Not logged inOpenClonk Forum - Archive
Forum Home Help Search Watchlist Register Login
Up Topic Community / Off Topic / Evolution (locked)
1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next  
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-09-10 14:11
Well, in this case it was a way of thinking about things - I was using methods of causality, which was apparently not explicitly how other people were thinking about the problem at hand. The solution was to read what philosophers had written about it until I got something that I could actually formally apply to my problem.

If it's "obvious", it means you don't have words for it. So either try to find them yourself, or read up on it until you find somebody else's expression for what you're trying to say.
Parent - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-10 15:59
Hmm... that's interesting.
Parent - By Mortimer [de] Date 2013-09-06 14:14
http://wtfevolution.tumblr.com
I'll just post this here. No argument is being made by me posting it.
Parent - By Newton [vn] Date 2013-09-06 15:57
As PeterW showed that your first two sentences are not a valid argument, I strongly agree with the rest of your post. Do read it again, will you.
Parent - - By ker Date 2013-09-10 08:20

> Everything in the world is obviously intelligently designed, but some people say that it is not


that argument does not require a god to exist. It could be spacealiens who came from evolution that simply designed our planet.
Please elaborate how intelligent design would be more of a prove of god than of aliens.
Parent - - By Newton [vn] Date 2013-09-10 14:10
He did not state that if life on earth would be intelligently designed it were a proof for the existence of a god. You said that.

Also, the topic is actually evolution (vs. intelligent design), not whether a god exists or not. You just showed yourself that the those are two different arguments: If it could be proven that a god does not exist, one can neither deduct that life on earth is not intelligently designed nor that evolution is happening.
Parent - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-10 16:26
What I am saying is that we all see the same observational science, but we can not prove or disprove any historical science (what we believe about the past) because we were not there. So we are all left with a choice to believe something about the past that we can't prove or disprove whether it be evolution, creation by God, creation by aliens, ect... However, if we were made by aliens then who made the aliens? So we are all left believing something by faith about the past.
Parent - - By Nachtfalter [de] Date 2013-09-10 16:11

>Please elaborate how intelligent design would be more of a prove of god than of aliens.


So the potential aliens aren't intelligent designed? Or created by other aliens. And so on - what?
Parent - - By Sven2 [de] Date 2013-09-10 16:24
Maybe there's a time loop somewhere? Or the whole universe is a loop.

E.g., like in Isaav Asimov's, "The Last Question".
Parent - By Nachtfalter [de] Date 2013-09-10 16:30
Than the hinduists have the right(est) answer to all and religion is a necessary part of the whole system...again /o\
Parent - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-10 16:32
That would raise other questions like: where did time come from?, Is time eternal?, Did time have a beginning?, and Can time make anything?
Parent - - By Newton [vn] Date 2013-09-10 16:38
Perhaps they evolved, but they designed the life on planet earth ;-)
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-10 16:51
How is evolution of aliens any more probable than evolution of humans? :)
Parent - By ker Date 2013-09-11 10:51 Edited 2013-09-11 11:01
it's not about the point whether they evolved or not, it's about whether prove of intelligent design [edit]of humans[/edit] means god exists.
Parent - - By ker Date 2013-09-11 10:50
No, the whole point of my argument was:
1. if we are not designed, we evolved
2. if we are designed:
2.1. we are created by god
2.2. or we are created by aliens
2.2.1. aliens were created by god
2.2.2. aliens evolved

so even if we prove we were created, it is not prove of god.
but as Newton pointed out, I only assumed J.J. meant intelligent design would be prove of god, when J.J. didn't exactly say that
Parent - By Nachtfalter [de] Date 2013-09-11 11:49
Sounds similar to CloudAtlas!
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-12 01:18
From my perspective: none of us can prove that there is a God just as none of us can prove Darwinian evolution. They both take faith just as any historical science (belief about the past) does.
Parent - - By ker Date 2013-09-12 07:10
but evolution has been proved with certain bacteria over a 20 year period.
So evolution exists, that requires no faith. And it has been done so recently, that it's not just written in books or fossils older than any of us, but there are loads of ppl alive that observed the experiment.
do you concur?

Now In my opinion there's just to discuss whether everything we already know evolved :)
Parent - - By Newton [vn] Date 2013-09-12 10:56
Did you read the preceding discussion? I have the impression that we move in circles, with every new person being dragged into it beginning a new one.
Parent - By ker Date 2013-09-12 11:27
right. troubles of the treestructured forum
sorry.
Parent - By Newton [vn] Date 2013-09-12 12:26
Or, let me elaborate on this actually. I hope I am clear on this, those who are more swift with words may correct me.

We have two perspectives here, the viewpoint of belief and the viewpoint of science.

From the viewpoint of belief, evolution can be a belief because the predictions it makes on the past can not "proofed" (why this is in " see below) to be correct as we can never go back there and see by ourselves. Belief does not go any further than this, it is an end in itself.

And from the viewpoint of science, it doesn't matter because science is not about proving but understanding stuff. Actually, no theory can ever be proofed to be correct, only proofed to be incorrect. The whole purpose of the construction of theories is to be able to make predictions on the real world. When the predictions a theory makes proves to be in accordance with reality in observation, it is assumed to be correct (until it is disproved).

And we are moving in circles because neither side seems to (want to) understand the other perspective:
JJ keeps saying that evolution is a belief because it can't be proven to be correct (in the past) and the others keep saying, no, it is science, and in science it has been proven to be correct.

The key point here is the definition of "proof", something I wanted to get to at the very beginning of the discussion: In the science-perspective, a scientific theory is assumed to be correct (=proven) when it can make predictions on the real world and no observation has been made to disprove it.

As for the point of view of a believer, J.J. was incapable so far to name what a proof would be (which makes his argument of "cant be proven" a bit ridiculous to be frank). But for someone who believes in an absolute truth, it is understandable that he requires an absolute proof to believe in something. However, it is impossible to give an absolute proof for anything.
For science though, this is irrelevant and the disbelief (for the lack of an absolute proof) in it doesn't disassemble it in any way.
Parent - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-09-16 17:19
The problem here is that this is actually a hard topic. If it was obvious, humanity wouldn't have taken thousands of years to think it through, and established a whole branch of philosophy around it. And yet people rush into this discussion like their life depended on it - and blame J.J. when they inevitably start falling over their own feet.
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-15 23:04
Your talking about micro evolution or adaptation, as I prefer to call it, not Darwinian evolution or macro evolution.

Adaptation only requires a loss of information on the genetic level.

Darwinian evolution, as I see it, is the gain of information on the genetic level or a change of something simple to something more complex (one kind changing into another kind). Like a cat changing into a dog or an ape changing into a man.

Bacteria, as I understand it, actually loses the genetic information that allows the bacteria to break down the antibiotic to the extent that it would be harmful to the bacteria; however, if bacteria is reintroduced that still has the genetic information to break down the antibiotics, it will again be susceptible to antibiotics.
Parent - - By ker Date 2013-09-16 16:16

> however, if bacteria is reintroduced that still has the genetic information to break down the antibiotics, it will again be susceptible to antibiotics.


I give up.
I have met only few great trolls. You definitely qualify as one of the great ones.
Parent - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-16 16:51
Thanks its been fun talking to you. :)
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-09-16 17:02

> Bacteria, as I understand it, actually loses the genetic information that allows the bacteria to break down the antibiotic to the extent that it would be harmful to the bacteria; however, if bacteria is reintroduced that still has the genetic information to break down the antibiotics, it will again be susceptible to antibiotics.


I don't understand this part. Do you mean that:
1. bacteria have lost the ability to cope with antibiotics in the past, and now can re-learn it by coming in contact with "old" generations that had that ability?
2. or bacteria have genetic material that makes them susceptible, which they then lose to become resistant?
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-16 17:35 Edited 2013-09-16 17:37
The bacteria starts with the genetic information to brake down antibiotics, so the bacteria brakes down the antibiotics and it creates a poison that kills the bacteria.
If the bacteria losses the genetic information to brake down the antibiotics then they will survive the antibiotics, because it will no longer be able to brake down the antibiotics into the poison that will kill the bacteria, but if bacteria that lost the genetic information to brake down the antibiotics are reintroduced into a population of bacteria that has the genetic information to brake down the antibiotics then the bacteria that has lost genetic information will regain its lost information form the bacteria that did not lose the genetic information to brake down the antibiotics into poison, so the bacteria that had lost genetic information will become unresistant once again.   This is how I understand the process. So I think 2. It gets confusing. I think only an intelligent Creator could have made something so complex. :)
Parent - - By Kvothe1990 [de] Date 2013-09-17 15:15
I don't want to participate in the discussion, as I sincerely believe that a god is nonrelevant and should be. I am therefore immune to any kind of argument.

But what you are describing is one mechanic for antibiotic resistance. I can think of eight different ways on the spot. Including two different kinds of mutations. Your point is invalid. Please don't force me to explain antibiotic resistance and have a research for yourself.

Also: Your concept of "information" is very open to critics. There is a reason that the concept of verification has been abandoned some years ago.
Please feel free to look up theories about knowledge, information and how the human "awareness" ist working fom the past 40 years. You will find yourself in a vast open world filled with evidence against your understanding of information and what it may be. Information tends to be infinite, as it is defined and constructed by the human brain. It is our perception of what reality may be.

Meh whatever. I don't mean to discuss. You could start with for example Karl Popper.
Parent - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-17 21:13

>Please don't force me to explain antibiotic resistance...


I won't, but if you want to I am listening. :)

>Your concept of "information" is very open to critics.


Thanks for the information, but no one has criticized my concept of information. :)

>Information tends to be infinite, as it is defined and constructed by the human brain. It is our perception of what reality may be.


The way I see it is that God made information to be infinite and our perception of the information God made is limited by our perception of reality and our perception of reality is determined by what we allow to influence us and that determines our beliefs. :)
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-09-17 17:00
Well, that's a very specific process you're describing, and hardly the way all antibiotics or all mutations work. It is however true that any poison has to exploit an existing mechanism in an organism - and therefore becoming immune can always be seen as a function reduction, if you want to put it like that. Complexity reduction mutations are also simply more likely and faster. After all, a random mutation is way more likely to just invalidate an existing protein than to create a new one.

> I think only an intelligent Creator could have made something so complex. :)


That is a bit of a fallacy: Just throw some thread around, and observe the most complex knots forming. Complexity does not imply an intelligent or even complex process behind it, you just need a context where complexity is promoted. And that's exactly what evolution is: It promotes complex organisms over simpler ones.
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-17 20:37 Edited 2013-09-17 20:40

>That is a bit of a fallacy: Just throw some thread around, and observe the most complex knots forming. Complexity does not imply an intelligent or even complex process behind it, you just need a context where complexity is promoted. And that's exactly what evolution is: It promotes complex organisms over simpler ones.


Intelligence, complexity, and design all are linked, In my opinion. "Just throw some thread around, and observe the most complex knots forming."Is the person "throwing the thread around" not intelligent? That's like saying a computer is not intelligently designed or that watch can come from some metal and some random wind because its not intelligently designed or that man can come from dirt if some random chemicals fall from the sky because if man is not intelligently designed this should be able to happen and should be happening. Do you not see the fault in that kind of thinking? :/

>Well, that's a very specific process you're describing...


True, but if evolution is true then give an example of any bacteria gaining genetic information in its gene pool without interference from another life-form.
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-09-18 11:08 Edited 2013-09-18 11:11

> Is the person "throwing the thread around" not intelligent?


It doesn't have to be. Give that thread to a dog. Heck, let it lie around and let wind blow it around. It will become a mess no matter how you do it.

I would really suggest you take a look at chaos theory sometime. The idea is really basic - if you have a set of equations that are non-linear (= small differences become large differences over time) the long-term properties of the system become basically impossible to predict, no matter how simple the system was in the beginning. Mathematical examples are the Mandelbrot set or Langton's Ants. Both have trivial base rules, but their emergent complexity is so high that it's basically impossible to predict without running the simulation.

> Do you not see the fault in that kind of thinking? :/


No, I very much don't. In my opinion, the fact that complex things come from simple things is one of the beautiful things about this universe. Also happens to be the reason I'm interested in game design. And as said above, I think the theory is well-established, but you can call it a belief, if you must :)
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-19 16:49

>It will become a mess no matter how you do it.


So, before it was "complex knots" and now it's a mess? :)

>I think the theory is well-established, but you can call it a belief, if you must :)


There are many lies that are well-established. :[

Lets look at it this way, if evolution is true then when you and I die then we would just turn to dust whether you believe it or not, but if you don't trust in God and ask Him to forgive your sins and creation is true you will die and go to hell, but if creation is true and you ask God to forgive you of your sins and creation is true then you will go to heaven. So evolution is hopeless and creation is hopeful. There are no benefits to believing evolution, but there are many benefits to believing creation.

So the question is to believe in hope or hopelessness. For me hope wins. :)

P.S.: If your a theistic evolutionist let me tell you millions of years does not fit into the true Bible.
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-09-19 17:30 Edited 2013-09-19 17:35

> So, before it was "complex knots" and now it's a mess? :)


What else would you prefer to call it? We tend to call things a mess when they become too complicated for us to understand.

> There are many lies that are well-established. :[


A lie is something the speaking person does not believe in. I strongly object to being called a liar in this matter.

And by well-established I don't mean that many people believe it, but that there are strong reasons to believe it. I mean, you cannot really contest the mandelbrot set, it's a mathematical construct.

> Lets look at it this way, if evolution is true...


Er, no? Nothing you said actually follows from an evolutionary theory of creation. Pope Francis even said recently that if you follow your conscience and do good, you are a good person by Christian standards even if you don't believe in the bible. Or, say, choose to take it more like a set of instructive fables than actual fact.

But as we're on the matter of thought experiments: What happens if not your god, but one of the hundreds of other gods humanity has thought of happens to be the right one? They might have a similar policy on people doing the right thing, but most religions are pretty clear on what happens if you happen to worship the wrong god. As far as I'm concerned, trusting what I see and what I can derive using critical thinking is a pretty safe course of action no matter how you look at it.
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-19 20:55

>A lie is something the speaking person does not believe in.


No. A lie is anything that is not true. Truth is what God says. God is truth. God is love. God is just. God is pure. God is good. God is grace...

>Pope Francis even said recently that if you follow your conscience and do good, you are a good person by Christian standards even if you don't believe in the bible. Or, say, choose to take it more like a set of instructive fables than actual fact.


Pope Francis is a fallible man he is not perfect he makes mistakes just like any other man. God's Word the true Bible is not fallible it is truth. I don not believe man I believe God the Creator of the universe.

Man and woman sinned in Genesis. Because of God's justice He had to punish them thus we have death and suffering. Because of God's grace and love and goodness He sent His Son Jesus to die for man's sin, and God will send any person who ask Him to forgive him or her of his or her sins to heaven, but if someone does not ask God to forgive him or her of his or her sins then God will justly send him or her to hell.

I believe the Bible is 100% true. I believe when God said six days He meant six days not millions of years.
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2013-09-19 22:01

>I believe the Bible is 100% true.


But the bible as you know it was essentially printed by men, right? You probably bought that in the bookstore somewhere.
And some older version was once translated by men from Hebrew into English. And some even older version was written down from the word of god by a man, right?

Couldn't it be that, in this long chain of human action, there have also been made mistakes?
Because as you said, and I quote you:

>he makes mistakes just like any other man.

Parent - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-20 02:10

>But the bible as you know it was essentially printed by men, right? You probably bought that in the bookstore somewhere.


And some older version was once translated by men from Hebrew into English. And some even older version was written down from the word of god by a man, right?

>Couldn't it be that, in this long chain of human action, there have also been made mistakes?


Because as you said, and I quote you:

>"he makes mistakes just like any other man."


God in His mercy has kept His Word consistent. Although there are some false teachings that claim to be God's Word.
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-09-20 00:49 Edited 2013-09-20 00:53
Er no, that's simply not what the word means. Note the "intentional" part.

And at least the Catholic church has very specific ideas about the fallibility of the pope. But I guess you're probably a protestant?
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-20 02:23

>Er no, that's simply not what the word means.


Well that's what it means to me. In my dictionary a lie means a falsehood or a non-truth.

>But I guess you're probably a protestant?


All I believe is that God's Word is 100% true and 100% clear. That's what I believe, so call me what you like: follower of God, apostle of God, whatever, but the important thing is that I believe God's Word, and hopefully follow it.
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-09-20 02:45 Edited 2013-09-20 02:53

> In my dictionary a lie means a falsehood or a non-truth.


Hm, which one? Just interested.

And I don't really want to discuss theology, I don't know too much about it. But let me observe from the sidelines that there seems to be many, many different ideas out there what the bible means. Color me very skeptical on the "100% clear" part.

(Also, just to be clear: I'm okay with whatever you choose to believe. I was just trying to explain my worldview here.)
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-20 03:05 Edited 2013-09-20 03:07

>Hm, which one? Just interested.


Well what I meant is my mental dictionary. It may not be in any dictionary, but if I was to look in a dictionary I would probably use Noah Websters original dictionary translation.

>And I don't really want to discuss theology, I don't know too much about it. But let me observe from the sidelines that there seems to be many, many different ideas out there what the bible means. Color me very skeptical on the "100% clear" part.


If you are open to learning theology then If I were you I would by buy a few different translations of the Bible and cross check them to see if they are consistent and then see what they are all consistent in and that in ,my onion, will be the 100% clear truth. If you do, do this tell me what you learn.
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2013-09-20 03:20

> If you are open to learning theology


Well, I don't really care about studying something I don't believe in, sorry. Just making an observation.
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-20 03:24

>Well, I don't really care about studying something I don't believe in, sorry.


Well if you don't mind what do you believe?
Parent - - By PeterW [is] Date 2013-09-20 17:22
Didn't we just discuss exactly that? I believe in the scientific method and that our universe coming from a few equations doesn't make it one bit less wonderful.
Parent - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-20 17:53
Maybe we did, but thank you for telling me again. :)

Do you believe in an afterlife?
Parent - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-20 18:08 Edited 2013-09-20 18:18
There is a good book that I would recommend for you to read if you have time and are open to learning about why the Bible is an authoritative document .

It is called "More Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell.
Parent - By Maikel Date 2013-09-20 21:18
A few equations, something you might want to share your opinion on :)
Parent - - By Newton [vn] Date 2013-09-20 02:14

> "I believe in my god because my religion says otherwise something really bad happens to me in the afterlife."


That should be at least irrelevant because it is not a logical argument (ad bauculum).
Edit: I mean for you, for you deciding what to believe in.
Parent - - By J. J. [us] Date 2013-09-20 02:28
Your statement is irrelevant, because you miss quoted me. :/
Parent - - By Newton [vn] Date 2013-09-20 02:30
It is essentially what you said, I summed it up.

> [...] if you don't trust in God and ask Him to forgive your sins and creation is true you will die and go to hell, but if creation is true and you ask God to forgive you of your sins and creation is true then you will go to heaven. [...]

Up Topic Community / Off Topic / Evolution (locked)
1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill