Proof that evolution is the only answer

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Well you have redefined the classical definition of Zeus so you've changed which being from the one you were originally arguing for, and stolen a small part of the original story namely that he lives on Mt. Olympus.

Isn't that, in essence, what the Christians did with Judaism?

And what the Israelites did with Yahweh, before that?

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
No I said a philosophical position based on Science. Meaning I draw inferences from what I know about the way the world works.

That's what you said, but I saw no science involved in your analysis whatsoever. (Also, science need not be capitalized, it's not a proper noun).

I just said they were in the format of inference to the best explanation. They are certain, but they are enough to show that God is a metaphysical possibility which is all I need to do.

It's definitely not the best explanation and the inference was not based on any science so I'm not sure where you are coming from here. Most folks don't claim god is impossible. They just don't believe it due to lack of evidence.

Rather than just trying to negate my position why don't you tell me what you think, is the universe finite or eternal?

All the evidence we have says that finite.

The BGV Theroem
The Second law of thermodynamics
The CMB and the Great Galaxy seeds
The expanding Universe.

The list goes on. Why don't you name one piece of evidence to the contrary?

Ummmm, so you just list a bunch of things that have nothing to do with it what we are discussing? First, eternal and infinite are not the same thing. Second, your inference specifically said "the universe began to exist". There is no valid science that proves this. The earliest we can measure back to is right after the big bang started, and before the big bang it is postulated that there was a dense singularity of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so logically it was always there and did not begin to exist as your inference claims.

Sorry, your claim is unscientific. Of course I'm going to try to negate a claim that somebody pulls straight outta their rear and falsely claims that it is based on science.

No I am trying to show that a certain position is the best possible explanation, to simply show that God is a metaphysical possibility. This is all the theist has to do, to prove the God exist.

The only way to show that a certain position is the best possible explanation is with hard objective evidence, not faulty inferences. And no, suggesting god is possible, does not make him proven. And no, you can't prove that god is necessary or that the properties you assign him (omnipotence, eternal, etc) are even possible. Like I originally said, it all requires numerous assumptions, which you have clearly outlined for us here.

Philosophy does not equal fact. Sorry.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Well, if it's in Wiki then it has to be true.
Interestingly, none of the reference links you thought would be "useful" actually are, as none of them mention anything about HGT being a form of gene flow (aside from the GF wiki entries themselves). Also strange is that not one of the wiki pages about HGT reference gene flow even once. Gene flow is a concept that refers to interbreeding populations within a species due to migrational effects. Sufficient levels of gene flow between 2 or more populations is known to counteract speciation since the two gene pools become one. However, rampant HGT is not known to have this effect, and operates by completely different molecular mechanisms. Not only that, HGT has much deeper implications for the way we view linkage between ancestors, and has thrown a big 'ole wrench in constructing phylogenetic trees (now a ring?). It also forces a reevaluation of the universal ancestor and descent with modification, two ideas upon which all of evolutionary theory rests.

Don't you see this?

Look here, from the wiki link on evolution which you cited:

en.wikipedia.org...
Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.[3]

All life on Earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA),[4][5][6] which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago,[7] although a study in 2015 found "remains of biotic life" from 4.1 billion years ago in ancient rocks in Western Australia.[8][9] In July 2016, scientists reported identifying a set of 355 genes from the LUCA of all organisms living on Earth.[10]

Evolution in organisms occurs through changes in heritable traits—the inherited characteristics of an organism

Heritable traits are passed from one generation to the next via DNA, a molecule that encodes genetic information.

HGT is a direct contradiction of all these highlighted ideas. But this is the conventional view of evolutionary theory from which the MES is formulated.

Oddly missing from the evolution wiki is HGT - conveniently swept under the gene flow rug, which I think is a mistake. (not to mention epigenetic mechanisms that lead to variation is also missing)

Gene transfer does not automatically equate to gene flow. That is an incorrect confluence of terms and concepts.

At least one of the reference links calls HGT a major force in evolution, yet it gets barely a mention on the wiki. Should gene flow now be elevated in stature ?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

I don't see a contradiction. I see you picking apart the minutiae in hopes that pulling the right thread will unravel MES. What I want to see is you presenting a superior solution that is perfect, complete, and readily demonstrable. You must have something by that description given your dissatisfaction with MES as it currently stands.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
I don't see a contradiction.

Really. So you believe that all organisms descend from one common ancestor. I'd ask you to explain how HGT fits into this system of common decent, but I realize now that would be a futile exercise.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
I see you picking apart the minutiae in hopes that pulling the right thread will unravel MES.

