Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Then the purpose of our being is to be creators ourselves? Assuming that our purpose is to aspire to be like our creator.

Yes I think so. Jesus quotes psalm 82 which says we are all gods, children of the Most High, but will die like mortals if we don't discover this Truth. Look at our human vessel, it is the ideal organic bi-pedal supercomputer for creating all sorts of stuff (both mentally and physically)

If so, what limits have been imposed on us as creators?

I believe it is self imposed due to lack of belief in what we truly are. We can move mountains if we have the faith in doing so.

Can we play with nucleic acids, for example, or are we limited to sexual creation?

Jesus, and others who resembled his way, became masters of the elements... walking on water, moving boulders, surviving scorching fire, calming storms, calling down meteorites, communicating with extra-dimensional beings, and so on. I think we integrate with the natural world as we follow the path to freedom. It may not be as specific as "think hard about making a nucleotide sequence change in your gene coding", as opposed to your biochemistry following suit to the will-power that you bring forth

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: whereislogic

The fine tuning argument is overplayed. Every crationist website on the planet uses that one. Since we dont actually know how the universe was created we dont know what establishes the rules. We could be the only universe out of billions that supports life we dont know if the universe is fine tumed or not. All we know is its possible in out universe because we are here to ask the question.

Even more important, from both sides of this debate, is the 'Observer' and the 'Observer Effect'.

We know from scientific tests that observation effects what is being observed.

Now I ask both you and whereislogic - Does anything exist without an observer to define and describe what he, she, or it thinks they are observing ???

Can we demonstrate an existent state without 'our observation' of it ???
[NOTE: Black Holes were postulated without being seen but were still based upon evidence and interpretation of what was observed and known]

Prove it - Prove the World, all of existence, can exist unobserved.

And if you can't prove it, then you may have to admit, that as long as the debate is fair, and considers all we do know by science and observation, both your way and wheresthelogic's way of seeing it remains valid.

Yes, the Atheisitic viewpoint has merit, but until proven otherwise, the Theistic and/or Intelligent design view must be considered possible.

And/or it all depends on the obserever and the obsever's interpretaion of the evidence.



“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because,
in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
― Max Planck, Where is Science Going?

a reply to: whereislogic

Thanks for your post WIL.

Still don't know anything, and am suspicious of those who think they've got it all figured-out.

Apologies for having criticized you a few months ago. It was me that was out of place.

a reply to: AlienView

This is if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound? The simple answer is yes but this answer can become more complicated depending on how you define observer.

In the 20th century, physics was forced into the position of re-evaluating the role of the observer, both in relativity and in quantum mechanics. In relativity, the absolutes of Newtonian physics were banished, and observations obtained by observers in different frames of reference became all that was available. These observations were linked through a system of coordinate transformations, In other words an observer can see things happen in different time periods. Meaning there truly is no universal now and it is relative to each observer .

In quantum mechanics, the observer and the system being observed became mysteriously linked so that the results of any observation seemed to be determined in part by actual choices made by the observer. And you can have systems which effect you locally but not someone else. In quantum mechanics the answer could be it doesnt make a sound. Problem is things that occur on a quantum level doesnt apear to expand to the larger universe.

Now having said all that the question of whether or not there is an objective reality has plagued philosophers for centuries. It still does. How do we know any of what we see or hear is real? This could be an entire thread on its own because you have to ask yourself when the observation occurs remember you see in the past it has already happened by the time the nerves transmit the information to our brains.

There is questions on what is needed for observation but probably the best definition ive seen of an observer is whenever any property of a microscopic object affects a macroscopic object, that property is ‘observed’ and becomes a physical reality. This is why people are not required for the universe to do its thing it was here long before we were.

originally posted by: AlienView
Evolutionist, Creationist, Scientific [non-religious] Intelligent Design, or whatever you want to call yourself
- One prime question needs to be answered:

What is Organic Life doing in a Universe that appears to be inorganic

Can you really say that some random chance, and therefor haphazard, series of events led to an organic life form that right from the beginning had the ability to multiply and reproduce itself

Then you do believe that if you gave enough monkeys enough typewriters they would eventually type out
the Encyclopedia Britannica

Don't bet on it

Chaos can not lead to order - The order must come first.

