Is a atheist more rational than a theis ?
Offline Since the name of this forum is rational response squad, my question is :
why do you think it is more rational to believe, no God exists, than the oposit. ?
I ask this in face of following facts :
1. According to science, the universe had a beginning. Therefor, it had a cause.
2. The universe is extremely fine tuned. If the four natural forces would differ just a fraction, the cosmos would not have surged, and therefor no life. The probability number, that this universe surged by chance, is so small, that it can be discarted. At this point, the " God of the gaps " argument does not apply, since the constants are known. Why should it be more rational to believe, the universe arised by chance thow ?
3. Science has no answer how life arose from unanimated matter. Even the simplest unicellular being is so complex, that even the most complex machine invented by man is like a toy. DNA is a code, and code can come only from a mind.
- Login to post comments
Offline This has got to be one of the biggest text-walls I have ever seen. All this, and it is nothing but one argument from ignorance after another. When one argument from ignorance is expained, he moves on to another one without missing a beat. The only arguments that cannot be shown obviously false are the cosmological arguments, and he does not have any evidence for those in the first place, so that is just a giant ignorance plea.
Besides the DNA thing anyway...that seems to be an argument from semantics. Because since humans use the word "code" when describing DNA, it means God is real and miracles really do happen.
The only thing I wish he would do, at this point, is answer the question I asked, and others have asked, about where he got the probability numbers from...just out of morbid curiosity.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
- Login to post comments
Offline This has got to be one of the biggest text-walls I have ever seen. All this, and it is nothing but one argument from ignorance after another. When one argument from ignorance is expained, he moves on to another one without missing a beat. The only arguments that cannot be shown obviously false are the cosmological arguments, and he does not have any evidence for those in the first place, so that is just a giant ignorance plea.
Besides the DNA thing anyway...that seems to be an argument from semantics. Because since humans use the word "code" when describing DNA, it means God is real and miracles really do happen.
The only thing I wish he would do, at this point, is answer the question I asked, and others have asked, about where he got the probability numbers from...just out of morbid curiosity.
Of course he does, it's called grasping at straws, his statement is science cannot answer these questions. Then we show him that science is working on it and has possible answers to the questions, which then he moves to science HAS not answered them therefore god exists. Oh and avoids answering anything that shows that he is contradicting himself massively and of course anything that debunks his stance.
- Login to post comments
Offline Of course he does, it's called grasping at straws, his statement is science cannot answer these questions. Then we show him that science is working on it and has possible answers to the questions, which then he moves to science HAS not answered them therefore god exists. Oh and avoids answering anything that shows that he is contradicting himself massively and of course anything that debunks his stance.
you really fall short . you would love i would use the " god of the gaps " argument. Unfortunately, you don't have a point with the fine - tune argument, since the data is known, the constants are known, and the data evidences clearly a designer.
But you haven't answered my question. Would you wish the God of the bible to exist, but the scientific evidence against his existence is so strong, that you are unable to believe in his existence ?
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:Of course he does, it's called grasping at straws, his statement is science cannot answer these questions. Then we show him that science is working on it and has possible answers to the questions, which then he moves to science HAS not answered them therefore god exists. Oh and avoids answering anything that shows that he is contradicting himself massively and of course anything that debunks his stance.
you really fall short . you would love i would use the " god of the gaps " argument. Unfortunately, you don't have a point with the fine - tune argument, since the data is known, the constants are known, and the data evidences clearly a designer.
But you haven't answered my question. Would you wish the God of the bible to exist, but the scientific evidence against his existence is so strong, that you are unable to believe in his existence ?
But you have been the entire time
that's the funny part, you, like Behe, love to ignore all the other possibilities and studies that says otherwise.Many including myself have given you websites from scientific view points that say the fine tune argument to prove god is useless because it doesn't eliminate all the other possibilities given. As well, I have answered your question, it does not matter to me if god exists or not, I do not wish one way or the other, what I would like is evidence that he does exist and/or provide a logical, rational definition of what god is, so far you have yet to even do that simple task, what you did however is give yourself a massive contradiction in the definition of god, with that said, you have to eliminate all the other possibilities, saying that it is improbable doesn't cut it, improbable is not impossible.
All the evidence you supposedly gave, has been argued before and alternative possibilities that you reject, not debunk or refute, have been given to you.
Your Behe example and completely outright lying that he was not debunked, is showing, the fact that there are other explanations for what caused the big bang and of course the problem with irreducible complexity which is really out the window in the world of science, saying god is the only answer when there are other answers is both the god of the gaps argument and argument from ignorance.
Hence your argument really is the god of the gaps argument for practically the entire argument so far. Even your arguments about fine tune universe, once a alternative explanation is given, that possibility is there that god did not do it, even more so there is a very good possibility that the universe does not need a creator to explanation the formation of the universe. As well your definition of god as well as the attributes you give to it, make it an impossibility for it to exist, giving the improbable the most probable explanation. Hence explaining that the improbable does not equal impossible, which is basically your entire argument, "We have the data, we know that chance as explanation for the surge of the universe is very unlikely" but its far more likely to have happened that your impossible god. I will take the improbable over the impossible any day.
I am probably repeated myself a lot here, but you really don't see the fallacy in your argument, much like Behe didn't see it while writing his books. You may reject the alternatives given, and you may ignore all the evidence contrary to your beliefs, but that doesn't mean god exists, and it doesn't mean scientist have to ignore all the evidence and say god did it as well.
- Login to post comments
Offline As well, I have answered your question, it does not matter to me if god exists or not, I do not wish one way or the other, what I would like is evidence that he does exist
- Login to post comments
Offline
latincanuck wrote:It really makes no sense to continue to answer you.....As well, I have answered your question, it does not matter to me if god exists or not, I do not wish one way or the other, what I would like is evidence that he does exist
So then In other words, you throw the towel ..... You admit, you do not have any compelling , reasonable answer, to refute the presented facts....., your just like Behe, amazing how you avoid the facts, the evidence and the scientific studies so that you can say THERE IS A GOD!!. Just as I thought.
- Login to post comments
Offline angelobrazil wrote:
latincanuck wrote:It really makes no sense to continue to answer you.....As well, I have answered your question, it does not matter to me if god exists or not, I do not wish one way or the other, what I would like is evidence that he does exist
So then In other words, you throw the towel ..... You admit, you do not have any compelling , reasonable answer, to refute the presented facts....., your just like Behe, amazing how you avoid the facts, the evidence and the scientific studies so that you can say THERE IS A GOD!!. Just as I thought.
presented facts ? multiverse, fairy tales, flying spaghetti monsters ?.....
keep it that way, so you won't be frustrated. you won the debate. fine for you ?
- Login to post comments
Offline latincanuck wrote:angelobrazil wrote:
latincanuck wrote:It really makes no sense to continue to answer you.....As well, I have answered your question, it does not matter to me if god exists or not, I do not wish one way or the other, what I would like is evidence that he does exist
So then In other words, you throw the towel ..... You admit, you do not have any compelling , reasonable answer, to refute the presented facts....., your just like Behe, amazing how you avoid the facts, the evidence and the scientific studies so that you can say THERE IS A GOD!!. Just as I thought.
presented facts ? multiverse, fairy tales, flying spaghetti monsters ?..... keep it that way, so you won't be frustrated. you won the debate. fine for you ?
You say that as though you actually presented facts when all you did was put forth a hybrid argument combing a cosmological argument, the anthropic principle and a complaint that science hasn't figured out abiogenesis yet.
When your arguments are refuted and your complaint dealt with, you reject rather than counter the refutations. Or did you really think that your quote-mined sermons counted?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline latincanuck wrote:angelobrazil wrote:
latincanuck wrote:It really makes no sense to continue to answer you.....As well, I have answered your question, it does not matter to me if god exists or not, I do not wish one way or the other, what I would like is evidence that he does exist
So then In other words, you throw the towel ..... You admit, you do not have any compelling , reasonable answer, to refute the presented facts....., your just like Behe, amazing how you avoid the facts, the evidence and the scientific studies so that you can say THERE IS A GOD!!. Just as I thought.
presented facts ? multiverse, fairy tales, flying spaghetti monsters ?..... keep it that way, so you won't be frustrated. you won the debate. fine for you ?
Multi-verse, string theory, singularity theory, the big bang and various other explanations for the universe, scientific evidence for evolution of the immune system, blood clotting mechanism and the bacterial flagellum and exposed the fact that you are quite willing to ignore that facts so that you can say god did it....what have you brought...and impossible god that cannot be proved, given a logical or rational description and has no scientific evidence whatsoever, shit even you said you cannot provide any evidence of such said god, yet you can determine that it wants to be worshiped and that it is a spirit, it is simple it can do complex things, it create life, it can do much, yet it cannot be proved, nor can we test for any physical evidence of it and it can only be proved by having faith in it.
(best explanation from a friend regarding the whole ID fine tuned argument)
"Probably the most important conclusion we can draw is that even if the universe were intentionally created, we can discern nothing about that creator that we cannot discern of the physical universe. We cannot say anything about this supposed creator other than it is the sort of creator who would create this particular universe in all its details.
We cannot determine if this being wants to be worshipped or ignored. We can’t tell if it is friendly, hostile or completely indifferent to human, or even terrestrial life. Just believing that such a creator exists gives us absolutely no additional justification for believing that any religious scripture is inspired by this creator. (Indeed the idea that a being capable of creating such a vast universe, of actually creating physics itself, would choose to communicate with its creation by the agency of schizophrenic prophets and parasitic priests in some a remote corner of the ancient world seems vastly less plausible than that all religions are entirely human social constructs.)"
Yet you believe it is YOUR god, the christian god that created everything because the bible says so, even though he bible is wrong on so many accounts from the actual creation of the universe to the creation of humans.
Yes you have thrown in the towel, because you have no facts, and actually have ignored all the other possibilities, all the other facts and now have your back to the wall, your fine tuned universe does not prove YOUR god specifically, does dismiss all the other possible scientific explanations for the universe, even your irreducible complex argument has been debunked. Thank you sir for playing this game, so far you have failed.
- Login to post comments
Offline you say that as though you actually presented facts when all you did was put forth a hybrid argument combing a cosmological argument, the anthropic principle and a complaint that science hasn't figured out abiogenesis yet.
When your arguments are refuted and your complaint dealt with, you reject rather than counter the refutations. Or did you really think that your quote-mined sermons counted?
i have made well clear my point of view. i have not quoted sermons, but facts commonly accepted by science. In case of the fine-tune arguments, all what has been presented as refutation is un-scientific multi-verse non-sense. Why not start to speculate as well , how many angels live in heaven ?
- Login to post comments
Offline Yes you have thrown in the towel, because you have no facts, and actually have ignored all the other possibilities, all the other facts and now have your back to the wall, your fine tuned universe does not prove YOUR god specifically, does dismiss all the other possible scientific explanations for the universe, even your irreducible complex argument has been debunked. Thank you sir for playing this game, so far you have failed.
Latincanuck....
You are the guy !! congratulations. You WON the debate. Is there actually a medal for the smartest guy of this forum ?
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:you say that as though you actually presented facts when all you did was put forth a hybrid argument combing a cosmological argument, the anthropic principle and a complaint that science hasn't figured out abiogenesis yet.
When your arguments are refuted and your complaint dealt with, you reject rather than counter the refutations. Or did you really think that your quote-mined sermons counted?
i have made well clear my point of view. i have not quoted sermons, but facts commonly accepted by science. In case of the fine-tune arguments, all what has been presented as refutation is un-scientific multi-verse non-sense. Why not start to speculate as well , how many angels live in heaven ?
Excuse me while I laugh maniacally....
Ok now I'm back. You've presented things from apologetics websites filled with old, debunked science and quote mining. You chose to reject instead of refute.
How are the multiverse theories less scientific than "magic man done it"?
As for the speculation you desire - no angels, no heaven so zero.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline angelobrazil wrote:i have made well clear my point of view. i have not quoted sermons, but facts commonly accepted by science. In case of the fine-tune arguments, all what has been presented as refutation is un-scientific multi-verse non-sense. Why not start to speculate as well , how many angels live in heaven ?
Excuse me while I laugh maniacally....
Ok now I'm back. You've presented things from apologetics websites filled with old, debunked science and quote mining. You chose to reject instead of refute.
How are the multiverse theories less scientific than "magic man done it"?
As for the speculation you desire - no angels, no heaven so zero.
There are two things I don't get about most cosmological arguments. The bolded part is the first one...I really, honestly don't understand how people can literally say that when they don't understand something it must be magic. To me, it seems obvious that is what is being claimed...people are actually claiming an all-powerful magic ghost winked things into existence. Isn't that a little weird? It always surprises me, because it seems like we, as modern humans, have moved beyond belief in magic but it still pops up everywhere.
My second issue is how this stuff leads to the Christian God. I can really see how you can choose to believe that some strange sentient being created our reality...I don't think you can prove it, but since you can't really dis-prove it conclusively, I can understand why it is an attractive idea. Fine. But how can you rationalize a personal deity? That seems like such a huge leap to link the two concepts. Have there been any good threads on this board about that topic?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
- Login to post comments
Offline Sorry angelo, but it stopped being a debate when u stopped bothering with actually debating/discussing the problems ur argument brought up regarding the description and attributes, and contradiction of god that u gave. Plus once u started to ignore everything else I posted with irreducible complexity, exposed Behe as a liar, and of course dismissing not debunking/refuting all the other possibilities. Like I wrote earlier, even if all the evidence does actually point to a creator, there is no evidence whatsoever about the motives of such said creator, let alone that it is specifically the christian god. U haven't even presented proper evidence that it is ur god to begin with. That is the fallacy of ur entire argument in the end, u ignore all the obvious problems of ur evidence/claims so that u can say its the biblical god. Go right ahead and ignore I have just posted, because u have for the last s or most post of mine.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Excuse me while I laugh maniacally....
Ok now I'm back. You've presented things from apologetics websites filled with old, debunked science and quote mining. You chose to reject instead of refute.
How are the multiverse theories less scientific than "magic man done it"?
As for the speculation you desire - no angels, no heaven so zero.
Laughing is good. So have fun. have you actually read the websites i linked to ? The fine-tuning of the universe is not old debunked science. Quit the contrary is the case. Its very actual , its recent, new knowledge, suported through scientific discovery. But if you want to argue with Einstein, Hawking, Hoyle, and others, feel free. The more time pasts, more fine - tune constants are discovered. You can of course deny it, but then your belief system is suportet by what ? only wishful thinking and hot air ?
- Login to post comments
Offline Sorry angelo, but it stopped being a debate when u stopped bothering with actually debating/discussing the problems ur argument brought up regarding the description and attributes, and contradiction of god that u gave. Plus once u started to ignore everything else I posted with irreducible complexity, exposed Behe as a liar, and of course dismissing not debunking/refuting all the other possibilities. Like I wrote earlier, even if all the evidence does actually point to a creator, there is no evidence whatsoever about the motives of such said creator, let alone that it is specifically the christian god. U haven't even presented proper evidence that it is ur god to begin with. That is the fallacy of ur entire argument in the end, u ignore all the obvious problems of ur evidence/claims so that u can say its the biblical god. Go right ahead and ignore I have just posted, because u have for the last s or most post of mine.
latincanuck
i don't know what reason you see to continue to argue with me. I have made my point. you have rejected it. Now you repeat the same arguments like a sermon. Whatever i will present as evidence, you will continue to ignore, and assert there is no evidence. So i really don't see any reason to continue to debate with you. If you insist, i will start to suspect you have some sort of ego problem.....
- Login to post comments
Offline Double post - apologies.
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:
Excuse me while I laugh maniacally....
Ok now I'm back. You've presented things from apologetics websites filled with old, debunked science and quote mining. You chose to reject instead of refute.
How are the multiverse theories less scientific than "magic man done it"?
As for the speculation you desire - no angels, no heaven so zero.
Laughing is good. So have fun. have you actually read the websites i linked to ? The fine-tuning of the universe is not old debunked science. Quit the contrary is the case. Its very actual , its recent, new knowledge, suported through scientific discovery. But if you want to argue with Einstein, Hawking, Hoyle, and others, feel free. The more time pasts, more fine - tune constants are discovered. You can of course deny it, but then your belief system is suportet by what ? only wishful thinking and hot air ?
I don't want to argue with them. I will argue with the quote mining your apologists did to make a point that the original authors/speakers didn't make.
If my beliefs were supported by hot air, that support would still be more substantial than the support for your God-belief. See, air is real.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:
Excuse me while I laugh maniacally....
Ok now I'm back. You've presented things from apologetics websites filled with old, debunked science and quote mining. You chose to reject instead of refute.
How are the multiverse theories less scientific than "magic man done it"?
As for the speculation you desire - no angels, no heaven so zero.
Laughing is good. So have fun. have you actually read the websites i linked to ? The fine-tuning of the universe is not old debunked science. Quit the contrary is the case. Its very actual , its recent, new knowledge, suported through scientific discovery. But if you want to argue with Einstein, Hawking, Hoyle, and others, feel free. The more time pasts, more fine - tune constants are discovered. You can of course deny it, but then your belief system is suportet by what ? only wishful thinking and hot air ?
This is my problem, I read the Hawking article, and I did not see how it helped your case in the slightest. When Hawking says the universe is improbable, he is not saying it is impossible, and he directly goes on to talk about how it could have come into being. But you cherry pick an idea from what they say and run with it. I have a hard time taking you seriously when you are using quotes and ideas out of context from people who spent their lives searching for secular, natural, non-religious theories about cosmology. Hawking does not say the universe is supernatural. Einstein did not say that either. All they say is that, as far as we understand, it is improbable.
Then you say it is so improbable that it is impossible, but you flatly ignore request after request for clarification on how you came up with your numbers on improbability.
This has not been a debate, this has been a bunch of atheists talking to a brick wall. At least have the honesty to respond to each point people bring up. So far ever time someone asks a question you do not have an answer to, you just ignore it and move on to the next point, but the atheists are responding to your posts point by point.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
- Login to post comments
Offline This is my problem, I read the Hawking article, and I did not see how it helped your case in the slightest. When Hawking says the universe is improbable, he is not saying it is impossible, and he directly goes on to talk about how it could have come into being.
Fact that Hawking says , a natural explanation for our universe is improbable does not help my case ? so so....
and how about this statement of him :
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf
"A bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the Universe that is carefully fine-tuned — as if prescribed by an outside agency — or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, a mighty speculative notion to the generation of many different Universes, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see."
I have a hard time taking you seriously when you are using quotes and ideas out of context from people who spent their lives searching for secular, natural, non-religious theories about cosmology.
You bring it right to the point. Since science cannot admit a supernatural explanation, God is not probable, to be the best explanation ? i never understood why people only stick to science, and think science has the answers of ultimate truth.
It has not. Science is limited to give explanations of the physical world. I think however, it makes much more sense, as a truth seeker, to search answers in religion, philosophy, and science. These complement each other, and are not be excludent. Science actually lets many more questions unanswered, than it answers.
Then you say it is so improbable that it is impossible, but you flatly ignore request after request for clarification on how you came up with your numbers on improbability.
but i have linked to my forum, with a wealth of information. have you actually given a look there ?
http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31.htm
but, just a example....
http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Faraday%20Papers/Faraday%20Paper%2010%20Holder_EN.pdf
In fact, to
make only a solar system, surrounded by chaos, by the random collisions
of particles, which is all that is required to make life, the
order required is much less than this, though still vast. It is 1 in 101060.
Since 1010123 swamps 101060 completely, what that means is that,
although a universe with order 1 in 1010123 exists with probability 1 if
all possible universes exist, the probability of our observing such a
universe is only 1 in 1010123.
This has not been a debate, this has been a bunch of atheists talking to a brick wall. At least have the honesty to respond to each point people bring up. So far ever time someone asks a question you do not have an answer to, you just ignore it and move on to the next point, but the atheists are responding to your posts point by point.
give it a break..... i am sticking only to one issue right now, and if i would not respond to the inquiries, you would not read this answer right now.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:Fact that Hawking says , a natural explanation for our universe is improbable does not help my case ? so so.... and how about this statement of him : http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf "A bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the Universe that is carefully fine-tuned — as if prescribed by an outside agency — or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, a mighty speculative notion to the generation of many different Universes, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see."This is my problem, I read the Hawking article, and I did not see how it helped your case in the slightest. When Hawking says the universe is improbable, he is not saying it is impossible, and he directly goes on to talk about how it could have come into being.Quote:You bring it right to the point. Since science cannot admit a supernatural explanation, God is not probable, to be the best explanation ? i never understood why people only stick to science, and think science has the answers of ultimate truth. It has not. Science is limited to give explanations of the physical world. I think however, it makes much more sense, as a truth seeker, to search answers in religion, philosophy, and science. These complement each other, and are not be excludent. Science actually lets many more questions unanswered, than it answers.I have a hard time taking you seriously when you are using quotes and ideas out of context from people who spent their lives searching for secular, natural, non-religious theories about cosmology.Quote:but i have linked to my forum, with a wealth of information. have you actually given a look there ? http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31.htm but, just a example.... http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/resources/Faraday%20Papers/Faraday%20Paper%2010%20Holder_EN.pdf In fact, to make only a solar system, surrounded by chaos, by the random collisions of particles, which is all that is required to make life, the order required is much less than this, though still vast. It is 1 in 101060. Since 1010123 swamps 101060 completely, what that means is that, although a universe with order 1 in 1010123 exists with probability 1 if all possible universes exist, the probability of our observing such a universe is only 1 in 1010123.Then you say it is so improbable that it is impossible, but you flatly ignore request after request for clarification on how you came up with your numbers on improbability.Quote:give it a break..... i am sticking only to one issue right now, and if i would not respond to the inquiries, you would not read this answer right now.This has not been a debate, this has been a bunch of atheists talking to a brick wall. At least have the honesty to respond to each point people bring up. So far ever time someone asks a question you do not have an answer to, you just ignore it and move on to the next point, but the atheists are responding to your posts point by point.
Give the full quotes please - not just what you think proves your point
It goes like this:
"In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately
led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain
cosmology’s central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a
bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of
the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency
- or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation [11], which prevents one
from predicting what a typical observer would see."
He then goes on to explain a different approach becaus the one you espouse doesn't answer the question.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline Referring to an argument attempting to estimate the probability of a 'solar system' is NOT addressing the issue of estimating the probability of those constants having the values they do - that would require knowing the greater context of those constants and the possible range of values.
The solar system scenario already takes those values as given.
We know that solar systems are in fact highly probable, given the number of extra-solar planets detected so far. Nothing complex arise in one step from the 'random collisions of particles' - that is the stupid '747 from a tornado in a junkyard' argument.
Complex structures arise thru a step-wise, hierarchical process. Particles -> atoms -> molecules -> macro-molecules... for life, molecules -> dust/gas clouds -> matter concentrations -> stars and planets, etc.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline You mean the Hawking article that contains things like this gem further on (which you obviously did not read)?
"In conclusion, the bottom up approach to cosmology would be appropriate, if one knew that the universe was set going in a particular way in either the finite or infinite past. However, in the absence of such knowledge one is required to work from the top down."
There you have it, from Hawking himself. "We don't know". Somehow you twist this around and say, "Hawking says God created the universe!". That is my complaint, you are cherry picking this stuff and assuming no-one will actually call you on it.
Then you talk about how science cannot answer questions outside of nature. I agree...since there is nothing outside of nature, science cannot answer questions outside of nature, because they do not exist. What do you even mean, ultimate truth? Religion, Philosophy, Science...one of these things is not like the others. Two are based on logic and rational thought, one is based on feelings. Are you going to tell me that science cannot explain beauty, love and tell us why we are all here on this world? I hope you have something that is harder to eviscerate.
Then you say you are really responsive, even though it took me, what, three requests to badger you into posting some links to apologist websites that links to youtube videos and a wiki page on fine tuning and call it "real science"??? Really???
I also read the article by Reverend Holder. The man is at odds with the Hawking paper you just had me read. So, which one do I throw away? Holder is critiquing some of the stuff Hawking is pushing, so one of them is wrong. But Holder can deliver the coup de grâce with this, "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology’. Oh, good, all those other cosmologists are just lacking in common sense! How come we didn't see it before?? His argument is, "gee, this cosmology stuff is complicated and hard to understand, it must have been magic!". He makes the same mistake you do, you assume that if we do not know the cause of something, it must be God.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
- Login to post comments
Offline latincanuck wrote:Sorry angelo, but it stopped being a debate when u stopped bothering with actually debating/discussing the problems ur argument brought up regarding the description and attributes, and contradiction of god that u gave. Plus once u started to ignore everything else I posted with irreducible complexity, exposed Behe as a liar, and of course dismissing not debunking/refuting all the other possibilities. Like I wrote earlier, even if all the evidence does actually point to a creator, there is no evidence whatsoever about the motives of such said creator, let alone that it is specifically the christian god. U haven't even presented proper evidence that it is ur god to begin with. That is the fallacy of ur entire argument in the end, u ignore all the obvious problems of ur evidence/claims so that u can say its the biblical god. Go right ahead and ignore I have just posted, because u have for the last s or most post of mine.
latincanuck
i don't know what reason you see to continue to argue with me. I have made my point. you have rejected it. Now you repeat the same arguments like a sermon. Whatever i will present as evidence, you will continue to ignore, and assert there is no evidence. So i really don't see any reason to continue to debate with you. If you insist, i will start to suspect you have some sort of ego problem.....
