Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,282 Year: 5,539/9,624 Month: 564/323 Week: 61/143 Day: 4/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   At what point should we look for a non-materialistic explanation?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 1 of 160 (537522)
11-29-2009 7:39 AM


In the context of believing in God, bolder-dash stated the following as a valid argument Message 268:
"...I think the Theory of evolution has so many basic problems to it scientifically, in terms of reconciling the randomness of their mutations, and being able to develop and subsist life and all its complexities in this environment and so forth, so it seems there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things..."
When it was noticed that the advance of perihelion of the orbit of Mercury could not be explained by Newtonian gravitation, was that the time we should have decided that "there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things"?
When it was found that an electric current could deflect a compass, was that the time we should have decided that "there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things"?
When it was found that radium could fog a photographic plate, was that the time we should have decided that "there must be a non-materialistic explanation for some things"?
If you think there are large holes in any theory, then you develop a new theory which explains to better degree what we see. You don't go running off, crying - see, see, we need a non-materialistic explanation. If scientists acted like that we would still be in the dark ages.
"Is it science?" I guess...

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 11-30-2009 8:29 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 5 by Straggler, posted 11-30-2009 9:21 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 7 by Parasomnium, posted 11-30-2009 9:38 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 8 by Huntard, posted 11-30-2009 9:52 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 57 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-02-2009 11:31 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 144 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 7:42 AM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 10 of 160 (537696)
11-30-2009 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
11-30-2009 9:32 AM


How much genome DNA complexity does it take before we look for a non-materialistic explanation for life?
Excellent question. And the answer is...???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 11-30-2009 9:32 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by dwise1, posted 11-30-2009 10:31 AM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 145 of 160 (539011)
12-12-2009 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Bolder-dash
12-12-2009 7:42 AM


Re: Irony
The context of the discussion that started this point, was about you stating that you couldn't believe any scientist who disagreed with the ToE if that scientist also possessed some measure of religious faith.
Clearly English isn't your first language, so I understand why you completely failed to appreciate what I was saying. It then goes without saying then your accusations of absurdity and limited knowledge are without foundation.
If a scientist in the field of biology (or genetics, or anthropology, or other similar field) had determined through their scientific research that the data does not support the conclusion that random mutations can account for the diversity of life on earth...
Yep, irrespective of their religious beliefs, this is good: they have determined by evidential means a conclusion (let's gloss over the practicalities of determining such a negative). Go on...
then OF COURSE they would have some measure of believe in some kind of guiding force to the world
oh, epc, EPIC FAIL
A "guiding force to the world" - what the hell is that?
We have soundly concluded that X cannot be responsible for Y, and thus we conclude - IT MUST ME A GUIDING FORCE TO THE WORLD Oh, I'm sorry, I'm dribbling all over my keyboard.
For the love of the FSM, why?
What other options are there? If it isn't randomness doing the changes, then something is, right. Can there be any other choices?
WHY THE FUCK NOT? Have you even looked?
Tell me, in the history of scientific study, how many observations have been successfully explained by a physical scientific explanation, and how many have been agreed that no known physical scientific explanation suffices, and a guiding force, or religious explanation has been used. How many exactly?
Sorry, just have to

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 7:42 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 8:13 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 147 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 8:28 AM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 148 of 160 (539015)
12-12-2009 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Bolder-dash
12-12-2009 8:13 AM


Re: Irony
The opposite of random is systematic or planned. The answer is that simple.
Hmmm, now it's random, not random mutation. Let's not beat around the bush - you are saying that if the evolutionary processes of random mutation and natural selection are not sufficient to explain the origin of species, then the **ONLY POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE** is something planned, guided or designed. And you wonder why we our asses off.
Let me try again:
Tell me, in the history of scientific study, how many observations have been successfully explained by a physical scientific explanation, and how many have been agreed that no known physical scientific explanation suffices, and a guiding force, or religious explanation has been used. How many exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 8:13 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 9:30 AM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 150 of 160 (539034)
12-12-2009 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Bolder-dash
12-12-2009 9:30 AM