The devil is in the details my friend. If we're not going to abide by the technical definitions that scientists put forth then what's the point of the definition in the first place?

What I'm trying to show is that MES is an outdated and incomplete formulation. I think it needs to be deconstructed and retooled. This not to say evolution does not happen. Of course it does! I just think we've all been lead to think about it the wrong way. And yeah, HGT is but one "thread".

Hey, you've said it's incomplete, why won't you expand on this? We might find some common ground

What I want to see is you presenting a superior solution that is perfect, complete, and readily demonstrable. You must have something by that description given your dissatisfaction with MES as it currently stands.

I have an idea yes, but honestly I'm not sure that you're really all that interested in discussing it.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Really. So you believe that all organisms descend from one common ancestor. I'd ask you to explain how HGT fits into this system of common decent, but I realize now that would be a futile exercise.

I don't see a compelling argument to the contrary. Here is another resource you may find useful, although you have already shown that information is only as useful as the mind that receives/applies it.

www.britannica.com...

The devil is in the details my friend. If we're not going to abide by the technical definitions that scientists put forth then what's the point of the definition in the first place?

What I'm trying to show is that MES is an outdated and incomplete formulation. I think it needs to be deconstructed and retooled. This not to say evolution does not happen. Of course it does! I just think we've all been lead to think about it the wrong way. And yeah, HGT is but one "thread".

Outdated, no. Incomplete, yes. The way all fields of study are incomplete. I'm curious as to how you think it should be retooled and why.

I have an idea yes, but honestly I'm not sure that you're really all that interested in discussing it.

You can always try.

originally posted by: AshFan
"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.
Read and learn:

www.scientificamerican.com...

It doesn't matter what you say or how rational is sounds because the creationists will always win. You presume God is bounded by the limitations of logical consistency and the laws of physics. Why would you ever make that assumption there is no evidence to suggest God has any limitations. Most people who believe in God just assume God is omnipotent. Well, if you accept the possibility of an omnipotent God, then an Omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake fossil and carbon dating evidence. An omnipotent God could have created the Universe 3 minutes ago with all your fake memories and fake life experiences.

The point is once you have an omnipotent God the discussion is over. The creationists just win. But it's okay, who cares. As MEN of SCIENCE there is really no need to have God anyway.

Of course, as a MAN of science you have "time" as your God. The word "time" is practically identical to the word "God". You can't see time. It only exists because scientists say it does. But you can't prove that time exists. Time is just the difference between two arbitrary measurements without any real meaning. Time really doesn't exist just like God. Time is everywhere and eternal just like God. Time doesn't have a first cause just like God. It's practically the same word as God. Everyone worships some type of God word I guess. Scientist have time to keep them warm and happy.

www.popsci.com...

Julian Barbour's solution to the problem of time in physics and cosmology is as simply stated as it is radical: there is no such thing as time.

"If you try to get your hands on time, it's always slipping through your fingers," says Barbour. "People are sure time is there, but they can't get hold of it. My feeling is that they can't get hold of it because it isn't there at all."

a reply to: dfnj2015

Time is not a "thing". It's a human construct. It's like an internal clock that runs while you watch it. When you don't watch it, there is no time. Think Heisenberg. Observation changes the outcome. We change that outcome by our very existence.
We measure time from point A to point B. We can't go from point B to point A. And that is the point - it's a one way street - and an integral part of human existence. There's probably a time gene stuffed somewhere in the chromosomes ---

a reply to: dfnj2015

The point is once you have an omnipotent God the discussion is over. The creationists just win. But it's okay, who cares. As MEN of SCIENCE there is really no need to have God anyway.

Wow, if only it was really that simple. If only life were that simple...but alas, it isn't. For instance, just for starters, omnipotence is an untested and unconfirmed property. It is, in essence, a presumption. Just like what you accused ashfan of. Omniscience, immortality and atemporality (existing outside/independent of time) suffer similar issues. But you got part of it right...men of science have no need of a god because they have found a more substantial solution in their investigations of natural phenomena. Although I'm sure they would be willing to open their minds if presented with compelling evidence to the contrary. To date, no such evidence exists. Nothing that conclusively points to a god, and nothing that conclusively points to the Judaic god. But by all means, continue protesting. That is your right.

a reply to: dfnj2015

It's like all we are is dust in the wind...

a reply to: TzarChasm

Special pleading, first regarding the claim that Zeus is unfit as a substitute for your deity, and second, regarding the definition of a chosen deity.

This is in no way special pleading. The Christian God and Zeus are not the same entity and as such have different characteristics.

Zeus, hotep, quetzlcoatl, cuchulain, and Krishna are all equally viable substitutes.

No, in the classical sense all of the deities do not fit the argument. You have to redefine there essence in order to make them fit.

You cannot escape this fact as we can and will use your own arguments just as effectively as you have applied them here, thus demonstrating their inadequacy. Your refusal to acknowledge as much is entirely beside the point.

You won't either because you didn't even understand the purpose of the ontological argument in the last thread I was talking to you in, which was obvious by your attempt to turn it on its head.

In concern to the second case of special pleading, you demand a rigorous definition of any substitute elected to replace your god when even your god lacks a rigorous definition and requires untested/unrecorded/unconfirmed/immeasurable properties to be even remotely viable from the outset

The God of the Bible is pretty well defined. All I have asked is that he layout his understanding of somethings essence before hand so that he cannot arbitrarily apply new characteristics to it in order to make it fit the argument.

In a word, your alternative hypothesis to evolution is rigged from the ground up and is probably the most not-subtle example of sociopolitical magic trick ever seen in the history of creation myths.

At what point did I offer this as an alternative position to evolution? To be honest evolutionary theory could be completely true, and it wouldn't effect my position on Christianity at all. I just don't think its true because I am not convinced that we know of a way it could happen.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Special pleading, first regarding the claim that Zeus is unfit as a substitute for your deity, and second, regarding the definition of a chosen deity.

This is in no way special pleading. The Christian God and Zeus are not the same entity and as such have different characteristics.

Zeus, hotep, quetzlcoatl, cuchulain, and Krishna are all equally viable substitutes.

No, in the classical sense all of the deities do not fit the argument. You have to redefine there essence in order to make them fit.

You cannot escape this fact as we can and will use your own arguments just as effectively as you have applied them here, thus demonstrating their inadequacy. Your refusal to acknowledge as much is entirely beside the point.

You won't either because you didn't even understand the purpose of the ontological argument in the last thread I was talking to you in, which was obvious by your attempt to turn it on its head.

In concern to the second case of special pleading, you demand a rigorous definition of any substitute elected to replace your god when even your god lacks a rigorous definition and requires untested/unrecorded/unconfirmed/immeasurable properties to be even remotely viable from the outset

The God of the Bible is pretty well defined. All I have asked is that he layout his understanding of somethings essence before hand so that he cannot arbitrarily apply new characteristics to it in order to make it fit the argument.

In a word, your alternative hypothesis to evolution is rigged from the ground up and is probably the most not-subtle example of sociopolitical magic trick ever seen in the history of creation myths.

At what point did I offer this as an alternative position to evolution? To be honest evolutionary theory could be completely true, and it wouldn't effect my position on Christianity at all. I just don't think its true because I am not convinced that we know of a way it could happen.

a reply to: GetHyped

When you see the folly of my argument, you will see the folly of yours.

When you see the folly of your argument, you will finally understand mine....

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Nope. Judaism has always had the concept of Messiah, I don't think the Jews stole the concept of Yahweh from Canaanite Gods .

www.reasonablefaith.org...

a reply to: Barcs

That's what you said, but I saw no science involved in your analysis whatsoever. (Also, science need not be capitalized, it's not a proper noun).

Science is used to justify a premise.

It's definitely not the best explanation and the inference was not based on any science so I'm not sure where you are coming from here. Most folks don't claim god is impossible. They just don't believe it due to lack of evidence.

If you think the statement, "God is metaphysically possible" is true, then logically the statement "God is necessary" must also be true because the statements are equivalent but not synonymous.

Ummmm, so you just list a bunch of things that have nothing to do with it what we are discussing?

All of those things are evidence of a finite universe.

Second, your inference specifically said "the universe began to exist". There is no valid science that proves this. The earliest we can measure back to is right after the big bang started, and before the big bang it is postulated that there was a dense singularity of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so logically it was always there and did not begin to exist as your inference claims.

I tell you as I told someone earleir. Energies existence is dependent upon one space dimension and one time dimension. What we do know is that when the universe was 1 planck time old, spacetime began. Before this occurred physicist say there was a singularity. A singularity is nothing more that a fancy way of saying at this point in our equations a function takes an infinite value. We can get a singularity by attempting to calculate the speed of water going down a drain. The equation implies that water will be moving infinitely fast directly over the drain. Do we observe water moving infinitely fast? No, instead we observe the absence of water where the singularity is meant to take place.

Noether's theorem is an amazing result which lets physicists get conserved quantities from symmetries of the laws of nature. Time translation symmetry gives conservation of energy; space translation symmetry gives conservation of momentum; rotation symmetry gives conservation of angular momentum, and so on.

math.ucr.edu...


The conservation of energy is based upon time translation symmetry. Time translation symmetry means that physical system may have the same features over a certain interval of time. Without this conservation of energy does not hold.

And no, you can't prove that god is necessary or that the properties you assign him (omnipotence, eternal, etc) are even possible.

What is impossible about any of the attributes assigned to God?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: GetHyped

When you see the folly of my argument, you will see the folly of yours.

When you see the folly of your argument, you will finally understand mine....

My argument IS your argument. I merely swapped out your god of choice for mine. You then made all sorts of excuses as to why that wasn't valid.

Well, sorry champ, it is valid. You don't get to make up caveats that only apply to your god of choice in an attempt to wriggle out of the obvious logical flaws in your argument.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Nope. Judaism has always had the concept of Messiah, I don't think the Jews stole the concept of Yahweh from Canaanite Gods .

www.reasonablefaith.org...

I'm not saying they stole it.

I'm saying cultures and beliefs influenced each other and evolved.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Science is used to justify a premise.

Which part of your premise is supported by science?

If you think the statement, "God is metaphysically possible" is true, then logically the statement "God is necessary" must also be true because the statements are equivalent but not synonymous.

No. They are not equivalent. Possible does not mean necessary or required. Why must you guys continuously use such faulty logic? Please explain how suggesting something may be possible, makes it necessary and required. I'd love to hear the explanation on this one.

All of those things are evidence of a finite universe.

Who cares? I never said the universe was infinite. Red herring.

A singularity is nothing more that a fancy way of saying at this point in our equations a function takes an infinite value. We can get a singularity by attempting to calculate the speed of water going down a drain. The equation implies that water will be moving infinitely fast directly over the drain. Do we observe water moving infinitely fast? No, instead we observe the absence of water where the singularity is meant to take place.

I don't think you even know what a singularity is or what it means in physics. You are just arbitrarily making statements about science that aren't even true or well thought out. Comparing the singularity that preceded the big bang to water going down a drain is laughable. While the singularity might be timeless (or eternal), there is no evidence to suggest it is infinite. Scientists believe that it contained all energy and spacetime in our current universe, not that it was infinite.

What is impossible about any of the attributes assigned to God?

You need evidence to assert any of those qualities to god. We don't know that it is even possible to be omniscient or omnipotent and there is no way to test for this. In fact there are no tests whatsoever to suggest god exists. Where is the objective evidence? Pretty much everything you posted was assumption.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

This is in no way special pleading. The Christian God and Zeus are not the same entity and as such have different characteristics.

They are not the same entity, although it can be argued that the christian god borrows more elements from Zeus than coincidence can account for, and they are equally viable as patrons.

No, in the classical sense all of the deities do not fit the argument. You have to redefine there essence in order to make them fit.

They do. Your agreement is not necessary to demonstrate this, and I invite anyone following this exchange to refer to the kalam ontological argument and substitute the christian god with Zeus, Odin, lugh, quetzlcoatl, hotep, or Krishna, just to name a few.

You won't either because you didn't even understand the purpose of the ontological argument in the last thread I was talking to you in, which was obvious by your attempt to turn it on its head.

I did turn it on its head.

A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
It is possible that there isn’t a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being does not exist.
Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist. (axiom S5)
Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.

There are also the minor issues of "great" or "maximal excellence" being poorly defined, and the premise doubling as the conclusion, also known as begging the question. Not that you are personally interested in such flaws in the ontological argument. Someone else might be though.

The God of the Bible is pretty well defined. All I have asked is that he layout his understanding of somethings essence before hand so that he cannot arbitrarily apply new characteristics to it in order to make it fit the argument.

I think you mean it is defined to your satisfaction. You have not defined the god of your choice to the satisfaction of the forum, let alone being in a position to demand that others define their deities. Your definition is hypothetical at best, and presumptuous at worst. Kind of like the ontological argument, which is a one size fits all kind of deal. You could take a banana, ascribe immeasurable properties to it (because immeasurable properties are impossible to disprove, hence the appeal) and plug it into the argument. Its really not that clever.

At what point did I offer this as an alternative position to evolution? To be honest evolutionary theory could be completely true, and it wouldn't effect my position on Christianity at all. I just don't think its true because I am not convinced that we know of a way it could happen.

In other words, you simply cannot be convinced otherwise regardless of the measures taken or proofs provided. We are all wasting our time in trying to inform you. But I suppose on some level, we already knew that.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

This is in no way special pleading.

Stating your premises then exempting your personal position from said premises with nothing more than hand-waving is LITERALLY the definition of special pleading.