Not reject, refute, which is a big different, you simply avoid the problems you have given to your description of god. However I tend to be a pain when people simply do what you do, basically ignore all the evidence and alternatives given, then make statements like god cannot be tested, that you start a thread asking if it's more rational to believe in a god than not to believe in one (sorry a creator) then when I ask for a logical, rational description of god (because the one's you have given are illogical, irrational, and well contradicting statements [Everything needs a creator, god does not need a creator]) you simply refuse to answer and actually attempt to scurry away by stating that it makes no sense to continue.....why? because your unable to deal with the contradictions, the illogical descriptions you gave about your god? Yeah I am one of those types of people, that just love to continue to poke at the holes in your arguments.
So far you haven't even address the god issue, and why if the universe is created, it must be YOUR version of god that created it.
Also do you know why science doesn't take the god statement seriously? Because it lacks empirical testability and without the hard physical evidence it's unfalsifiable. Which is the same issue with the multiverse theory, but if your going to take your god hypothesis and say it's true, then the same stands for multiverse, and once you do that, the god hypothesis is taken out of the equation because is an alternative possibility. But if your going to eliminate the multiverse because scientists say it it lacks empirical testability, then god is out the door to. Yet you continue with your fallacy throughout the whole debate, either willingly or simply just ignorant of the problems you have posed to the whole creator hypothesis.
If you want to debate, sure no problem, if you want to quote mine no problem, but just like mellestad pointed out, misquoting someone does not prove that they believe god did it and that's the only possibility.
- Login to post comments
Offline Referring to an argument attempting to estimate the probability of a 'solar system' is NOT addressing the issue of estimating the probability of those constants having the values they do - that would require knowing the greater context of those constants and the possible range of values.
The solar system scenario already takes those values as given.
We know that solar systems are in fact highly probable, given the number of extra-solar planets detected so far. Nothing complex arise in one step from the 'random collisions of particles' - that is the stupid '747 from a tornado in a junkyard' argument.
Complex structures arise thru a step-wise, hierarchical process. Particles -> atoms -> molecules -> macro-molecules... for life, molecules -> dust/gas clouds -> matter concentrations -> stars and planets, etc.
oh i see. you want to answer the order in the cosmos with evolution as well....
the question remains open however : why are the values in the exact range for life to exist ?
the odds are hudge. the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence.
Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:
"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'."
- Login to post comments
Offline You mean the Hawking article that contains things like this gem further on (which you obviously did not read)?
"In conclusion, the bottom up approach to cosmology would be appropriate, if one knew that the universe was set going in a particular way in either the finite or infinite past. However, in the absence of such knowledge one is required to work from the top down."
There you have it, from Hawking himself. "We don't know". Somehow you twist this around and say, "Hawking says God created the universe!". That is my complaint, you are cherry picking this stuff and assuming no-one will actually call you on it.
Then you talk about how science cannot answer questions outside of nature. I agree...since there is nothing outside of nature, science cannot answer questions outside of nature, because they do not exist. What do you even mean, ultimate truth? Religion, Philosophy, Science...one of these things is not like the others. Two are based on logic and rational thought, one is based on feelings. Are you going to tell me that science cannot explain beauty, love and tell us why we are all here on this world? I hope you have something that is harder to eviscerate.
Then you say you are really responsive, even though it took me, what, three requests to badger you into posting some links to apologist websites that links to youtube videos and a wiki page on fine tuning and call it "real science"??? Really???
I also read the article by Reverend Holder. The man is at odds with the Hawking paper you just had me read. So, which one do I throw away? Holder is critiquing some of the stuff Hawking is pushing, so one of them is wrong. But Holder can deliver the coup de grâce with this, "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology’. Oh, good, all those other cosmologists are just lacking in common sense! How come we didn't see it before?? His argument is, "gee, this cosmology stuff is complicated and hard to understand, it must have been magic!". He makes the same mistake you do, you assume that if we do not know the cause of something, it must be God.
The scientists i mention do recognize the universe is finely tuned. Of course, we do not " know " how that came to be. We have no conclusive proofs of how the universe was formed. That leaves a number of speculations, which finally are all based on faith. But which is the most reasonable scenario ?
For me , the design of the universe is a hint , is a evidence of the designer.
- Login to post comments
Offline mellestad wrote:You mean the Hawking article that contains things like this gem further on (which you obviously did not read)?
"In conclusion, the bottom up approach to cosmology would be appropriate, if one knew that the universe was set going in a particular way in either the finite or infinite past. However, in the absence of such knowledge one is required to work from the top down."
There you have it, from Hawking himself. "We don't know". Somehow you twist this around and say, "Hawking says God created the universe!". That is my complaint, you are cherry picking this stuff and assuming no-one will actually call you on it.
Then you talk about how science cannot answer questions outside of nature. I agree...since there is nothing outside of nature, science cannot answer questions outside of nature, because they do not exist. What do you even mean, ultimate truth? Religion, Philosophy, Science...one of these things is not like the others. Two are based on logic and rational thought, one is based on feelings. Are you going to tell me that science cannot explain beauty, love and tell us why we are all here on this world? I hope you have something that is harder to eviscerate.
Then you say you are really responsive, even though it took me, what, three requests to badger you into posting some links to apologist websites that links to youtube videos and a wiki page on fine tuning and call it "real science"??? Really???
I also read the article by Reverend Holder. The man is at odds with the Hawking paper you just had me read. So, which one do I throw away? Holder is critiquing some of the stuff Hawking is pushing, so one of them is wrong. But Holder can deliver the coup de grâce with this, "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology’. Oh, good, all those other cosmologists are just lacking in common sense! How come we didn't see it before?? His argument is, "gee, this cosmology stuff is complicated and hard to understand, it must have been magic!". He makes the same mistake you do, you assume that if we do not know the cause of something, it must be God.
The scientists i mention do recognize the universe is finely tuned. Of course, we do not " know " how that came to be. We have no conclusive proofs of how the universe was formed. That leaves a number of speculations, which finally are all based on faith. But which is the most reasonable scenario ?
For me , the design of the universe is a hint , is a evidence of the designer.
1. The only way they recognize your position is if you take the parts of their quotes you like and leave the rest behind.
2. The most reasonable speculation is the one that has the fewest unfounded assumptions. "Magic man done it" isn't even close to being in that group.
3a. That does not automatically mean that the designer is your particular god.
3b. The design is shoddy as so much of it is against the life that exists. Do you really want to credit your God for that? Oh wait...you just give god credit for the good stuff.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Offline mellestad wrote:You mean the Hawking article that contains things like this gem further on (which you obviously did not read)?
"In conclusion, the bottom up approach to cosmology would be appropriate, if one knew that the universe was set going in a particular way in either the finite or infinite past. However, in the absence of such knowledge one is required to work from the top down."
There you have it, from Hawking himself. "We don't know". Somehow you twist this around and say, "Hawking says God created the universe!". That is my complaint, you are cherry picking this stuff and assuming no-one will actually call you on it.
Then you talk about how science cannot answer questions outside of nature. I agree...since there is nothing outside of nature, science cannot answer questions outside of nature, because they do not exist. What do you even mean, ultimate truth? Religion, Philosophy, Science...one of these things is not like the others. Two are based on logic and rational thought, one is based on feelings. Are you going to tell me that science cannot explain beauty, love and tell us why we are all here on this world? I hope you have something that is harder to eviscerate.
Then you say you are really responsive, even though it took me, what, three requests to badger you into posting some links to apologist websites that links to youtube videos and a wiki page on fine tuning and call it "real science"??? Really???
I also read the article by Reverend Holder. The man is at odds with the Hawking paper you just had me read. So, which one do I throw away? Holder is critiquing some of the stuff Hawking is pushing, so one of them is wrong. But Holder can deliver the coup de grâce with this, "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology’. Oh, good, all those other cosmologists are just lacking in common sense! How come we didn't see it before?? His argument is, "gee, this cosmology stuff is complicated and hard to understand, it must have been magic!". He makes the same mistake you do, you assume that if we do not know the cause of something, it must be God.
The scientists i mention do recognize the universe is finely tuned. Of course, we do not " know " how that came to be. We have no conclusive proofs of how the universe was formed. That leaves a number of speculations, which finally are all based on faith. But which is the most reasonable scenario ?
For me , the design of the universe is a hint , is a evidence of the designer.
People like Hawking recognize that the stuff that makes up the universe bahaves in a certain way, and if it did not behave in a certain way things might be drastically different. They claim nothing else. You take those simple statements and twist them into a rationilization for deity, and that is clearly not intellectually honest. You can't pull quotes out of context from people who are more knowledgeable than you on a subject like physics and expect your arguments to work. I am not insulting you, I don't know shit about physics compared to someone like Hawking, and I doubt you are in that league either. If he thought that the universe must have been created by god, he would *say*, "The universe was probably created by a god". But he isn't saying that, and by putting words into their mouths it makes your arguments harder to swallow, because we know you are using dishonest debate tactics. It is even worse when you read the whole paper and see where he directly refutes the idea that an intelligent creator is necessary.
If you are willing to say that there is no actual evidence of a creator, but you think there must be anyway because you feel there must, that is fine! That just makes you an agnostic theist, and we have lots of those here. You might get picked on, but we understand that opinion, we really do. Just don't try to force legitimate science to support your view when it does not.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
- Login to post comments
Offline the question remains open however : why are the values in the exact range for life to exist ?the odds are hudge. the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence.
One thing I never see addressed regarding these values for the constants is what happens if you let them vary without keeping the others constant? All the presented 'fine-tuned' values and considerations come from varying one while keeping the others constant. I get why they do that, it's relatively easy, I can do it myself. But why does that have to be the case? Why can't there be ranges in parameter space that allow for a stable universe?
- Login to post comments
Offline angelobrazil wrote:the question remains open however : why are the values in the exact range for life to exist ?the odds are hudge. the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence.
One thing I never see addressed regarding these values for the constants is what happens if you let them vary without keeping the others constant? All the presented 'fine-tuned' values and considerations come from varying one while keeping the others constant. I get why they do that, it's relatively easy, I can do it myself. But why does that have to be the case? Why can't there be ranges in parameter space that allow for a stable universe?
Actually, people have started to do that, and, as would be expected, there do appear to be a range of combinations which do allow for a Universe that would have the basic minimum requirements for complex structures to develop, not necessarily anything resembling life-as-we-know-it, of course.
This paper seems to be a good strong, though somewhat technical counter to the FTA. This is also interesting. It is not difficult to find such papers.
None of this addresses the fundamental flaw in any argument for the necessity for a designer to explain our existence, in that it does not explain where the designer came from.
Any logically coherent theory of origins has to either allow that complexity can spontaneously arise from elementary simplicity, or accept that complexity can simply exist, or spontaneously appear. Since we observe complex, organized structures arising from simpler everyday, the first option is clearly the most parsimonious.
God theories contribute nothing to this, simply interposing another entity requiring explanation into the scene without actually addressing the issue of ultimate origins.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline KSMB wrote:angelobrazil wrote:the question remains open however : why are the values in the exact range for life to exist ?the odds are hudge. the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence.
One thing I never see addressed regarding these values for the constants is what happens if you let them vary without keeping the others constant? All the presented 'fine-tuned' values and considerations come from varying one while keeping the others constant. I get why they do that, it's relatively easy, I can do it myself. But why does that have to be the case? Why can't there be ranges in parameter space that allow for a stable universe?
Actually, people have started to do that, and, as would be expected, there do appear to be a range of combinations which do allow for a Universe that would have the basic minimum requirements for complex structures to develop, not necessarily anything resembling life-as-we-know-it, of course.
This paper seems to be a good strong, though somewhat technical counter to the FTA. This is also interesting. It is not difficult to find such papers.
None of this addresses the fundamental flaw in any argument for the necessity for a designer to explain our existence, in that it does not explain where the designer came from.
Any logically coherent theory of origins has to either allow that complexity can spontaneously arise from elementary simplicity, or accept that complexity can simply exist, or spontaneously appear. Since we observe complex, organized structures arising from simpler everyday, the first option is clearly the most parsimonious.
God theories contribute nothing to this, simply interposing another entity requiring explanation into the scene without actually addressing the issue of ultimate origins.
not true Bob, they tend to address it, god has always existed, is beyond time and matter, god does not need a creator. Come on Bob you know the answers....we just never see them deal with the contradictions they bring to their arguments/claims.
- Login to post comments
Improbable is not impossible which is what your implying, just because it is improbable it does not mean it cannot happen. Are you not capable of seeing the error your making?
oh and the fact that the possibility of god, the way you described it, is impossible doesn't stop you from believing god exists, i will take improbable instead of impossible. lets look back at your statements and assess it all. God is a spirit (please show the existence of a spirit), god is above time and matter (please show how this spirit can manipulate matter and or create time), god is an unembodied mind, please show us a mind that is unembodied, i.e requires no brain, as so far no evidence has it has never been shown that the mind can function without the brain. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists, yet when it is stated the same for energy, that cannot be in your mind, how convenient. Then you state this gem "We know that from nothing, nothing comes" yet god can do that...strange how god can do all this stuff and is simple as well. God is not complex, but can do complex things like have a mind, speak to humans, create the universe, be responsible for plagues (it's in the bible) create humans from clay (again in the bible) and well do many other complex things that us complex beings have problems doing (like controlling the weather, and well making people into pillars of salt) but a simple being with a simple mind (some how this is really funny) is able to do complex tasks, such as impregnating a human and come in human form, all complex things that this supposed simple thing can do.
Love those contradictions, language is very much a complex thing, the mind itself comes from a complex thing (the brain) being able to do practically everything that god supposedly does in the bible requires a complex being, yet you claim god is simple, a spirit, above and beyond this universe, all matter and time, yet can some how manipulate all things material and time itself and is simple, yet you fail to see the contradiction that you are creating. Impossible being that is somehow probable, even though it violates everything we know, it can create itself from nothing, suspend all the laws of the universe if necessary, stop time (to give the israelies enough time to defeat their enemies). But this is what you believe in and what science say for the most part is improbable to the point of impossible....hmm and we have a comprehension problem? Time to look in the mirror.
Touting something as "finely tuned" as something seperate from "meaning and purpose" is a categorical mistake. Design, meaning, and purpose are part of teleology, and any arguments based upon these are teleological arguments. Design implies purpose, unless you want to suggest that the universe does not have design, bur rather is merely finely-tuned. In this case, it would seem non-sequitor to posit a designer if prupose and design are not linked.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Oh no, that's not it; you missed the point. Our criticism is that your line of reasoning reaches a dead end unless you assume that the existence of life holds inherent cosmic significance. Even if the only alternative to design is chance (which I don't think it is) and, under chance, there is a ridiculously low chance of the physics of the universe being suitable for life (which I don't think we can say for sure at this point), this does not imply design unless you have already shown that the existence of life implies design. You cannot use the Bible to establish this premise unless you have already shown that the Bible is accurate through other methods. Otherwise, under these premises, it does not follow to say that our universe is almost certainly designed because this universe already exists.
Let's say, hypothetically, you walk up to a table with 100 dice on it. Obviously, it is extremely unlikely for these dice to be in any specific combination, but do you then conclude that someone must have placed these dice in that specific combination? No, of course not, because any specific combination is equally unlikely, so ignoring other factors, it's just as likely that someone simply dumped these out of a jar as that they meticulously turned each die to a specific value. For design to be more plausible, you need to see someone placing these dice or observe a pattern. Unfortunately, the latter is simple with dice, but terribly complex and quite subjective in the topic we're dealing with.
I've wondered about all of these, but...let's see.
1. I don't know.
2. I don't know. I don't know if it's "fine-tuned" either.
3. I don't know the details, but it should be some kind of abiogenesis.
4. Among other problems, irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance. Nevertheless, to my knowledge, every structure that Creationists have proposed as being irreducibly complex has already been shown to be reducible. If you disagree, give me an example. Someone else has probably already posted this link, but I'll post it again anyways.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html
"An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."
5. I'm not sure what that means, but I believe we're smart because we have really nice brains.
6. I'm not sure what the "moral law" is either. I do believe that we have what we call a "conscience" or consider certain things to be right or wrong due to our instincts.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Of course, since God created the Universe, the earth, and life, it was his purpose to do so. It was his free will and decision to do so. But this matter is beyond scientific inquiry. To ask proves , as latincanuck did, is ridiculous. That makes no sense.
This is not making sense. You are arguing from science for a designer who created a fine-tuned universe with the purpose of supporting life...yet at the same time you are saying that purpose is a matter of religion and not scientific inquiry. So how do you separate design from purpose?
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
So tell me why the universe, which you claim your god perfectly designed for human beings, is trying to kill us?
You don't want to blame it on sin because that makes humans more powerful than God, able to make wholesale changes with the smallest act.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
How can you know such a thing, it is beyond knowledge, it's unknowable, as your stating at this point. Basically there is absolutely no way of knowing if god A) created the universe, B) exists. Your making a massive contradiction, Either you know and can prove it scientifically, or you don't know and cannot prove it scientifically, or your lying and saying science cannot prove it. Either way your statement is neither logical or rational and your god is not improbable but actually impossible.
Of course i see significance in the existence of life. Its to glorify the creator.butterbattle wrote:
what else do you suggest ?
there are limitless examples . Does just not see it, who does not want to. Even Dawkins recognizes design in nature.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4z0IVivslc&feature=related
I don't need the bible to show the universe is designed. Just study nature. Itself reveals the glory of the creature, his intelligence and power. Man copies the perfect engeneering of design in nature, and admits : many things could not be designed better. a example ? Now , ear this! technology inspired by hearing organ
http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/creationism-f5/now-ear-this-technology-inspired-by-hearing-organ-t109.htm
Is there a hypotheses, that shows its more rational to think, " nothing " is the explanation , to explain the BigBang ? Or does it make more sense, to believe, there is cause of the BigBang ?
Well, its science, not me, that says the universe is finely tuned. And there is a consensus amongst the scientific community about this. Feel free to disprove, Einstein, Hawking, Hoyle, amonst others....butterbattle wrote: Even Miller admits it is very unlikely abiogenesis to be a answer to the origin of life. The odds are too big. Life to be needs information, and information has always a mind as origin.
http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/
Not true. Some critics have misunderstood intelligent design and claimed that it is merely claims that because we can't figure out how some biological structures could have arisen, therefore they were probably designed. The argument for design is not like this. In reality, the argument notes that intelligent design theory is a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of specified (or irreducibly) complex information, and thus argues from positive predictions of design. The lack of detailed step-by-step evolutionary explanations for the origin of irreducible complexity is the result of the fact that irreducible complexity is fundamentally not evolvable by Darwinian evolution.
well, then you might show me that the blood is not irreducible complex, for example. and the immune system. No evolutionist has explained for example, how the wings and feathers of birds evolved, since these only get fully funcional, after fully evolved. In a intermediate state, they would exercise no function at all, and not help the animal to survive. And the features of these animals :
http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/darwin-s-theory-of-evolution-f3/creatures-that-defy-evolution-t111.htm
talkorigins arguments have been debunked already :
http://creationwiki.org/CB200
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6562/evolution/originnews.html#
More Irreducible complexity is something many evolutionists say does not exist in nature. The "reductionists" believe that there are no limits to an organism's variability and its ability to evolve. However, a new report demonstrates that when three characters are affected by a gene, the gene cannot change, but is constrained by the dependency of the other characteristics. Therefore, evolution is now falsifiable if organisms can be found that have broken this principle. In addition, this study demonstrates that the ability of organisms to evolve is limited. Gunter Wagner. February 20, 1998. EVOLUTION: Complexity Matters Science 279:1158) and David Waxman, Joel R. Peck. February 20, 1998. Pleiotropy and the Preservation of Perfection Science 279: 1210. Molecular Biology has greatly added to our ability to understand the how the cell functions at the molecular level. A recent report used genetic selection and "directed molecular evolution" to redesign a bacterial enzyme (chorismate mutase) from its natural dimeric (2 subunit) structure to a monomeric complexly folded enzyme with nearly identical activity to the natural enzyme. The surprising thing to the researchers was that of all the sequences they designed, only 0.05% of those redesigned enzymes expressed appreciable enzymatic activity. What does this tell us? Since evolution is based upon random mutation, the probability of randomly designing this enzyme is extremely unlikely. It is probable that other enzymes will be designed to similar levels of precision.
wow. very correct answer. you just dismissed to explain, how we got that smart brain..... but i united some information about the human brain :
http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/creationism-f5/the-human-brain-miracle-of-creation-t184.htm#507
’Without a doubt, the most complex information-processing system in existence is the human body. If we take all human information processes together, i.e. conscious ones (language, information-controlled, deliberate voluntary movements) and unconscious ones (information-controlled functions of the organs, hormone system), this involves the processing of 1024 bits daily. This astronomically high figure is higher by a factor of 1,000,000 [i.e., is a million times greater] than the total human knowledge of 1018 bits stored in all the world’s libraries.’butterbattle wrote: http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/evidence-of-god-the-moral-argument-t186.htm#... The moral argument begins with the fact that all people recognize some moral code (that some things are right, and some things are wrong). Every time we argue over right and wrong, we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of, holds to, and is not free to arbitrarily change. Right and wrong imply a higher standard or law, and law requires a lawgiver. Because the Moral Law transcends humanity, this universal law requires a universal lawgiver. This, it is argued, is God. In support of the moral argument, we see that even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization observe a moral code similar to everyone else's. Although differences certainly exist in civil matters, virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed and cowardice are universal. If man were responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other thing that man has invented. Further, it is not simply a record of what mankind does—rarely do people ever live up to their own moral code. Where, then, do we get these ideas of what should be done? Romans 2:14-15 says that the moral law (or conscience) comes from an ultimate lawgiver above man. If this is true, then we would expect to find exactly what we have observed. This lawgiver is God. To put it negatively, atheism provides no basis for morality, no hope, and no meaning for life. While this does not disprove atheism by itself, if the logical outworking of a belief system fails to account for what we instinctively know to be true, it ought to be discarded. Without God there would be no objective basis for morality, no life, and no reason to live it. Yet all these things do exist, and so does God. Thus, the moral argument for the existence of God.
You are alife, aren't you ? that answers your question.
No, it doesn't actually. I've had more than my share of tornadoes go over my head and destroy my friends' houses. I've had cancer surgery. I've helped other friends keep their belongings from being washed away by floods. I've helped people rebuild after trees have fallen on their homes.
If the universe was fine tuned for us by God, wouldn't he have prevented these things?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You really don't get it do you? I'm not asking where you get your meaning from, I'm flat out telling you that Probability is Useless unless there is already some desired goal. This is where my Dice or Arrow Analogy comes in to play. You need to prove there was some intent for humanity to be here before the low probability means anything, otherwise we are just a happy accident, and the low probability is interesting, but of little actual significance.
The problem however, is that your purpose or intent is reliant upon the being you are trying to prove, to put it visually;
If there is Intent, then Fine Tuning; if there is Fine Tuning, then God; if there is God, then Intent; If there is Intent.....
Hence, your argument is circular.
The reason you need intent is because otherwise we can easily conclude that the Universe being able to support us is just a really lucky coincidence, no matter how slim the odds are. You claim that the odds of getting all of the variables correct are so staggeringly low that they must have been designed to support life, but if life was not the goal, this is not the case. For instance, if I were to roll a hundred sided die 5000 times, I will end up with a series of numbers. The Odds of me getting whatever particular series I got are staggeringly stacked against; 1:100^5000 if I'm doing the probability correctly, which even if I am not it is still staggeringly against. This doesn't change the fact that I got the string of numbers I got.
This is also why I keep asking you to prove that in a universe different from ours, that no form of life could exist, something you have always ignored. We have no way of knowing for sure what could have been in a universe with different characteristics, because those characteristics are dependent on the fundamental laws of existence, so if they were changed, it is possible that the laws themselves are vastly different, and the Cosmos could exist through some other form of stasis completely alien to anything we could ever imagine. This is also why I keep telling you that the claim you are making, namely; that our Universe is the only possible form any universe could take and remain stable, much less develop life, is an empty claim, as to make this claim would require omniscience. This is another point you have steadfastly ignored.
Finally, this is why I brought up the concept of the Multiverse, because the possibility that some Multiverse exists destroys your argument by providing an explanation for our Universe being habitable, at least on one planet, that is consistent with all of the data, because in this case there is none, and has just as much evidence to support its existence as god does; IE: none. It's mere possibility destroys your argument, which is predicated on the idea that your god is the only way it could have been. As your idea is nothing more than speculation with no actual data to show your god's existence however, I can refute it with a similar idea.
But actually, this isn't even the start of why Probability is useless here.
What really makes the Probability meaningless is that the Universe isn't governed by Chance, but by Physics, and we have no reason to suspect that any potential existence beyond this universe is not also governed by some ordered structure of laws and principles.
For instance, consider the following five images;
1 2 3 4 5
Of these five images, which are more ordered? Obviously, numbers 1, 3 and 4, but only 2 and 5 were actually designed by a conscious entity. They are examples of Modern 'Art' (some, including me, would call them Modern Pieces of Worthless Trash, but that is a different rant), while numbers 1, 3 and 4 are snowflakes. Each of these three are so vastly improbable that they could never have formed by chance. Perhaps one, but all three, in addition to the uncountable number that fall on my city alone (At least one day two years ago we we're colder than Siberia) each year? That would just be silly.
Fortunately for us, snowflakes aren't formed by chance, but by Chemistry, through processes that we know and Understand, just like the processes that formed the Grand Canyon, Fairy Rings, Pebble Rings, Rainbows, and all of the other features that have been ascribed to God.
Even if God was the cause of them, we can still study the process he used.
1: I don't know, we're still working on it, god isn't an answer. Even if it were true, you have no actual proof of this, or rather, the same proof you use can also be used by non-theists to posit a uniformed multiverse without god. Once again, the fact that they have functionally the same amount of actual evidence to support them was kind of my point, a point you all too conveniently have ignored. Twice.
2: If the Universe is fine tuned, a point you have still not proven on virtue of there still being other possibilities to explain our good fortune, and the problem with fine tining denoting an already present intent or desire, which according to you stems from the being you are trying to use the fine tuning to prove, then this would be an interesting question, an interesting question that your god is, once again, not an answer to. Off the top of my head, I would suggest the Big Bang being an ordered event based on Physical Laws. Personally, I like (SEE: Think is Cool, NOT: Believe to be Accurate) the idea of Universes as Spontaneously 'Reproducing', possibly through Black Holes contained within their 'parent' universes. Those Universes that dissipated into entropic soup or collapsed in on themselves would not reproduce, and with a sort of quasi-inheritance of traits at work, this would gradually weed out such non 'fine tuned' entities. This even has basis, as we know that objects which reproduce with variation and selection gradually become more finely tuned towards their environment or the conditions of survival imposed on them.
3: Probably Abiogenesis or something similar, modern research has succeeded in getting basic amino acids and other self replicating molecules to form under conditions expected of the pre-biotic Earth. Of course, the research is still in its infancy and it is likely that our understanding of the process is vastly wrong, however we are working on it. Check back in a couple of Decades. And remember, there is no shame in saying 'I Don't Know, Let's wait for more conclusive evidence' before pronouncing judgment, there is however, or rather should be, shame in abandoning the search altogether and just throwing up your arms and saying "I'll never figure it out, so god must have done it!"
4: So far, every molecular-biological structure proposed for the status of Irreducible Complexity has been explained as not being so. If you have one you think is irreducibly complex, present it and I will see what I can find out. Regardless of this however, just because we cannot figure something out now does not mean it is the work of some god, otherwise in ancient Greece there really was a guy sitting on a mountain throwing around lightning.
5: From our Brains? I think at this point you are getting dangerously close to the Paisley-esque argument of humans cannot be sentient without some supernatural whatsit. However, Rationality being based on the generally ordered workings of a mechanism that operates according to Chemistry and Physics is not too far fetched. Likewise, the fact that human consciousness and rationality can be effected by damage or modification to the physical brain suggests that we get the two from said brain. This leads nicely into question 6;
6: Now you are getting into the 'there is no morality without god' argument. I assume (feel free to correct me, but this is always how this argument has gone in my experience) that you are about to make a claim that absolute morality is impossible without a god, which I would agree with. Given that Absolute Morality doesn't exist, or at the very least cannot be shown to exist from human behavior, this doesn't really help your case. Before you try to argue otherwise, I want to remind you that Christian Morality has changed immensely in just the last 2-300 years, not even getting into the 1800 other years it has been around for.
Now if you will excuse me, I need to go and Demolish some Planets to make way for my new Hyperspace Bypass.
P.S. The article you linked to had no citations, it mentioned names, but I'm not going to sift through all of the work from those researchers for a single equation. I want you to reproduce here, how they arrived at those numbers, otherwise they are meaningless.
P.S.S. I really love how the article is bookended with Quote Mines, show me the context of those quotes and tell me when and where they were spoken or I don't believe they ever happened. For instance, after putting the Hawking Quote into Google, I got nothing but Creationist Websites. I doubt that is a Coincidence.
When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...
Michael behe has been debunked, even his wikipedia entry states that, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe (boy you really don't like doing proper research do you?)
as for the blood thing yeah here is the idea behind the evolution of blood http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1008528
as for the immune system are you fucking kidding me? there are courses on the evolution of the immune system http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Biology/7-345Spring-2005/CourseHome/
Just so that you know, that's not Sinphanius you've quoted. It's angelobrazil not using the quote function properly.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
damn it, sorry my last quote was directed to angelobrazil not sinphanius, sorry about that. Thanks Thomathy
i will ask you the same question : boy you really don't like doing proper research do you?
lets see what wiki entry states :
Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures are roundly rejected by the scientific community.
Who is cited to reject Behe's Argument's ( representing the scientific community as a whole ? )
1. The Stanford Review , Paul Laddis
what is Paul Laddis argument ?
Behe presented as his sole example a bacterial flagellum.
has Laddis actually read Behe's Black Box ? then he probably would not start with that wrong statement.
he continues :
he ( Behe ) neglected to point out the large number of published examples of homologous structures, or proto-flagella, which show that small subsets of the proteins that make up the flagellum could have a selectable function.
Oh, i see. Laddis is guessing..... fact is, that Behe's argument of irreducible complexity has not been debunked.
Evolutionists are still trying to explain the bacterial flagellum.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i6n.htm
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html
2. The Washington Post , Steve Case is a member of the Kansas Science Education Standards Writing Committee
The idea that biochemical pathways are irreducibly complex is philosophy, not science. Reductionism has served science well and just because we do not understand something how does not mean we never will or that a complex system cannot be reduced. Also Behe gives randomness far to large a role. Physical laws regulate the universe and molecular structure is developed following those laws.
Steve Case couldn't bring more superficial arguments. That should debunk Irreducible complexity ? thats laughable, at least......
3.The "Intelligent Design" Hoax by William J. Bennetta
the author then links to another home-page, which is broken :
http://dlindsay.best.vwh.net/creation/behe.html
Many more responses to Darwin's Black Box have been issued since then, and we now have a weighty body of literature devoted to showing that Behe's ID stuff is just another effort to gull the ignorant and to make magic seem plausible. For a survey of that literature, go to http://dlindsay.best.vwh.net/creation/behe.html
huh... no substantial arguments left then....
Blood clotting is irreducibly complex
Its typical how these guys make their case :
The most primitive blood cell may have been a protohemocyte which was first involved in phagocytosis and nutrition.
The vertebrate blood cells may have evolved from the tunicates via the echinoderm line,
So, guessing again ???? btw. i am shure you have no clue at all whats all about they said.....
http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Blood_clotting_is_irreducibly_complex
Evolution of the Immune System
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Biology/7-345Spring-2005/CourseHome/
great site. It just doesnt explain anything.....
No they are not http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/full/189/19/7098
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
again your talking out of your ass, research on the topic shows that this topic has been debunked. Not rejected, debunked. Best using actual scientific sites that are studying this than biased sites trying to ignore all the science and simply say god did it.
It's amazing that you never read what I state, and you haven't even bothered to address your MASSIVE contradiction regarding god, but that's a different topic, again I said they have an idea on how it came to be,, you said there was no explanation at all, again your wrong, they have and idea on how it came to be to work with, and now to prove it.
As for the blood clotting. http://www.pnas.org/content/100/13/7527.full
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html
http://www.proteases.org/showabstract.php?pmid=2130927&redirect=yes&terms=evolution+of+blood+clotting
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g15503424965475p/
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/283636/immune-system/215593/Evolution-of-the-immune-system
There are explanations, and in all due time like most of the irreducible complexity arguments it will be answered, just because we do not have the answer at this very moment does not mean god did it.
oh as for Behe, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Origins
check it out, Behe additionally testified that the presence of irreducible complexity in organisms would not rule out the involvement of evolutionary mechanisms in the development of organic life. He further testified that he knew of no earlier "peer reviewed articles in scientific journals discussing the intelligent design of the blood clotting cascade," but that there were "probably a large number of peer reviewed articles in science journals that demonstrate that the blood clotting system is indeed a purposeful arrangement of parts of great complexity and sophistication."[31] (The judge ruled that "intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature".)[32]
Now from the court papers of the Dover case.
Behe has been refuted and is more or less a laughing stock, most serious ID'ers don't even touch him, especially after the dover court case. Read the court case (I did) and Behe basically ignored all the scientific findings and journals regarding most of everything he tried to put as irreducible complexity. 7 The one article referenced by both Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting ID is an article written by Behe and Snoke entitled “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.” (P-721). A review of the article indicates that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID. In fact, Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used. (22:41-45 (Behe); P-756).
On blood clotting
Second, with regard to the blood-clotting cascade, Dr. Miller demonstrated that the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade has been disproven by peer-reviewed studies dating back to 1969, which show that dolphins’ and whales’ blood clots despite missing a part of the cascade, a study that was confirmed by molecular testing in 1998. (1:122-29 (Miller); P-854.17- 854.22). Additionally and more recently, scientists published studies showing that in puffer fish, blood clots despite the cascade missing not only one, but three parts. (1:128-29 (Miller)). Accordingly, scientists in peer-reviewed publications have refuted Professor Behe’s predication about the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade. Moreover, cross-examination revealed that Professor Behe’s redefinition of the blood-clotting system was likely designed to avoid peer reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument, as it was not a scientifically warranted redefinition. (20:26-28, 22:112-25 (Behe)).
More on Behe shall we.
The immune system is the third system to which Professor Behe has applied the definition of irreducible complexity. Although in Darwin’s Black Box, Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller)). However, Dr. Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe’s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex. Between 1996 and 2002, various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system. (2:31 (Miller)). In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fiftyeight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.” (23:19 (Behe)).
Of course the bacterial flagellum lets look at this one, from the court transcripts shall we.
First, with regard to the bacterial flagellum, Dr. Miller pointed to peer-reviewed studies that identified a possible precursor to the bacterial flagellum, a subsystem that was fully functional, namely the Type-III Secretory System. (2:8- 20 (Miller); P-854.23-854.32). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich admitted that there is serious scientific research on the question of whether the bacterial flagellum evolved into the Type-III Secretary System, the Type-III Secretory System into the bacterial flagellum, or whether they both evolved from a common ancestor. (38:12-16 (Minnich)). None of this research or thinking involves ID. (38:12-16 (Minnich)). In fact, Professor Minnich testified about his research as follows: “we’re looking at the function of these systems and how they could have been derived one from the other. And it’s a legitimate scientific inquiry.” (38:16 (Minnich)).
Do you want to know why Behe is the laughing stock of the ID'ers world? Why he is not taken seriously as a scientist and why his arguments are worth shit all, here it is, in his own words and his partners words, they know JACK SHIT. They have been refuted, even in court. Would you like to disagree now? Please do so, because it show your getting desperate.
As per the court case
As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by “irreducible complexity” renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution offers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means. Exaptation means that some precursor of the subject system had a different, selectable function before experiencing the change or addition that resulted in the subject system with its present function (16:146-48 (Padian)). For instance, Dr. Padian identified the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones from what had been jawbones as an example of this process. (17:6-17 (Padian)). By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity by using the following cogent reasoning: [S]tructures and processes that are claimed to be ‘irreducibly’ complex typically are not on closer inspection. For example, it is incorrect to assume that a complex structure or biochemical process can function only if all its components are present and functioning as we see them today. Complex biochemical systems can be built up from simpler systems through natural selection. Thus, the ‘history’ of a protein can be traced through simpler organisms . . . The evolution of complex molecular systems can occur in several ways. Natural selection can bring together parts of a system for one function at one time and then, at a later time, recombine those parts with other systems of components to produce a system that has a different function. Genes can be duplicated, altered, and then amplified through natural selection. The complex biochemical cascade resulting in blood clotting has been explained in this fashion. P-192 at 22.
Um, yeah, how do you know that?
Thus far, we haven't been able to observe anything in nature that's actually random, just too complex for us to analyze thoroughly. I don't know how the universe got here, but if I had to guess, I would bet on a gradual, non-random, natural process.
How? And how much is a high degree of certainty?
Ugh...........
No offense, but it's a real chore to discuss these things with you. If your next post is like this, I probably won't respond to it.
Dawkins is an atheist. Point me to the specific quote or time in the video that shows that he "recognizes design in nature."
I don't want to watch the entire series.
I really don't understand how this is evidence for Creation.
It makes more sense to believe there is a cause. I just don't know what the cause is.
What calculations are the odds based on? What is "information?"
You didn't explain how it's not an argument from ignorance. Creationists claim that these systems are "not evolvable" because they can't fathom how a system in which each part is absolutely necessary could gradually arise. That's an argument from ignorance.
I don't know enough about blood or the immune system to comment.
Nature does have plenty of gliding animals though.
I might respond to these later, but I'm pretty lazy.
I believe it evolved, but I don't know the details.
I'm sorry, but I can't answer a lot of your questions.
I believe that morality is an abstraction of what we feel is right or wrong based on our instincts (conscience) and reason. We did not invent our instincts but we have philosophized about them extensively. These instincts are imperfect, but there are many basic concepts that are consistent from human to human, thus, transcending cultures and civilizations. They arose during our evolution as a social species.
Just to clarify, what is it that you "instinctively know to be true?"
Can't ice cream be a reason to live?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Well , thats a matter of faith and religion, you don't know that ?
you might explain, why a gradual , natural process would not be random. It would be directed through what ? And how can non-intelligence create things, that are so complex, that we, intelligent and conscientious beings cannot understand it ? how does this make sense to you ?
How? And how much is a high degree of certainty?
http://www.unm.edu/~hdelaney/finetuning.html
There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life.
P. Davies Int. J. of Astrobiology 2(2): 115, (2003).
http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=54&ap=3
Dawkins is clearly saying that it is the specified complexity of a watch that warrants a design inference (mere complexity is not the issue). Dawkins admits that "Behe and Dembski correctly pose the problem of specified complexity as something that needs explaining,"[37] and he even allows that "Design is the temporarily correct explanation for some particular manifestations of specified complexity such as a car or a washing machine."[38] Here we begin to see Dawkins's philosophical commitment to naturalism affecting his conclusions: "sooner or later, in order to explain the illusion of design, we are going to have to terminate the regress [of explanations] with something more explanatory than design itself,"[39] says Dawkins, for "Design can never be an ultimate explanation."[40] Dawkins is happy to concede that intelligent design is a legitimate and evidentially supported explanation for CSI, but his naturalistic philosophy dictates that explaining anything in terms of intelligent design is only ever a "temporarily correct"[41] placeholder for a nonteleological explanation. This philosophical deduction from naturalism applies just as much to watches and washing machines as to cosmic fine-tuning or bacterial flagella.
do you think, a mindless process is capable to create such a complex and purposeful organ like the ear, far better designed, than we, intelligent humans could invent ? is that rational to you ?
And what makes it in your opinion so unprobable, that there might be a intelligent cause ? Why is God a bad explanation ?
read the information in the link..... there you find the answer.
you might show where they make such a claim.
In fact it does. It remains however to evolutionists to explain, how these animals got their wings.... since these only get fully functional, after fully evolved.
Instinct and reason do exclude each other. While instinct is a feature of the animal world, reason is one exclusive to us, humans.
( well , not to all humans, just to some.... )
how do you know our consciousness and rationality arose through a evolutionary process ?