Re: Irony
they always try their best to run away from the word and concept of randomness
no, they just desperately try to get people to understand the concept and its place within whatever subject they are talking about. Like most creationists, you seem to have little control over your terminology. Which is hilarious, when you think of what you are like in the other thread concerning "dimensions". As scientists, we have fairly strict definitions of the words we use, and although admittedly context will often have a large role in which definition is used, we at least have the decency of consistency. You could try it some time... you may like it.
So again, I ask you, if not blind, purposeless accidents, what else can you have which doesn't require a plan?
I guess if we're defining blind, purposeless accidents as "not a plan", then I'll grant it you by definition.
*BUT* you were talking about random mutation and natural selection not being able to account for the origin of species. Have you ennumerated all of the possible counter-theories to the Theory of Evolution, which all involve "not a plan"? Or have you just shrugged, said "can't think of any", and declared ***GODDIDIT***?
So I ask again,
Tell me, in the history of scientific study, how many observations have been successfully explained by a physical scientific explanation, and how many have been agreed that no known physical scientific explanation suffices, and a guiding force, or religious explanation has been used. How many exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 9:30 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 12:44 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 152 of 160 (539050)
12-12-2009 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Bolder-dash
12-12-2009 12:44 PM


Re: Irony
IF randomness was not a role of the ToE, is there any other possible explanation that can exclude randomness, and also exclude planning?
Darwin did not know of genetics and random mutation, but that did not stop him for using the evidence to build the Theory of Evolution. All we need for the ToE is descent with modification and the filter of natural selection. That is it. At the moment, random mutation is believed to provide the modification.
You are suggesting that it might be found that random mutation is insufficient. Quite possibly true - at this moment I don't know. I haven't spent very long thinking about it, becasue 1) it is not my field, and 2) at this point in time,
THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION ARE NOT CAPABLE OF PRODUCING THE DIVERSITY OF LIFE.
When you have some peer-reviewed publications to present this case, then we can start looking for other explanations.
But even if random mutation is insufficient to provide the required level of modification to explain what we see today, then only an idiot would leap to the conclusion that **GODDIDIT** as their next step. Since understanding basic random mutation, we have discovered horizontal gene transfer, ERVs, transposons, etc. New mechanisms of modification are being discovered. If, at any point in time, it is discovered that the known mechanisms of modification are insufficient to explain the diversity of life, why would anyone but a moron claim certainty that we will not find a new mechanism which accounts for the shortfall in modification, and that it must be a divine miracle???
I feel you have made a logical mistake by trying to equate the ToE with any other scientific theories
There seem to be a number of posters at the moment bandying the words "logical" and "philosophical" around who could well do with some remedial schooling...
1. No other scientific theories propose randomness as the root of their methodology. As well, other scientific theories don't have as their focus, a system which progresses from simple and unrelated to complex and completely interrelated.
1) ToE is descent with modification plus the filter of natural selection. The modification comes from a number of sources, as we have seen above, some of which are far from random.
2) Randomness is at the heart of all statistical physics, especially thermodynamics. Random gas movement plus the four forces gives us the order we see in stars, their birth, their life, their death, and their re-birth as next-generation stars. Do they require a plan?
Conslusion: You are talking out of your arse.
2. The quest for understanding evolution has a completely different goal than other theories. With evolution, we are trying to answer the question of why as well as how.
At this point, I think we can simply skip to the conclusion that you really have no clue, and cannot help but to spout bollocks.
The ToE is about explaining the origin of species, the diversity of life. What the hell has WHY got to do with anything???
So, for evolution we are stuck with two choices, for explaining it. One is randomness, and there is no why. The other is a plan.
I'm sorry, but this is just nonsense
And finally, I won't take any bets, but I have had sex with a lot of woman.
Then I suggest making a career of it, as your science, reasoning, and thinking are all crap
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 12:44 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 154 of 160 (539052)
12-12-2009 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Bolder-dash
12-12-2009 7:42 AM


Re: Irony
I think I need to correct Bolder-dash explicitly here, before anyone falls for his hack job on my comments from the other thread.
The context of the discussion that started this point, was about you stating that you couldn't believe any scientist who disagreed with the ToE if that scientist also possessed some measure of religious faith.
What I said was
Cavediver writes:
I challenge anyone to present a university-employed publishing biological scientist, unaffiliated with a religious organisation, who does not think as I do regarding the Theory of Evolution. It is not in the slightest bit surpising that 99.99% of those claiming that there are huge gaps in the Theory of Evolution are from the three major Abrahamic relgions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 7:42 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 2:27 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 159 of 160 (539058)
12-12-2009 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Bolder-dash
12-12-2009 2:27 PM


Re: Irony
It is not surprising that someone who has studied the science of biology extensively, come to the conclusion that it is not possible for random genetic mistakes to create the diversity of life we see, and having realized that randomness can not do it, arrived at the only other conclusion possible-non-randomness.
And who would this mystery idiot be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-12-2009 2:27 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024