Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 67

Thread: Birds, Bees, Butterflies and Flowers

  1. Top | #11
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    2,551
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Bosch View Post
    ... It's easy to falsify evolution. Close to impossible to falsify the creator!
    That's the beauty of it.

  2. Top | #12
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,200
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,086
    Rep Power
    77
    Well I realised a major flaw in my theory... but your objections didn't test my faith at all (though I found it hard to think up counter-arguments)

    Since I don't really think there were millions of years of history that suggests that fossils were planted...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59ck...=youtu.be&t=53

    "The Planet Earth" is my most immersive, detailed video game yet... I even put in a complete and wholly consistent fossil record, for the nerds.

  3. Top | #13
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    7,474
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    12,513
    Rep Power
    83
    Where did the great Simulator come from? What is the great Simulator's purpose? Is the great Simulator a product of evolution or simulation? How do we know the great Simulator is not a simulation?

    On a slightly more serious note we can look at the OP's conjecture and understand it as nature offering up all manner of phenomena. Survival goes to the luckiest and the most well adapted.

  4. Top | #14
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    2,551
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Well I realised a major flaw in my theory... but your objections didn't test my faith at all (though I found it hard to think up counter-arguments)...
    That's the thing about religious faith. The more arguments there are against it the truer it is. Scientific faith works the opposite way. Another example of why absolutes don't work.

  5. Top | #15
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,200
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,086
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Where did the great Simulator come from? What is the great Simulator's purpose? Is the great Simulator a product of evolution or simulation? How do we know the great Simulator is not a simulation?
    Could you clarify whether "the great Simulator" means the simulation itself or the creator of the simulation?

    On a slightly more serious note we can look at the OP's conjecture and understand it as nature offering up all manner of phenomena. Survival goes to the luckiest and the most well adapted.
    And I guess in step by step evolution each change would have the same or higher fitness... though I guess ID proponents have been unable to argue that some of these step by step changes are problematic.

  6. Top | #16
    Veteran Member Valjean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    1,333
    Archived
    3,176
    Total Posts
    4,509
    Rep Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Well I realised a major flaw in my theory... but your objections didn't test my faith at all (though I found it hard to think up counter-arguments)...
    That's the thing about religious faith. The more arguments there are against it the truer it is.
    ...in the imaginations of believers.
    Scientific faith works the opposite way. Another example of why absolutes don't work.
    But science isn't based on faith. It's evidence based, testable, predictive and falsifiable.

    What absolutes are we talking about?

  7. Top | #17
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    2,551
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by seyorni View Post
    ...in the imaginations of believers.
    Religion takes useful concepts such as faith and idealizes them, distorting the meaning in order to introduce an element of mysticism that requires the expertise of an authoritarian elite. This goes back to Plato and the concept of Forms as the foundation of ontology and the basis our epistemological system of knowledge.

    Scientific faith works the opposite way. Another example of why absolutes don't work.
    But science isn't based on faith. It's evidence based, testable, predictive and falsifiable.
    Science builds on the accumulated knowledge of past discoveries. I have faith in Einstein's theory of general relativity because I have faith in the scientific method and the people and institutions that propagate it. That's the useful definition of faith. It isn't any stronger by virtue of withstanding evidence against it, as with religious faith.

    What absolutes are we talking about?
    As I mentioned above, it goes back to Plato's concept of the world of idealized Forms. The absolute perfection of every category of things that exist. Everything we encounter being a less than perfect form. From there we get the monotheistic God, or Jesus Christ, as the perfect form of man. Omniscience as the perfect form of intelligence. Omni-benevolence as the perfect form of love. All are beyond the reach or complete understanding of rational human beings. Untestable, unpredictive and unfalsifiable. At least that's my understanding of the basic error in western thought and how the Christian mythology developed. It leaves one open to unsupportable theories and the acceptance of indefensible fantasies. And ultimately to disregard the value of reason and truth, but that might be getting us off topic.

  8. Top | #18
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    4,857
    Rep Power
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Where did the great Simulator come from? What is the great Simulator's purpose? Is the great Simulator a product of evolution or simulation? How do we know the great Simulator is not a simulation?
    Could you clarify whether "the great Simulator" means the simulation itself or the creator of the simulation?

    On a slightly more serious note we can look at the OP's conjecture and understand it as nature offering up all manner of phenomena. Survival goes to the luckiest and the most well adapted.
    And I guess in step by step evolution each change would have the same or higher fitness... though I guess ID proponents have been unable to argue that some of these step by step changes are problematic.
    I'm a little confused here. Are you not an "ex-creationist"? And I've seen posts from you in the past where you spoke eloquently on science. And yet you are promoting intelligent design now? How in the world can you be an "ex-creationist" if you believe in ID? ID has no scientific data behind it, not theories that can be tested, cannot be falsified, and etc. It's not science. So, have you had a change of heart lately? And if so, what made you change your mind? Or perhaps you're just trying to create controversy?

  9. Top | #19
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    1,319
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    4,118
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    I guess it is impossible for me to convince you all of this... maybe you think my arguments are too weak. You have the assumption that all evolution can be explained in terms of naturalism. I believe that to skeptics these things can always be explained by coincidence, etc.
    1. Butterflies could not have evolved wings and birds their bright plumage without an intelligent designer guiding such evolution.

    2. An intelligent designer, vastly more sophisticated than its creation, just happens to exist.

    Do you see the blinding contradiction or double standard in your rationalization? You refuse to believe that naturalistic processes (that are well documented and well understood) could have driven the evolution of butterflies and birds, but you have no problem in believing that an invisible, vastly sophisticated designer (for which there is no evidence) just somehow exists.

  10. Top | #20
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,200
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,086
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    1. Butterflies could not have evolved wings and birds their bright plumage without an intelligent designer guiding such evolution.
    No I didn't say that was the best argument.... I talked about the coevolution of metamorphosizing butterflies that help with the sexual reproduction of flowering plants

    2. An intelligent designer, vastly more sophisticated than its creation, just happens to exist.
    I think the intelligent force AI is less sophisticated than the simulation as a whole...

    Do you see the blinding contradiction or double standard in your rationalization? You refuse to believe that naturalistic processes (that are well documented and well understood) could have driven the evolution of butterflies and birds, but you have no problem in believing that an invisible, vastly sophisticated designer (for which there is no evidence) just somehow exists.
    Yes it is invisible just like the players of The Sims are invisible to the sims. I think the billions of people on earth combined are more sophisticated than the designer. After all if you watch "Two Minute Papers" the AI is capable of amazing things even though it is only a fraction of as powerful as a human brain.

    I just suspect too many things have evolved for it to have all happened naturalistically at once...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •