The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Michael OBrien · 24-11-2015 05:21PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

A close to nothing that manages to pull what we see around us out of it's hat is still a pretty remarkable close to nothing.

Yes it is remarkable, the universe is remarkable. That is why we like to learn about it. No one is dismissing that fact, but that does not indicate ANYTHING other than what I just said.

Michael OBrien · 24-11-2015 05:43PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I understand it, evolution is said to work as follows:

1. Genetic mutation in offspring increases the variety of cards on which environmental circumstances at the time can operate

2. Those mutations which allow an organism to better flourish in the particular environmental circumstances (compared to it's neighbours) it finds itself operating in, are carried on to the next generation. Those mutations which don't flourish die out. Beneficial mutation piled on beneficial mutation, carried on down the line, produces wholesale change.

3. What benefits an organism now might prove detrimental / useless in some future environmental set of circumstances.

Now the production of mutations is an ultimately random process. As are the environmental circumstances the organism finds itself in. Which means an evolved creature is the product of, ultimately, randomness.

Which means your brain is the product of random processes (at an ultimate level)

Whilst I understand there are philosophical arguments for supposing the product of our brains (e.g. our observations about the reality around us) can be considered sound, I've not heard how someone, who thinks their brain is the product of randomness, can be expect it to provide them with any solid ground (i.e. something not the product of randomness) on which to construct such a philosophy.

If the foundations are thought to be unsound, how can anything built on them stand?

Ok, lets see if we can sort this out.
1. Mutations occur, but they are not one thing and changes occur in the embriotic stages of development that are not merely genetic but environmental (womb is an environment too). Just want to make sure we don't oversimplify that issue.

2. Close but not quite. There is no such thing as 'beneficial' really, its subjective. What happens is that detrimental mutations are more likely to be weeded out (not necessarily completely). ANYTHING else gets carried on, and that situation varies as 'detrimental' can become neutral if the environmental pressures change too.
This means that this collection of mutations might be neutral and some show benefits now and again, and sometimes the neutral mutations later become beneficial (or detrimental) when the situation changes OR a combination of mutations occur that start off a new chain of changes otherwise impossible in a single mutation (making it look like a bigger change than otherwise possible).

3. Somewhat, but remember that it can simply become neutral too. MOSTLY that is the case. It is only if the mutations or chain of mutations kill or hinders the organism before it reaches maturity that it really is selected against.
Also other pressures like sexual selection can be an additional factor that makes some chain of mutations occur that would otherwise be minimised or weeded out, like the peacock's tail.

"Now the production of mutations is an ultimately random process. As are the environmental circumstances the organism finds itself in. Which means an evolved creature is the product of, ultimately, randomness."
Not at all. The factors determining mutations are apparently random, that much is usually accepted as true, the environment is not random. Environments are predictable, thus not random. The resulting selections can be predicted in many circumstances. Also therefore a case against randomness.
We see eyes evolve multiple times in different ways, the evolution of the eye is NOT therefore random as the benefit of having visual awareness of the environment imbues an advantage to the organism.

"Which means your brain is the product of random processes (at an ultimate level)" What 'ultimate level'? That seems very like the fallacy of composition.
The fact that certain overall factors have apparent random elements does not mean that all effects within their combination is also random.
Science could not operate if that was the case.

"I've not heard how someone, who thinks their brain is the product of randomness, can be expect it to provide them with any solid ground (i.e. something not the product of randomness) on which to construct such a philosophy." That is because that is a strawman.
Only those that don't understand how evolution works state that our brain is a product of randomness.
Being able to acquire accurate, if not perfect, information about our surroundings, and having multiple avenues to cross correlate that information, is an evolutionary advantage over an organism competing without that ability or with a poorer version of it.
Much like the old tale about 2 people running away from a chasing bear, you don't need to outpace the BEAR just your companion.
The analogy here is the bear is reality, your companion is a competitor. Having a PERFECT grasp of reality is not evolutionarily required, just as long as you are one step ahead of the competition.

antiskeptic · 24-11-2015 06:15PM

Thanks for getting back to me.

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Ok, lets see if we can sort this out.
1. Mutations occur, but they are not one thing and changes occur in the embriotic stages of development that are not merely genetic but environmental (womb is an environment too). Just want to make sure we don't oversimplify that issue.

Okay

2. Close but not quite. There is no such thing as 'beneficial' really, its subjective. What happens is that detrimental mutations are more likely to be weeded out (not necessarily completely). ANYTHING else gets carried on, and that situation varies as 'detrimental' can become neutral if the environmental pressures change too.

I'd agree that these are subjective terms since something that appears detrimental (such as a deformed foot which hinders movement) might actually confer advantage if only we had the omniscience to understand that advantage. Perhaps we should label all that is carried forth as beneficial for that particular stage in evolution. And all that isn't, detrimental.

Neutrality would merely be a term for our not knowing whether it conferred benefit or not or whether it will ultimately prove beneficial/detrimental. We say neutral because it appears neutral on a subjective level.

This means that this collection of mutations might be neutral and some show benefits now and again, and sometimes the neutral mutations later become beneficial (or detrimental) when the situation changes OR a combination of mutations occur that start off a new chain of changes otherwise impossible in a single mutation (making it look like a bigger change than otherwise possible).

See above

3. Somewhat, but remember that it can simply become neutral too. MOSTLY that is the case. It is only if the mutations or chain of mutations kill or hinders the organism before it reaches maturity that it really is selected against.

See above.

Also other pressures like sexual selection can be an additional factor that makes some chain of mutations occur that would otherwise be minimised or weeded out, like the peacock's tail.

Is there something about sexual selection that isn't the product of mutations or other randomness (such as the environment of the womb)?

"Now the production of mutations is an ultimately random process. As are the environmental circumstances the organism finds itself in. Which means an evolved creature is the product of, ultimately, randomness."
Not at all. The factors determining mutations are apparently random, that much is usually accepted as true, the environment is not random. Environments are predictable, thus not random. The resulting selections can be predicted in many circumstances. Also therefore a case against randomness.

Whilst the environment might be predictable (in the sense of the sun coming up every morning) it isn't the product of other than randomness, surely. That it becomes predictable that blind mutations will confer disadvantage to creatures who roam around during the day (in an environment crammed with sighted creatures) doesn't alter the random ground on which all is built. If random events had conspired to ensure the sun didn't come up every day in the way it currently comes up you'd have completely different outcomes. Perhaps events in those circumstances would be predictable too but randomness is the underlying basis of outcomes

We see eyes evolve multiple times in different ways, the evolution of the eye is NOT therefore random as the benefit of having visual awareness of the environment imbues an advantage to the organism.

See my remarks on the randomness of the environment

"Which means your brain is the product of random processes (at an ultimate level)" What 'ultimate level'? That seems very like the fallacy of composition. The fact that certain overall factors have apparent random elements does not mean that all effects within their combination is also random.

The "certain overall factors" in question appear to have randomness sitting at their foundations: mutations / womb environment / environment. Random in this direction produces this result. Random in that direction produces that result.

Science could not operate if that was the case.

It operates by not examining the problem that lies at the root of things (which is more a philosophical problem). Which is fine: it doesn't need to - it operates okay within the bubble of assumptions it makes about the world and our place in it.

"I've not heard how someone, who thinks their brain is the product of randomness, can be expect it to provide them with any solid ground (i.e. something not the product of randomness) on which to construct such a philosophy." That is because that is a strawman.
Only those that don't understand how evolution works state that our brain is a product of randomness.

I'll read what you have to say about the points I've made above before accepting this conclusion.

Being able to acquire accurate, if not perfect, information about our surroundings, and having multiple avenues to cross correlate that information, is an evolutionary advantage over an organism competing without that ability or with a poorer version of it.

What I'm after is how someone who supposes (or must, I am arguing) their brain the product of randomness can hold these statements you make to be true.

I don't deny this is how we operate but it's how someone in your position finds firm foundations for it that I question.

(Indeed, it seems you enter a kind of catch-22 if concluding your brain the product of randomness. You can't even rely on the conclusion that your brain is the product of randomness, for obvious reasons)

Michael OBrien · 24-11-2015 06:18PM

J C wrote: »

This is exactly what Evolutionists say happened ... Pondkind i.e. pondscum consisting of tiny primitive cells spontaneously organised themselves under the joint process of mutagenesis and selection and over millions of years and generations became Mankind and all of the other species we see today on the Earth.

When this supposed process is summarised as Pondkind spontaneously evolving into Mankind many Evolutionists see it for the impossibility it undoubtedly is ... and they seek solace in saying that the reason it was possible is because it was a different process ... without ever specifying exactly what was different about the process.

God rested on the 7th Day from Creating ... and nowhere in the Bible does it say that He ever started Creating again.

He is resting from Creating ... but not from watching over His people.

There is no evidence of Creation de novo happening now ... and plenty of evidence of de-generating effects, like disease and death, deleterious mutagenesis, etc.
... and the lack of physical and biblical evidence for continued Creation by God is yet another problem for Theistic Evolutionists ... but it is obviously not an issue for Creationists or Creation Scientists.:)

I don't think you grasp what "spontaneously" means. Millions of generations over millions of years cannot be equated with 'spontaneously' anything. But keep doubling down on that misconception if you must.

"When this supposed process is summarised as Pondkind spontaneously evolving into Mankind many Evolutionists see it for the impossibility it undoubtedly is ... and they seek solace in saying that the reason it was possible is because it was a different process ... without ever specifying exactly what was different about the process."
Really, the whole scientific theory thing bypasses you completely then.
You are making a strawman, then you blame everyone else for not playing along. Sorry. That is your issue.

"God rested on the 7th Day from Creating ... and nowhere in the Bible does it say that He ever started Creating again."
I guess Jesus was not created then, when the holy spirit (god) got busy with Mary.
But seriously, this is an appeal to ignorance fallacy. Because it is not stated in genesis that means it cannot have occurred? I think you will find that your position is that you read into it what you want and then narrow the interpretation to ONLY mean that when instead it is open to interpretation.

I agree that theistic evolutionists have a lot of issues to resolve with their view, mostly because it is a god of the gaps argument at its core.
The fact that creationists don't have to deal with THAT instance of the fallacy, still leaves the problem of the mountain of other fallacies and misconceptions they are buried under that the T.Evos' sidestep by their attempt to incorporate science into their theology.

antiskeptic · 24-11-2015 06:24PM

Safehands wrote: »

It always amazes me the level of detail and the level of thought, creationists go into to disembowel the whole concept of evolution.

a) I'm not a Creationist (at least, not in the sense of JC's 6 literal days)

b) I'm not trying to disembowel evolution. I'm trying to disembowel the trust one can have in themselves if naturalistic evolution is how it all came about

God creating the universe in 7 days, sound or unsound?
God creating night and day without the sun, sound or unsound?
Plants flourishing in the absence of the sun, sound or unsound?
Talking snakes, sound or unsound?
The story that the whole Earth was flooded, Mount Everest and all, sound or unsound?
Noah taking two of every animal on Earth onto his home-made ark, sound or unsound?
Noah living for 900 years, sound or unsound?
Moses being spoken to by a talking, burning bush, sound or unsound?

If you answer "sound" to 1 or more of the above, I suggest that anything you say, by way of critical thought, about the theory of evolution, should be dismissed as the ranting of an illogical mind.

I don't mind being educated by Michael on the detail of evolution by way of probing his argument. He and I (being an engineer and somewhat scientific) can probably communicate constructively. I don't find that atheists have very much by way of starting ability when it comes to theology. Their understanding to start with is piss-poor and there is the issue (if the Bible is true) of a lack of spiritual "sight" rendering 'education' nigh on impossible.

I certainly have no issue with a satan or one of his minions talking via an animal. Or a man living to 900 years old. Or a bush burning without being consumed. I mean, what possible problem could I have with that, once having accepted the truth of a spiritual realm which has a lot to say and do with this physical world of ours.

Might I suggest the problem is not in these things of themselves but in the lack of appreciation for what is possible once you step outside the constraints of the laws of nature? It might be an impossible leap for you to make in present guise. But you can at least appreciate the possibilities once those physical borders breached.

PopePalpatine · 24-11-2015 06:31PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I understand it, evolution is said to work as follows:

1. Genetic mutation in offspring increases the variety of cards on which environmental circumstances at the time can operate

2. Those mutations which allow an organism to better flourish in the particular environmental circumstances (compared to it's neighbours) it finds itself operating in, are carried on to the next generation. Those mutations which don't flourish die out. Beneficial mutation piled on beneficial mutation, carried on down the line, produces wholesale change.

3. What benefits an organism now might prove detrimental / useless in some future environmental set of circumstances.

Now the production of mutations is an ultimately random process. As are the environmental circumstances the organism finds itself in. Which means an evolved creature is the product of, ultimately, randomness.

Which means your brain is the product of random processes (at an ultimate level)

Whilst I understand there are philosophical arguments for supposing the product of our brains (e.g. our observations about the reality around us) can be considered sound, I've not heard how someone, who thinks their brain is the product of randomness, can be expect it to provide them with any solid ground (i.e. something not the product of randomness) on which to construct such a philosophy.

If the foundations are thought to be unsound, how can anything built on them stand?

Your understanding is quite poor, while mutations are random, over many generations the mutations add up to near-optimal (I suppose there's always room for improvements) adaptations to their environment. It's funny that I should mention this, as just a week ago one of my college modules was covering genetic algorithms.

...not that I expect a certain someone who over-uses smilies to read about them, of course. :rolleyes:

Safehands · 24-11-2015 06:58PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I certainly have no issue with a satan or one of his minions talking via an animal. Or a man living to 900 years old. Or a bush burning without being consumed. I mean, what possible problem could I have with that, once having accepted the truth of a spiritual realm which has a lot to say and do with this physical world of ours.
Might I suggest the problem is not in these things of themselves but in the lack of appreciation for what is possible once you step outside the constraints of the laws of nature? It might be an impossible leap for you to make in present guise. But you can at least appreciate the possibilities once those physical borders breached.

An appreciation for what is possible once you step outside the constraints of the laws of nature? I certainly do think I can appreciate what may happen. I have a great imagination. That is what it is, imaginary.

I have heard that there is a bush which grows somewhere in the middle East which can self combust and which has been known not to be consumed by the fire. Maybe its a myth, but I am prepared to believe it may happen. I'm sure if it does, it can be explained by science. I have never heard of it talking to anyone, except in the Bible of course.

I can also fully accept that Noah was a mythical figure who is said to have lived for 900 years. Maybe he was spiritual, who knows? But this and the other mythical stories are not a sound basis for an actual belief system.

You don't accept evolution and that is fair enough. So what exactly do you think happened at the beginning? Do you have any provable, verifiable theories or facts that you can put forward for what you believe in? I know you think you can poo poo evolution. You've done that often enough and that is ok. So now, tell us what your beliefs are, without referring to evolution, which you quite obviously don't accept as being sound. How did it all start, in your opinion?

silverharp · 24-11-2015 07:55PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Your understanding is quite poor, while mutations are random, over many generations the mutations add up to near-optimal (I suppose there's always room for improvements) adaptations to their environment. It's funny that I should mention this, as just a week ago one of my college modules was covering genetic algorithms.

...not that I expect a certain someone who over-uses smilies to read about them, of course. :rolleyes:

check mate atheists!

antiskeptic · 24-11-2015 10:13PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Your understanding is quite poor, while mutations are random, over many generations the mutations add up to near-optimal (I suppose there's always room for improvements) adaptations to their environment.

I didn't say anything about them not adding up to near-optimal. That point is that the end product is the result of randomness at all points.

J C · 24-11-2015 10:36PM

silverharp wrote: »

check mate atheists!

The Peacock doesn't look random to me ... more like the product of omnipotent intelligent design.

... now this is what random physical processes acting without the application of intelligence looks like

... and it will degenerate further with more time ... so millions of years won't do it any good ... but plenty of harm!!!

Safehands · 24-11-2015 10:43PM

J C wrote: »

Doesn't look random to me ... more like the product of intelligent design.

... now this is what random physical processes acting without the application of intelligence looks like

... and it will degenerate further with more time ... so millions of years won't do it any good ... but plenty of harm!!!

Gee JC, I think that car looks beautiful. Could be a piece of sculpture! Certainly produced by intellegent design, absolutely no doubt about that.

J C · 24-11-2015 11:07PM

Safehands wrote: »

Gee JC, I think that car looks beautiful. Could be a piece of sculpture! Certainly produced by intellegent design, absolutely no doubt about that.

The difference between the car and the Peacock is that the car is the product of limited Human Intelligent Design ... whereas the peacock is the product of omnipotent Divine Intelligent Design.

... and just look at the relative quality of both !!!:eek:

silverharp · 25-11-2015 12:01AM

J C wrote: »

The difference between the car and the Peacock is that the car is the product of limited Human Intelligent Design ... whereas the peacock is the product of omnipotent Divine Intelligent Design.

... and just look at the relative quality of both !!!:eek:

in fairness they both have more in common then you would think, sex selection though probably not that particular model car. :pac:

Safehands · 25-11-2015 12:36AM

J C wrote: »

The difference between the car and the Peacock is that the car is the product of limited Human Intelligent Design ... whereas the peacock is the product of omnipotent Divine Intelligent Design.

... and just look at the relative quality of both !!!:eek:

Tell me JC, when that Peacock is as old as that car, how do you think it will look?:P

J C · 25-11-2015 11:30PM

Safehands wrote: »

Tell me JC, when that Peacock is as old as that car, how do you think it will look?:P

Life can 're-set itself' in each generation (via another intelligently designed phenomenon called sex) ... so the CFSGI (complex specified functional Genetid Information) for the peacocks bright feathers is effectively immortal ... unlike the rust-bucket car!!! :pac::p

J C · 25-11-2015 11:31PM

silverharp wrote: »

in fairness they both have more in common then you would think, sex selection though probably not that particular model car. :pac:

... that's true !!!
... its actually called 'peacocking' ... and its not only flashy cars and clothes ... even flashy philantrophy is used, apparently !!!:)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2359291/The-art-peacocking-Men-behave-better-women-hotter-woman-good-deeds-do.html

uck51js9zml2yt · 26-11-2015 12:05AM

I always find it interesting that evolutionists never comment on the second law of thermodynamic which prohibits order arising from disorder.

Any thoughts guys? You are after all asking us to believe that science is wrong !

Safehands · 26-11-2015 12:25AM

J C wrote: »

Life can 're-set itself' in each generation (via another intelligently designed phenomenon called sex) ... so the CFSGI (complex specified functional Genetid Information) for the peacocks bright feathers is effectively immortal ... unlike the rust-bucket car!!! :pac::p

Ah thanks JC, now I understand immortality. We die, like the peacock, but we are immortal..... because we live on through our genes.
You know, I agree with that. Evolution kinda works in a similar way, over a long, long time, millions of years actually. So at last we are in agreement JC. Let's have a drink! Mine's a brandy!

J C · 26-11-2015 01:03AM

Safehands wrote: »

Ah thanks JC, now I understand immortality. We die, like the peacock, but we are immortal..... because we live on through our genes.
You know, I agree with that. Evolution kinda works in a similar way, over a long, long time, millions of years actually. So at last we are in agreement JC. Let's have a drink! Mine's a brandy!

Mine too ... we could become drinking buddies !!!:eek:

Anyway, we do live on in our genes ... but the nagging problem with evolution isn't the survival of the fittest ... which does occur ... it is the arrival of the fittest in the first place i.e. the source of all of the complex functional specified genetic information (CFSGI) that we observe in living things that is the insurmountable problem for non-intelligently directed processes ... and the interaction of damaging mutagenesis and selection simply doesn't explain it.

PopePalpatine · 26-11-2015 01:09AM

Astrid Quick Case wrote: »

I always find it interesting that evolutionists never comment on the second law of thermodynamic which prohibits order arising from disorder.

Any thoughts guys? You are after all asking us to believe that science is wrong !

I always find it interesting creationists have such a poor understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, yet still try to use it. Earth ISN'T a closed system, nor are the cells of organisms.

silverharp · 26-11-2015 09:03AM

J C wrote: »

... that's true !!!
... its actually called 'peacocking' ... and its not only flashy cars and clothes ... even flashy philantrophy is used, apparently !!!:)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2359291/The-art-peacocking-Men-behave-better-women-hotter-woman-good-deeds-do.html

In terms of evolution though the peacock is the result of the peahen selecting the male that has the biggest "handicap" when in normal evolutionary terms this feature would have made the bird a bigger target or impacted its ability survive.

J C · 26-11-2015 09:44AM

silverharp wrote: »

In terms of evolution though the peacock is the result of the peahen selecting the male that has the biggest "handicap" when in normal evolutionary terms this feature would have made the bird a bigger target or impacted its ability survive.

That is what ensures that the Peacocks with the brightest and best tails get to mate and pass on their genes for the brightest and best tails to the next generation ... but it doesn't explain how the complex functional specified genetic information (CFSGI) for these tails originated in the first place. The tail is also a good proxy for overall health and vigour - and that is why selecting on quality of tail is so successful reproductively.
Its a bit like very sophisticated robots (that can reproduce selectively) being produced by mankind and then leaving the robots 'do their own thing' ... and then saying that the reasons the robots arose in the first place is due to the selective reproductive processes that maintains their 'fitness' in a changing environment.

J C · 26-11-2015 09:53AM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I always find it interesting creationists have such a poor understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, yet still try to use it. Earth ISN'T a closed system, nor are the cells of organisms.

I always find it interesting that some Evolutionists have such a poor understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, yet still use handwaving statements such as 'Earth ISN'T a closed system' ... which nobody is arguing with, in the first place.
The laws of thermodynamics apply equally to both the physical world where everything runs down (except where there is a local input of energy) ... and to Complex Functional Specified Information ... which also degrades as changes are made to it (except where there is an application of intelligence to the process).

