? What would you regard as a minimum viable life form? Which organelles would you seem to be essential as a basic cell plan?

Another one to throw into the mix is the difficulties presented by the often cited 'Miller experiment'. It did indeed produce some amino acids, when isolated from the electrical forces in the trap, but these simple compounds, produced by stochastic chemistry display left and right handed chirality (or handedness). Put simply, life cannot use this mixture to construct functional protein chains.

The problem is better described in this link...

http://creation.mobi/origin-of-life-the-chirality-problem

Food for thought... I asked my Biology professors about this one and I might as well have said that I was a Satanist at a church camp. They did not like my question one bit ;-)

 

[Hubert]

Yes, we do need external assistance to perpetuate our existance, so do animals, inotherwords, every living thing. Man has a spiritual self, which evolution cannot account for, why man throughout time has had this desire to reach out to something greater than himself. Ofcourse the claim will be made that religion was created for control, except every culture around the world has always subscribed to a faith of sorts.

The other thing is the seeming obsession, evolutionists have, with achieving apotheosis/immortality, which is the last stage of evolution, because there's got to be a final point, right?

"Men die, planets die, even stars die. We know all this. Because we know it, we seek something more – a transcendence of transience, translation to incorruptible form. An escape if you will, a stop to the wheel. We seek, therefore, to bless ourselves with perfect knowledge and perfect will; To become as gods, take the universe in hand, and transform it in our image – for our own delight. As it is on Earth, so it shall be in the heavens. The inevitable result of incredible improbability, the arrow of evolution is lipping us into the transhuman – an apotheosis to reason, salvation – attained by good works."

What external assistance do all living things need? We need resources, food, shelter, ect. But the only thing keeping me alive is me. So far the Idea that people need external assistance to live is an unfounded assertion.

By spiritual self you seem be referring our propensity to tell stories to answer questions like why we are hear and what is our purpose. This was the original intent of spirituality, to give ourselves meaning. Originally it likely had little to do with control, that was a side effect. The problem is that the answers spirituality gives to questions of purpose are often wrong.

Your last sentence is a big ball of wrong. There is no such thing as an evolutionist. The phrase you are looking for is scientifically literate individual. There is no obsession with immortality. Immorality is like magic, it doesn't exist. There is no final point to evolution, it is an unintelligent unguided process and thus cannot have a goal or final point.

 

[Etagloc]

There is no obsession with immortality. Immorality is like magic, it doesn't exist. There is no final point to evolution, it is an unintelligent unguided process and thus cannot have a goal or final point.

Dogma. Pure dogma.

What is incredible is how this ideology- which has nothing to do any empirical scientific method is totally unscientific yet claims to be "science".... sure, in the same way Marxism is science.

Science as method? I respect it. "Science" as materialist ideology? Totally unscientific and needs to go.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I just read this little article on garden photography! I know - random!!!! As I was looking at the photos, I would have to try very hard not to see intelligence and aesthetic understanding in their design...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4789904/International-Garden-Photographer-Year-winners.html

 

[Renegade]

Time and chance DID get us here.

And this qualifies as science how..?