Will you still say that when we find other forms of life elsewhere in our galaxy?

a reply to: TerraLiga

"Will you still say that when we find other forms of life elsewhere in our galaxy?

Why not

1. Other forms of life may also be found on Earth - Man may just not have the intelligence and/or sensory capability to detect such life forms. I speculate that advancing Artificial Intelligence and quantum computers may open gates not yet understood.

2. I also speulate that a non-organic life form [I know some say by definition a life form must be organic - I disagree]
may be found that is more machine like and advances like artificial intelligence - to them we might appear quite alien as they would be more like the somewhat mechanistic universe we live in - Biological life froms may be an anomally in the universe

Why not? Because you said that the chance of that happening is the same as a tribe of Chimps writing an encyclopedia. Now you're saying that it is possible. Which do you believe?

Finding dissimilar life outside of our solar system would be two different random events leading to organic life - which according to your fist post is near impossible.

a reply to: TerraLiga

And that brings up the question of whether your speculative aliens will allso be 'Troll like' in looking to start stupid debates
over what they don't understand.

Maybe they already came to visit and found Humans too stupid to be worth commuicating with

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Then the purpose of our being is to be creators ourselves? Assuming that our purpose is to aspire to be like our creator.

Yes I think so. Jesus quotes psalm 82 which says we are all gods, children of the Most High, but will die like mortals if we don't discover this Truth. Look at our human vessel, it is the ideal organic bi-pedal supercomputer for creating all sorts of stuff (both mentally and physically)

If so, what limits have been imposed on us as creators?

I believe it is self imposed due to lack of belief in what we truly are. We can move mountains if we have the faith in doing so.

Can we play with nucleic acids, for example, or are we limited to sexual creation?

Jesus, and others who resembled his way, became masters of the elements... walking on water, moving boulders, surviving scorching fire, calming storms, calling down meteorites, communicating with extra-dimensional beings, and so on. I think we integrate with the natural world as we follow the path to freedom. It may not be as specific as "think hard about making a nucleotide sequence change in your gene coding", as opposed to your biochemistry following suit to the will-power that you bring forth

That's some comic book superhero BS that has nothing to do with evolution.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

That's some comic book superhero BS that has nothing to do with evolution.

If nucleotides can't self-polymerize, then your random-chanve mutant ape theory is a fairy tale. You believe in unintelligence. I believe in intelligence

originally posted by: AlienView
...
Now I ask both you and whereislogic - Does anything exist without an observer to define and describe what he, she, or it thinks they are observing ???

Sure. The existence of reality is independent of the act of observation. If the act of observation affects reality, that still does not lead to the conclusion that reality doesn't exist when there's no one to observe it. That would be a non sequitur, which is Latin for "does not follow".

Can we demonstrate an existent state without 'our observation' of it ???

Turn on your radio and tune in to any radio station, that will demonstrate the existence of a radio station without the need to observe said radio station. Cause and effect. It works similarly concerning the existence of a Creator. Our Creator has given us the “intellectual capacity” to investigate the world around us and to find satisfying answers to our questions. (1 John 5:20) In this regard, physicist and Nobel laureate William D. Phillips wrote: “When I examine the orderliness, understandability, and beauty of the universe, I am led to the conclusion that a higher intelligence designed what I see. My scientific appreciation of the coherence, and the delightful simplicity of physics strengthens my belief in God.”

Some two thousand years ago, a discerning observer of the natural world wrote: “[God’s] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.” (Romans 1:20) The fact of the existence of God is proved by the order, power, and complexity of creation, macroscopic and microscopic, and through his dealings with his people throughout history. Everywhere there is testimony to his activity and his greatness. “The heavens are declaring the glory of God; and of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.” (Ps 19:1)

Prove it

- Prove the World, all of existence, can exist unobserved.

I'm sure there's a way to explain common sense to you, but I'm still hoping common sense will not be ignored by those who like to shift the burden of proof away from those making claims that fly in the face of both common sense and common knowledge, or are logically contradictory as in a certain portion of the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of Quantum Mechanics. In either case, I'm not going to bother; cause the whole discussion about Quantum Mechanics and that part about the supposed "role of the observer"* is distracting from the details concerning chemical evolution that I've been talking about. The inconvenient details the philosophical naturalist likes to ignore or distract from that show that their claims are incorrect, false or (deliberately) misleading (in terms of how it's phrased usually, giving the wrong impression, such as that it's "easy" for nature to "make" nucleotides in a prebiotic environment, I already explained in detail why neither the words "easy" nor "make" are applicable to what nature or natural processes can cause, or actually causes, which is entropy when considering the initial naturalistic storyline, the opposite of the alledged increase from disorder to order required in that storyline and the claim intended to give the opposite impression, as if that's just what happens in nature; someone used the term 'what they naturally do' to create this false impression).

*: I can share where I quoted that term from though...someone else pointing out the misleading nature and results of that part of the CI, those results being that this part is interpreted by many as, for things to exist, there's a need for an observer, and therefore when there is no observer things no longer exist, and nothing can exist "unobserved" (quoting you, since you've been affected by those promoting this sort of interpretation). Sidenote: that's not what that part of the CI that I'm referring to itself actually says, but that's how it's interpreted by many because of the way it's phrased (which is itself also a non sequitur btw, that part of the CI) and because of the way renowned physicists are talking about it. Also, when in the media Schrödinger's Cat paradox comes up, they never make it clear that Schrödinger's intent was to show that that part of the CI leads to a paradox/contradiction, and therefore must be incorrect (especially the last part the entertainment media won't make clear; cause they're all fond of some version of an agnostic code and the 'anything is possible (if given enough time)' mantra; so they don't like to be reminded that it is impossible for this particular interpretation to be the right/correct one because it's logically contradictory or leads to a logical contradiction. And they love the "mystery" of a good paradox, another synonym for paradox, just like "contradiction/nonsense/mistake/error").

Freeman Dyson (see video, 21:23 - 23:56, keypoints at 22:05, 22:45 and 23:06):

1. "statements about the past cannot in general be made in quantum mechanical language...as a general rule, knowledge about the past can only be expressed in classical terms" (Lawrence Bragg, joint winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1915, mentioned: "everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle"; which is related to this issue of applying and interpreting QM incorrectly as described at 2:40 in the video)

2. "the role of the observer in QM is not to cause an abrupt reduction of the wave packet with the state of the system jumping discontinuously at the instant when it's observed. The picture of the observer interrupting the course of natural events is unnecessary and misleading. What really happens is that the quantum description of an event ceases to be meaningful as the observer changes the point of reference from before the event to after it. We don't need a human observer to make QM work, all we need is a point of reference, to seperate the past from the future, to seperate what has happened to what may happen, to seperate facts from probabilities."

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: TerraLiga

And that brings up the question of whether your speculative aliens will allso be 'Troll like' in looking to start stupid debates
over what they don't understand.

Maybe they already came to visit and found Humans too stupid to be worth commuicating with

That will be where you and I differ. The circumstances that led to us are totally unique, so I very much doubt that there is anything remotely similar to us out there, but you never know. What is more likely is that, above the millions of planets that probably support microbial life, are planets that have creatures. Some may be very small, some have probably never left water, fewer still that may have followed a path similar to ours and are land and water giants. Perhaps one or two have semi-intelligent ape-like creatures. Who knows. The myth that the universe is filled with warring aliens is fantasy.

a reply to: whereislogic

2. "the role of the observer in QM is not to cause an abrupt reduction of the wave packet with the state of the system jumping discontinuously at the instant when it's observed. The picture of the observer interrupting the course of natural events is unnecessary and misleading. What really happens is that the quantum description of an event ceases to be meaningful as the observer changes the point of reference from before the event to after it. We don't need a human observer to make QM work, all we need is a point of reference, to seperate the past from the future, to seperate what has happened to what may happen, to seperate facts from probabilities."

Could be - So I will not argue the point - See, and as I said your arguments and dragonridrr are both interesting ,
but probably not provable in an absolute sense - And my personal belief in non-religious ID will not win any popularity contests on either side.


But in a World ruled by Science and/or Religion, there is always this alternative:

Many-worlds interpretation

"The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts that the universal wavefunction is objectively real, and that there is no wavefunction collapse.[2] This implies that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are physically realized in some "world" or universe.[3] In contrast to some other interpretations, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, the evolution of reality as a whole in MWI is rigidly deterministic.[2]:8–9 Many-worlds is also called the relative state formulation or the Everett interpretation, after physicist Hugh Everett, who first proposed it in 1957.[4][5] Bryce DeWitt popularized the formulation and named it many-worlds in the 1960s and 1970s................

.............The many-worlds interpretation implies that there are very many universes, perhaps infinitely many.[11] It is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy. MWI views time as a many-branched tree, wherein every possible quantum outcome is realised. This is intended to resolve some paradoxes of quantum theory, such as the EPR paradox[5]:462[2]:118 and Schrödinger's cat,[1] since every possible outcome of a quantum event exists in its own universe."

en.wikipedia.org...


We then can transfer this to the 'AlienView' postulate - Which concludes:

1. In one World you are right - There was, is, and probably always will be 'A Creator'

2. In another World as probably seen by dragonridr there was not, is not and there never will be 'A Creator;

3. And in my World there is a pervasive, all encompassing, and coscious intelligence backing the matrix of all that exists
- Its existence is not currently provable, and like religion is based upon a philosophical interpretation science.

These and many other Worlds exist, possibly in Parallel Universes

a reply to: AlienView

Here i decided to blow your mind a little bit. What if i say it would be possible for humans to create a universe. Take alot of energy but in theory we could if we could impart enough energy to a monopole, it will start to inflate. Rather than growing in size within our Universe, the expanding monopole would bend spacetime within the accelerator to create a tiny wormhole tunnel leading to a separate region of space. From within our lab we would see only the mouth of the wormhole; it would appear to us as a mini black hole, so small as to be utterly harmless. But if we could travel into that wormhole, we would pass through a gateway into a rapidly expanding baby universe that we had created.

So then humans would be the creators of an entire universe and if life developed there we would be their creator. In fact whos to say we were not created in some alien lab somewhere. But heres the catch once you do this you cant effect anything in that universe.

Now back to us i dont care if someone wants to claim god exists in fact i myself believe in god do to some things ive seen. But having said that God didnt have to create us simply set the ball in motion. Could life have developed on its own yes but it might be like baking a cake you mix the ingredients put it in a pan and bake. If i were a creator i know i would just make it so life can appear on its own only makes sense in a universe with no end.

OK speculaton is over continue on

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Then the purpose of our being is to be creators ourselves? Assuming that our purpose is to aspire to be like our creator.

Yes I think so. Jesus quotes psalm 82 which says we are all gods, children of the Most High, but will die like mortals if we don't discover this Truth. Look at our human vessel, it is the ideal organic bi-pedal supercomputer for creating all sorts of stuff (both mentally and physically)

If so, what limits have been imposed on us as creators?

I believe it is self imposed due to lack of belief in what we truly are. We can move mountains if we have the faith in doing so.

Can we play with nucleic acids, for example, or are we limited to sexual creation?

Jesus, and others who resembled his way, became masters of the elements... walking on water, moving boulders, surviving scorching fire, calming storms, calling down meteorites, communicating with extra-dimensional beings, and so on. I think we integrate with the natural world as we follow the path to freedom. It may not be as specific as "think hard about making a nucleotide sequence change in your gene coding", as opposed to your biochemistry following suit to the will-power that you bring forth

By Jesus I assume you mean the hero character in the Bible? In all probability a fictional character for used depicting moral tales. A fictional character with no empirical evidence to support his existence, no contemporary evidence to support his existence, no heirs, no direct historical record at all except that single religious work.

You are dismissing the available evidence of almost the entire scientific community, but in particular evolutionary biologists, paleobiologists, paleogeologists, analyitical and biological chemists, among many other scientific professions, citing 'lack of evidence'. Are you SERIOUS? This is blatant hypocracy. It's more than that, it's pschopathological.

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: whereislogic

...
Could be - So I will not argue the point - See, and as I said your arguments and dragonridrr are both interesting ,
but probably not provable in an absolute sense - ...

I'd say what Dyson concludes there has already been proven by the evidence and he proves it with the rest of his presentation as well (remember, these 2 conclusions are the endresult, the reasons for these conclusions are given in the rest of the presentation).

But in a World ruled by Science and/or Religion, there is always this alternative:

Many-worlds interpretation

I'd say people in this world are more guided by philosophy and religious philosophies or philosophies that are rooted in false religion (referred to by the Bible as "Babylon the Great", long story). In that sense it is more 'ruled' (if you want to use that word) by philosophical propaganda/marketing (not synonyms but very similar in concept, marketing unverified philosophies) than science/knowledge (from the Latin scientia meaning knowledge). For example, the many-worlds hypothesis is actually a very old philosophy rooted in Pagan religion, for which there is no evidence (i.e. it is unverified and in this case also unverifiable, it is the endresult of desperate speculation to avoid acknowledging the existence of a Creator and the failure of philosophical naturalism to account for "the design and fine-tuning evident in the cosmos", especially the biomolecular machinery that makes up life I'd say, to me the most convincing, or easy to understand, evidence for the need for the process of engineering and the corresponding level of intelligence and technological know-how of the logically required engineer(s) to account for this technology, machinery and systems of machinery). It is responded to in the article I quoted in my response to Nothin on page 8.

In efforts to explain by natural processes alone the design and fine-tuning evident in the cosmos, still others turn to what has been called the multiverse, or many-universe, theory. According to this hypothesis, perhaps we live in just one of countless universes​—all of which have different conditions, but none of which have any purpose or design. Now according to that line of reasoning and the laws of probability, if you have enough universes, eventually one of them should have the right conditions to support life. However, there actually is no scientific evidence to support the multiverse theory. It is pure speculation.

After stating that he did not subscribe to that hypothesis, Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Christian de Duve said: “In my opinion, life and mind are such extraordinary manifestations of matter that they remain meaningful, however many universes unable to give rise to them exist or are possible. Diluting our universe with trillions of others in no way diminishes the significance of its unique properties, which I see as revealing clues to the ‘Ultimate Reality’ that lies behind them.”

3. And in my World there is a pervasive, all encompassing, and coscious intelligence backing the matrix of all that exists

This idea also seems to try to hold on to philosophical naturalism, attributing intelligence to natural processes or nature itself. Almost like turning nature into a god, Mother Nature. Not much different than what the ancient Pagan pantheists and Mother Nature worshippers did:

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

Coming back to the notion of "attributing intelligence to natural processes or nature itself":

... In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces.

What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things​—machines, houses, and even living cells—​in time break down.* Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.”

To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order​—for example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building.* Those who believe in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed.

On the other hand, when we view life and the universe as the work of a wise Creator who possesses an “abundance of dynamic energy,” we can explain not only the complexity of life’s information systems but also the finely tuned forces that govern matter itself, from vast galaxies to tiny atoms.*​—Isaiah 40:26.

Belief in a Creator also harmonizes with the now generally accepted view that the physical universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1.

Invariably, new discoveries tend to make the philosophy of materialism increasingly hard to defend, a fact that has moved some atheists to revise their views.* Yes, some former atheists have come to the conclusion that the wonders of the universe are visible evidence of the “invisible qualities” and “eternal power” of our Creator, Jehovah God. (Romans 1:20) Would you consider giving the matter further thought? No subject could be more important or of greater consequence.*

[Footnotes]

...

Such decay is a result of what scientists call the second law of thermodynamics. Put simply, this law states that the natural tendency is for order to degenerate into disorder.

DNA can be altered by mutations, which can be caused by such things as radiation and certain chemicals. But these do not lead to new species.​—See the article “Is Evolution a Fact?” in the September 2006 issue of Awake!

...

Source: Which Approach Is More Reasonable? (Awake!—2011)

Don't want to get too much into the subject of that last footnote there, but I would like to leave you with a quotation from Dr. Lönnig's website concerning the Law of Recurrent Variation (about the longterm effects of mutations, between brackets is mine):

Needless to say, I did not succeed in producing a higher category in a single step; but it must be kept in mind that neither have the Neo-Darwinians ever built up as much as the semblance of a new species by recombination of micromutations. In such well-studied organisms as Drosophila [fruitflies], in which numerous visible and, incidentally, small invisible mutations have been recombined, never has even the first step in the direction of a new species been accomplished, not to mention higher categories.

Richard B. Goldschmidt

Source: W.-E. Loennig: Gesetz der rekurrenten Variation

Richard Benedict Goldschmidt ... geneticist. He is considered the first to attempt to integrate genetics, development, and evolution.

Source: Richard Goldschmidt - Wikipedia

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: whereislogic
...Could be - So I will not argue the point - See, and as I said your arguments and dragonridrr are both interesting ,
but probably not provable in an absolute sense - ...

Oh, you were no longer referring to Dyson's conclusions with that 2nd part. Never mind the first sentence of my previous reply then. Thought you were referring to Dyson's conclusions.

Just so you know, I don't adhere to your version of an agnostic code concerning the origin of life and its cause (or causal factors).

Another philosophy filled with self-contradictory supposedly "absolute/factual"* claims (at least you managed to avoid that in what you said). *: as if that's the way it is, as if that's the reality of the situation, as if that's the reality/fact/certainty/truth of the matter (that we can't know with certainty, yada yada, fill in whatever you feel like; followed by promotion of the 'everything is possible'-mantra, another supposed fact/certainty according to the "COULD" claims, again making claims about things that are supposedly absolute/certain/factual according to the claim. A priori philosophically excluding the option that something actually is impossible ahead of time, not even considering that option anymore or whether there might be evidence for that conclusion, ruling it out ahead of time based on a philosophy and mantra without evidence). Synonyms for "absolute" as used in this context are: "factual/certain/true/conclusive/correct, without error". Don't get confused with the other meaning for "absolute".

It is a well-established fact/certainty/reality/truth that the process of engineering can produce or cause machinery and technology to come into existence. Newton's advice on how to proceed from the evidence available from experiments and observations in our search for truth and quest for knowledge about reality, is solid and has proven effective for discovering facts/certainties/truths about reality, such as concerning his discovery of the facts he described in the law of gravity. Here is his scientific method again (between brackets is mine):

Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. [I just mentioned a cause for machinery and technology to come into existence that has been well-established to be factual/true/certain]
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

Newton also pointed out:

"were men and beast made by fortuitous jumblings of the atoms, there would be many parts useless in them. Here a lump of flesh, there a member too much. Some kinds of beasts might have had but one eye, some more than two. Atoms, mechanical laws, are nothing compared to the knowledge and wisdom of the Creator."

Just remember, from the wikipedia page for "scientist" (between brackets mine again):

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,... [i.e. long after Newton, in case you were confused by Newton's usage of the terms "natural philosophy" and "experimental philosophy"]

Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.

Now a question to any and all who are following this thread and what was origiannly asked:

"Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?"

With modern computers continuously increasing in processing power.....

Have they yet to enter all [as much as possible] of what is known about what 'they' consider to be Evolutionary changes,
lines that went extinct, lines that supposedly 'evolved' into something else, etc., etc. etc.????

Has this been done yet, and if not why not ????

Certanly if there is a so called Evolution occurring there would be a discernable pattern to prove that
Evolution is actually happening or not.

There would be distinct patterns leading to the appearance of different species

-- And if not the Creationists might have to be considered correct - An intelligent force is driving what is called

Evolution - the proof is in the data

a reply to: AlienView

Well if im understanding you correctly you want to know if computers have been used to simulate evolution? Well yes they have we created digital organisms set up the rules and watched them evolve. We also have created code that will write a computer program though only on the basic level so far. So the search for artificial intelligence in effect uses evolution.

originally posted by: AlienView
Most of the hard science crowd I've run into here on ATS don't like to give any meaning beyond maybe 'survival of the fittest' to Evolution.

Explaining Evolution is actually pretty easy:

I'm 4 inches taller than my Dad was. If I have a child who grows up to be 4 inches taller than I am, and that child has a child of their own who grows up to be 4 inches taller than that...

Within about 100 years, my family would have Evolved about a foot taller than my Dad.

What would happen in a thousand years? Or a million?

Evolution can work in bits and pieces, a little bit at a time. Or one individual can get all of it at once. But, they can also get drawbacks along with or instead of advantages.

Giving meaning to one random change is hard to fathom. But when you look at the fact that many women like tall men, then that height change takes on a new meaning. It becomes an advantage.

There doesn't always have to be a meaning for the cause of the change - it could be random or a result from a change of environment, but the result of the change can gain meaning.

But assigning meaning when there isn't one is bad science and becomes 'unnatural selection'..

originally posted by: AlienView
What is Organic Life doing in a Universe that appears to be inorganic?

'Appears' is the operative word there. We can't see microbes, but they are everywhere on Earth that there is water. It's been proven in a lab that an electric charge can cause amino acids to bind. So a lightning strike can create a piece of DNA. It's the creation of amino acids that is the necessary organic molecule.