Delirium · 26-11-2015 10:11AM

J C wrote: »

I always find it interesting that some Evolutionists have such a poor understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, yet still use handwaving statements such as 'Earth ISN'T a closed system' ... which nobody is arguing with, in the first place.
The laws of thermodynamics apply equally to both the physical world where everything runs down (except where there is a local input of energy) ... and to Complex Functional Specified Information ... which also degrades as changes are made to it (except where there is an application of intelligence to the process).

How does one measure this "information" to determine if your claim is true?

Michael OBrien · 26-11-2015 11:51AM

J C wrote: »

I always find it interesting that some Evolutionists have such a poor understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, yet still use handwaving statements such as 'Earth ISN'T a closed system' ... which nobody is arguing with, in the first place.
The laws of thermodynamics apply equally to both the physical world where everything runs down (except where there is a local input of energy) ... and to Complex Functional Specified Information ... which also degrades as changes are made to it (except where there is an application of intelligence to the process).

This shows exactly the problem with creationists. You first bring up the 2nd law and then fail to understand it.
The 2nd law requires a CLOSED system to operate. Since the earth and organisms in general are NOT closed systems, it does not apply.
Overall the universe tends towards increasing entropy in the broadest terms. This does not prevent reversals within that system as those reversals are temporary and overall entropy STILL is increasing despite that localised phenomena. Suns burn out (increasing entropy), planets burn up or their radioactivity peters out (increasing entropy) and organisms DIE (increasing entropy).
What DOES violate the 2nd law is the concept of a soul or any form of eternal afterlife, or indeed an eternal UNCHANGING active entity.
Oh and before anyone tries the old 'laws can be broken by the lawmaker', that is an equivocation fallacy as that refers to legal laws (i.e. proscriptive laws) not physical laws, which are descriptions of nature.

The idea that accepting the evolutionary theory means you go against science is a flat out lie.

Michael OBrien · 26-11-2015 11:56AM

Astrid Quick Case wrote: »

I always find it interesting that evolutionists never comment on the second law of thermodynamic which prohibits order arising from disorder.

Any thoughts guys? You are after all asking us to believe that science is wrong !

This has been done to death. Nothing from the theory of evolution violates the 2nd law. See my post to J.C. for more.
You don't know what the 2nd law is if you think differently.

steamengine · 26-11-2015 12:08PM

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't understand why you are finding this so difficult. Basically the universe was a building site. He was dependent on various contractor, stuff probably did not arrive on time, or in the right order, so he had to improvise a bit.

Now, I don't have a biblical reference for this (not that this stops most people) but I genuinely believe that what definitely happened is god simply popped down to his local Hirestore and picked up a few of these:

He then cracked on and once his helium supplier actually delivered the helium, which he was supposed to do on the Monday, he got the sun sorted and dropped the lights back on his way home. Job done.

Seriously Safehands, you generally come across as fairly switched on, I don't understand how you can't work this stuff out.

MrP

Many a true word is spoken in jest, and proof of the pudding is there on our television sets. Apparently, 1% of the static, which can be seen on analogue when not tuned to a station, is actually the remnants of the light from the big bang. Due to the expansion of the universe, the original light waves have been stretched out to microwave form - and form what's known as the 'background cosmic radiation'.

antiskeptic · 26-11-2015 12:40PM

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Oh and before anyone tries the old 'laws can be broken by the lawmaker', that is an equivocation fallacy as that refers to legal laws (i.e. proscriptive laws) not physical laws, which are descriptions of nature.

But not descriptions of supernature. Could that which is supra nature operate beyond the bounds of that which is confined by nature?

Michael OBrien · 26-11-2015 12:55PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thanks for getting back to me.
I'd agree that these are subjective terms since something that appears detrimental (such as a deformed foot which hinders movement) might actually confer advantage if only we had the omniscience to understand that advantage. Perhaps we should label all that is carried forth as beneficial for that particular stage in evolution. And all that isn't, detrimental.

Neutrality would merely be a term for our not knowing whether it conferred benefit or not or whether it will ultimately prove beneficial/detrimental. We say neutral because it appears neutral on a subjective level.

Sorry but you cannot call such mutations beneficial if they are not immediately detrimental since they are not guaranteed to be that. If you like you can call them 'currently non-detrimental' mutations but neutral is more accurate and shorter as they can go either way.
Also mutations don't need to be as macro as an extra foot (creationists often mistake birth defects like partly reabsorbed twins with mutations). All it takes is a slight change in the dna that does not infer any apparent disadvantage MORE than advantage. You can have mutations that have more than one effect too, and result in both negative and positive outcomes in different ways, if the positive part is slightly higher than the negative part it can still be carried on. Mutations can have a web of knock on effects, hence why their combinations can be so amazing or disasterous.

"Neutrality would merely be a term for our not knowing whether it conferred benefit or not or whether it will ultimately prove beneficial/detrimental. "
We don't need to know that in any ultimate sense. Evolution has no goals or agendas, so mutations don't NEED to fall into either camp, some do, some may, it does not matter as it is not a goal.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is there something about sexual selection that isn't the product of mutations or other randomness (such as the environment of the womb)?

Sexual selection is a result in mutations and the selection by preference of sexual partners. This is non-random. A peahen seeks out a mate that is likely to be desirable, which falls into a set of criteria that the peahen's instincts call for. A healthy male is more desirable than a sick one. This is non-random, as the reverse makes no sense. Plumage is a factor in mating. Again not random. There has to be some way for a hen to judge the fitness of its mates, a tail is one way, and birds have tail feathers long before peacocks or peahens existed. The extravagance of the tail feathers is a refinement not only of the peacocks natural selection via sexual selection by the peahen, but of the peahen's instincts too. As competition becomes more fierce, the female ALSO has to become more selective to find the best mate.
Non of this is random, despite the mutations for the tail being so. The pressures result in a channelling of selection that is only mitigated by practical necessity (as in the tail cannot grow beyond the means of the peacock to function or thrive through other pressures).

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whilst the environment might be predictable (in the sense of the sun coming up every morning) it isn't the product of other than randomness, surely. That it becomes predictable that blind mutations will confer disadvantage to creatures who roam around during the day (in an environment crammed with sighted creatures) doesn't alter the random ground on which all is built. If random events had conspired to ensure the sun didn't come up every day in the way it currently comes up you'd have completely different outcomes. Perhaps events in those circumstances would be predictable too but randomness is the underlying basis of outcomes

That is a fallacy of composition (The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part).).
Just because mutations are random, does not mean all effects on those mutations are random. Environments are predictable. Our ability to predict where fossils of certain types of organisms will be in the rock layers show that evolution is non random.
As far as the sun goes, how is that a product of randomness? Gravity is decidedly NON random. So is the thermodynamic process inside suns, or the atomic states that occur from their nuclear processes.
'Random' means unpredictable. If something is predictable, it CANNOT be random. The fact that the sun appears to rise in the morning (or the earth rotates to met it) is of course non random, it has a high but not 100% predictability (if it did not happen, the causes would be so catastrophic that we would not be in a position to care by that stage

)

antiskeptic wrote: »

The "certain overall factors" in question appear to have randomness sitting at their foundations: mutations / womb environment / environment. Random in this direction produces this result. Random in that direction produces that result.

How are wombs random? or the environment ENTIRELY random? Even mutations have causes, it is just we don't (to my knowledge) have the ability to map them all yet.
Look, nature is hard to study, no question. That does not make it random. Random means that anything (even within certain constraints) can occur.
This does not occur with evolution. Mutations are the white noise but the environment is what makes something from that white noise. They work in tandem. That does not mean it is random.
I am beginning to think you think if something is not intelligently chosen it is random. This is a mistake. A small rock may roll down a hill due to it being shaken by some random vibration, however the path it took down the hill is decidedly NOT random. Every twist and turn has physical causes (obstacles or different ground surface or degrees of angle.). Despite not being intelligently moved from its starting position to the final resting place, it arrived there through NON random means.
The universe has plenty of ways of keeping things on track or in check.
You may risk falling into the old "argument from incredulity" if you refuse to accept that because you cannot personally understand it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It operates by not examining the problem that lies at the root of things (which is more a philosophical problem). Which is fine: it doesn't need to - it operates okay within the bubble of assumptions it makes about the world and our place in it.

IF you are referring to the scientific axioms, they are not just assumptions, they are first necessary for science to be valid in terms of making progress and secondly they are given ongoing validation by the success of the methods and the practical outcomes that offshoot from them.
They are not dogmas that cannot be overturned, but since the history of science backs up their accuracy, it seems perverse to dismiss them JUST because they don't match your own view.
They don't need to be absolutely true (as in we can be absolutely certain the universe will never contradict these axioms.) to have merit.
Here is a fun essay on the topic I came across, you might like it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What I'm after is how someone who supposes (or must, I am arguing) their brain the product of randomness can hold these statements you make to be true.

I don't deny this is how we operate but it's how someone in your position finds firm foundations for it that I question.

(Indeed, it seems you enter a kind of catch-22 if concluding your brain the product of randomness. You can't even rely on the conclusion that your brain is the product of randomness, for obvious reasons)

As stated, our brain is NOT a result of randomness.
'My position' is that we have survived long enough to evolve to our current stage of being by being able to navigate this reality well enough to out compete everything that sought to eat us.
This means we have to have, to some reasonable degree, senses that provide some accurate data.
Since we can test that hypothesis via cross correlation with other humans and observation of non humans interacting with the world (all species with similar senses react similar to us in regard to reality) and build mechanical devices that further enhance and improve our limited senses, our confidence in the basic axioms are warranted. Until that changes there is simply no cause to change my mind on the topic, NOT that I will refuse to change my mind, I just need a decent reason to do so.

You need to define clearly your definition of randomness and make sure it is one that is not unique to you or just creationists but recognised generally as having merit. You need to avoid the fallacies I mentioned too in this post.

I hope that my post helps you have a better understanding of the issue.

antiskeptic · 26-11-2015 01:07PM

Safehands wrote: »

An appreciation for what is possible once you step outside the constraints of the laws of nature? I certainly do think I can appreciate what may happen. I have a great imagination. That is what it is, imaginary.

Because you have no good reason to suppose otherwise. Not all need be so constrained.

I have heard that there is a bush which grows somewhere in the middle East which can self combust and which has been known not to be consumed by the fire. Maybe its a myth, but I am prepared to believe it may happen. I'm sure if it does, it can be explained by science. I have never heard of it talking to anyone, except in the Bible of course.

Ditto above.

I can also fully accept that Noah was a mythical figure who is said to have lived for 900 years. Maybe he was spiritual, who knows? But this and the other mythical stories are not a sound basis for an actual belief system.

The notion that they are mythical would ultimately find it's root in a belief system. You may arrive at that belief based on an assessment of the evidence before you but a belief is all it is.If other evidence is presented to alter that belief then alter it will.

The only difference between us is the evidence we have at our disposal which causes us to draw the conclusions we draw.

Bear in mind, that the problems you have accepting as evidence that which doesn't fit into the framework you hold as to what constitutes valid evidence is too a product of a belief system. You are probably an empiricist, for example. But empiricism is a belief system ("there is no god but the empirical" - is a statement of belief)

You don't accept evolution and that is fair enough. So what exactly do you think happened at the beginning? Do you have any provable, verifiable theories or facts that you can put forward for what you believe in? I know you think you can poo poo evolution. You've done that often enough and that is ok. So now, tell us what your beliefs are, without referring to evolution, which you quite obviously don't accept as being sound. How did it all start, in your opinion?

I've no problem with the theory being a sound theory - since it fulfills the criteria demanded of good theories. I find the attempts of out and out creationists to debunk ToE using pseudoscience little short of tragic.

But a good theory need say nothing at all about how something actually is - I need not explain to you that any theory can be overturned anytime in the light of new knowledge. It's just the best way we have of understanding things in the present. That's been the case of understanding in the past and I've no doubt it will be the case in the future

Wasn't it in the year of the publication of Origin of the Species that the head of the Royal Society said he feared science had learned about as much as could be learned and that he feared there would be nothing of interested presented to it that year?

-

I have no idea of or need for a definitive explanation for how it all came about physically. It's not something I find all that relevant. My interest is in the outworking of God's plan and the dots I'm interested in joining are those of the puzzle contained both in the Bible and in my observations of the world around me. In so far as harmony and connectivity between elements of the puzzle are found doth my picture firm up. And so, when I see a rainbow, I am reminded (as God intended we be reminded) that justice and judgement is being held off on until a final day. I don't care whether a rainbow can be explained by mere physical phenomenon or whether God got up that morning and fiddled with nature by pressing the "time to remind them" button. The core interest in rainbows lies elsewhere.

Ditto a flood or a man living to 900 years. Since it doesn't confound the spiritual puzzle and since I've no doubt current scientific understanding can, in principle, be overturned wholesale, I've no reason to suppose 900 years of age a myth. You need to see the difference between us: you've got the evidence you've got and come to the not unreasonable conclusion you do. Scientific theory is but a minnow in the overarching structure I'm looking at and so I come to different conclusions and find a different place for science than you do.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments