Darwinism is made up

[defendor]

you guys know how when you put a couple mirrors together you get an infinite series of reflections...that to me is why the god  argument doesn't work so much

But life forming just out of some "win the lottery" type situation makes no sense either.  None of it explains what consciousness is.  You can't end the argument with "god" either b/c that to me is an infinite loop.  I'm kinda resigned to the fact that there's really no explanation to be found.  But I think most of us have an intrinsic sense of evil...and i don't like it explained with some souless science mumbo b/c that makes no sense either...I will just say:  we're here, we exist, we'll probably never no why or for what purpose...maybe we'll know when we're dead...IDFK

You're right, what sense does it make that a positive nucleus plus a negative electron cloud, times a few billion equals consciousness..? The sum of its parts does not add up.  Our consciousness, is derived by being created, in being, in resemblance to God.  How does this work? I have no idea haha maybe energy it its being is conscious to start off with.  Maybe a bunch of neurons are goin crazy, but either way you have assumed that intelligence is a plausible explanation for the universe.  IF that is a plausible theory, then  you can make a few cases as to what this intelligence could be.  The God of the bible, is not some god that "bridges the gaps" of things we don't understand.  "how did the universe come together?"..."God"  thats irrationality.  But what can make sense, and you have to believe to understand it, not understand it to believe it, is that everything is held together by God and that everything exists because God exists.  

With the definition of God as infinite, we cannot suppose to wrap our heads around it, for we are finite, and cannot possible conceptualize things that are not beneath our realm of comprehension.  Even our consciousness seems far too ethereal for our own consciousness to grasp, but "we know that we know"  

Here's my question to you, if someone gave you a reason to why? that answered the questions of eternity that are written on your heart, and explains your morality, would you really risk everything because you simply don't want to accept it?

[Whitney]

Evolution is only meant to answer "how life forms"

Stop...NO.

Evolution has nothing to do with life forming...it explains what life does after the first life formed.

[Tank]

Ha I apologize about the confusion, thank you for asking and feel free to ask no matter the problem

Evolution is only meant to answer "how life forms" not "why life forms".  So when you have something that is used to explain how, and make it answer why, you have no validity to it as a philosophy.

What you have written demonstrates that you obviously do not understand evolution at all. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) says nothing whatsoever about "how life forms". The study of the origin of life is called Abiogenesis. ToE explains how the variety of different types of organisms came about, not how life originated. Natural selection works on 'anything' that can reproduce, exhibits variability during that reproduction and is subject to variable reproductive selection pressures. Note that the 'anything' does not have to exhibit all the traits that we would consider necessary for it to be considered alive. Thus natural selection will work before the 'anything' is fully alive. It's a process called pre-adaption.

There is no "why" in either abiogenesis or evolution as they are natural processes that poses no intelligence and thus no purpose or direction. They are not philosophical arguments simply observations of reality, no different from astronomy or geology. No god required.

[Whitney]

creationism is not science and is bad religion

Churches strive to bridge the perceived gap between faith and reason
http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/countrysi ... ason?img=2

[defendor]

I think the phrase was an over simplication so I'll use "how life develops", I think that gives better coherence

[Whitney]

I think the phrase was an over simplication so I'll use "how life develops", I think that gives better coherence

You could say it was just an over simplification except that your entire post hinged on you having an understanding that evolution is used to describe the start of life and why it happened.

So, wouldn't it be more honest to just admit you don't understand what evolution is and ask questions so that you can learn?

[Thumpalumpacus]

You're right, what sense does it make that a positive nucleus plus a negative electron cloud, times a few billion equals consciousness..?

Perhaps you should look into the fact of emergent propoerties.

The sum of its parts does not add up.  Our consciousness, is derived by being created, in being, in resemblance to God.  How does this work? I have no idea haha maybe energy it its being is conscious to start off with.

If you have no idea, you'd ought not speculate.

Maybe a bunch of neurons are goin crazy, but either way you have assumed that intelligence is a plausible explanation for the universe.  IF that is a plausible theory, then  you can make a few cases as to what this intelligence could be.

IF that is a plausible theory, then perhaps God will equip worms with tail-gunners, to save them from robins.  Or, maybe God doesn't like worms.  However, this crap you're espousing never provided an inoculation.  It never invented a computer.  On the contrary, it murdered millions of Indians, Africans, and Asians.  It also doomed many Europeans to death during times of disease, famine, and ruin.

Science?  It fucking works.  If you wish to argue the point, unplug your computer and pray that your thoughts get posted here.  Put your money where your mouth is.

The God of the bible, is not some god that "bridges the gaps" of things we don't understand.  "how did the universe come together?"..."God"  thats irrationality.  But what can make sense, and you have to believe to understand it, not understand it to believe it, is that everything is held together by God and that everything exists because God exists.

God of the Gaps.  Been there, done that, saw the floor fall out.

With the definition of God as infinite, we cannot suppose to wrap our heads around it, for we are finite, and cannot possible conceptualize things that are not beneath our realm of comprehension.  Even our consciousness seems far too ethereal for our own consciousness to grasp, but "we know that we know"  

The most you can draw from this line of reasoning is agnosticism.  To use this argument in support of any god, much less the Christian god, is to argue that you ought not go hunting to stave off starvation, because you might find a supermarket tomorrow.

As far as consciousness goes, you should read some Nick Humphrey or Daniel Dennett.  

Just because you cannot explain it doesn't mean it cannot be explained.  I just means you've not troubled yourself to learn the possible explanations.  That says more about you than it does about the explanations.

Here's my question to you, if someone gave you a reason to why? that answered the questions of eternity that are written on your heart, and explains your morality, would you really risk everything because you simply don't want to accept it?

Firstly, I don't have anything written on my heart.  It is a blood-pump, and not a scroll-sheet.

Secondly, aren't you a little presumptuous in assuming you know the questions in my heart?  Who the hell are you to tell me what I wonder?  Pardon me, but your arrogance is showing.  Ask your own questions, and leave me the fuck alone.

Finally, assuming they guessed the right questions in my heart, if my answers might be wrong, isn't the brain you allege he gave me shown to be faulty?  And doesn't a perfect Carpenter build a perfect cabinet?  You allege your god loves men, and is perfect.  Whence Hell?  Whence sin?

You've obviously not thought through your faith.  Go ponder these things and come back with deeper questions.  This shit is only up to the ankles.

[Tank]

I think the phrase was an over simplication so I'll use "how life develops", I think that gives better coherence

Why use an analogy? The Theory of Evolution does one thing and one thing only, it explains how life evolves, nothing more and nothing less. The language is already in place and is accurate, there is no need to use alternative terms, except possibly on the road to understanding what evolves means. Your alternative phrase "how life develops" is better but to my mind it still contains a small element of intent, which is simply just not there.

Reproduction is the destination, evolution is the journey, natural selection is the engine of evolution, variability is the fuel of the engine and the navigators are the selection pressures on the gene pool of the affected organisms. As variations and selection pressures interact without intent there is no direction to the process of evolution.

All the life on Earth has been evolving for the best part of 4,000,000,000 years. A baker's yeast has a bigger and more complex genome than a human. It is no more or less advanced than a human because our existance and evolution has been in parallel since we shared a common ancestor way back in the 'boring billions' when all the life on Earth was single celled.

There was no plan to why life stayed single celled for the best part of 3,200,000,000 years. The Earth was the realm of a soup of slime. A fascinating situation that until recently we had no grasp of at all. Given life appeared within a couple of hundred million years of suitable conditions arising but then took 3.2 billion years to get more complex than a single cell implies that becoming multi-cellular was way more problematic than its origin. If you have not seen the series 'First Life' by David Attenborough I strongly recommend it. It's a really approachable insight into the transition of life from simple to complex.

EDIT: fixed a couple of typos.

[hackenslash]

You're right, what sense does it make that a positive nucleus plus a negative electron cloud, times a few billion equals consciousness..? The sum of its parts does not add up.

You''re right, what sense does it make that two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, times a few billion equals wetness? The sum of its parts does not add up.

[defendor]

The question of 'Why?' is a great question to understanding the theorems of life.  In science, if we do not know, how do we learn? How do we find?  according to the scientific method, we try and make educated guesses (speculate) then test such.

Also, in the words of the atheistic skeptic David Hume, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause."

[Whitney]

The question of 'Why?' is a great question to understanding the theorems of life.  In science, if we do not know, how do we learn? How do we find?  according to the scientific method, we try and make educated guesses (speculate) then test such.

um....what?

[Tank]

The question of 'Why?' is a great question to understanding the theorems of life.  In science, if we do not know, how do we learn? How do we find?  according to the scientific method, we try and make educated guesses (speculate) then test such.

The question 'Why?' is of no importance when divining the operation on the physical world, it simply adds an unhelpful layer of human desire and emotional need to questions that require no such obfuscation. If you are using 'Why?' in a sense of ultimate causality you are using it in a philosophical sense that bears no relationship to the understanding and application of the scientific method as an investigative tool.

Also, in the words of the atheistic skeptic David Hume, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause."

This is what Hume actually wrote.



You will notice that you 'quote mined' Hume and what you typed as a sentence was in fact only part of the sentence written by Hume.

[ForTheLoveOfAll]

Every time I hear someone use the term "Darwinism" I instantly question how... credible, they'll be.

It tends to be said by fundamentalists who can't understand that some people don't worship something or don't have a god. My mother, for example, believes quite strongly that the god of every Atheist is themselves, or Darwin, and that they worship either one or both.

God, I need a funny picture after that.



Much better.

[LegendarySandwich]

Every time I hear someone use the term "Darwinism" I instantly question how... credible, they'll be.

It tends to be said by fundamentalists who can't understand that some people don't worship something or don't have a god. My mother, for example, believes quite strongly that the god of every Atheist is themselves, or Darwin, and that they worship either one or both.

God, I need a funny picture after that.



Much better.

I always find it so...strange when Christians say that atheists/humanists worship themselves. I guess you're right here -- they can't imagine anyone not worshiping something, so, in their minds, they make up that we worship ourselves and consider ourselves gods.

What does it mean to worship yourself anyways?

And saying that we worship Darwin is just plain stupid.

[Tanker]

The question of 'Why?' is a great question to understanding the theorems of life.  In science, if we do not know, how do we learn? How do we find?  according to the scientific method, we try and make educated guesses (speculate) then test such.

The question 'Why?' is of no importance when divining the operation on the physical world, it simply adds an unhelpful layer of human desire and emotional need to questions that require no such obfuscation. If you are using 'Why?' in a sense of ultimate causality you are using it in a philosophical sense that bears no relationship to the understanding and application of the scientific method as an investigative tool.

Also, in the words of the atheistic skeptic David Hume, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause."

This is what Hume actually wrote.



You will notice that you 'quote mined' Hume and what you typed as a sentence was in fact only part of the sentence written by Hume.

You'd think people would stop quote mining on the internet. As though a search engine can't check in less than a second. I guess I could understand if they we're given a quote mine as fact and are mistaken, but then it would become their responsability to check it as fact or not. Good call.

Defendor: I'm going to assume it was an honest mistake rather then malicious, however that was a silly thing to do really. First you should really check your own sources before you post them as fact and second you should assume that any source you post but especialy a quote from a skeptic or scientist will be fact checked by someone here. Thirdly when your quote mine collapses, weather intentionaly mined or not, it takes away ALOT of your credability so even if the rest of your points are good they may not be taken as serriously because you have proven yourself to use dishonest sources.