Post Reply
Page 8 of 45  •  Prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 45 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Challenge to ID'ers
4 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2010 - 7:09AM #71
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Feb 6, 2010 -- 12:34AM, 2bme wrote:

What kind of design can exist in the universe that does not have universal laws as its basis?


What makes you think the universe is based on laws? Every law of nature known to us is a description of how some aspect of nature consistently behaves. We observe the behavior and formulate the law. But it would be philosophically naive to jump to the conclusion that things behave as they do in obedience to preordained laws. As far as I can see, that conclusion depends entirely upon a rather crude analogy to human government.   

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2010 - 7:31AM #72
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,050

Ken


Feb 6, 2010 -- 7:09AM, Ken wrote:

Feb 6, 2010 -- 12:34AM, 2bme wrote:

What kind of design can exist in the universe that does not have universal laws as its basis?


What makes you think the universe is based on laws? Every law of nature known to us is a description of how some aspect of nature consistently behaves. We observe the behavior and formulate the law. But it would be philosophically naive to jump to the conclusion that things behave as they do in obedience to preordained laws. As far as I can see, that conclusion depends entirely upon a rather crude analogy to human government.


Of course this "Humian" approach should be be consistently and consequently applied to the "fundamental dogmas" of ToE, viz. that Evolution of living forms happens, ultimately and strictly, on the basis of two "mechanism": Random Mutation and Natural Selection.


Mario


“Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2010 - 8:18AM #73
ozero
Posts: 1,411

2bme: "Do objective universal laws just appear from chaos?  If not, they must  have an intelligent origin. If you cannot show how universal laws appear  from nothing, then you must concede intelligent design."


One does not need to concede any such thing.  What you propose is far more complicated and difficult to demonstrate than what science claims.  Science does not claim that objective laws appeared from chaos.  They just claim that what they observe acts consistently in the same way.  They don't make the laws, they describe them.  And they admit that they could be wrong.  Do you know of a religion that does that?


What you propose requires you to answer the same question: Did the intelligent designer just appear from chaos?  If not, where did it come from?  Another turtle further down? You also have to produce some evidence that there is an intelligent designer.  Why can't you just say, like science can and does, that there are some things that we just don't know... at least not yet?


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2010 - 10:29AM #74
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Feb 6, 2010 -- 7:31AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

Of course this "Humian" approach should be be consistently and consequently applied to the "fundamental dogmas" of ToE, viz. that Evolution of living forms happens, ultimately and strictly, on the basis of two "mechanism": Random Mutation and Natural Selection.



The theory of evolution doesn't have any "fundamental dogmas." You seem to be confusing it with religion.


I have never heard that mutation and natural selection are preordained laws. They're simply what happens. Given that mutations occur and that organisms inhabit environments, it's hard to see how they wouldn't happen.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2010 - 10:35AM #75
udcstb
Posts: 2,775

Feb 6, 2010 -- 7:31AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


... that Evolution of living forms happens, ultimately and strictly, on the basis of two "mechanism": Random Mutation and Natural Selection.


Mario


“Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”



There are many other known mechanisms other than variation and natural selection.  Why do you assert "ultimately and strictly, on the basis of two "mechanism"? 

"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2010 - 11:12AM #76
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Feb 6, 2010 -- 10:35AM, udcstb wrote:


Feb 6, 2010 -- 7:31AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


... that Evolution of living forms happens, ultimately and strictly, on the basis of two "mechanism": Random Mutation and Natural Selection.


Mario


“Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”



There are many other known mechanisms other than variation and natural selection.  Why do you assert "ultimately and strictly, on the basis of two "mechanism"? 



He thinks that the "fundamental dogma," probably on the basis of a half-remembered high school biology class.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2010 - 11:52AM #77
2bme
Posts: 1,145
Ozero

 

One does not need to concede any such thing.  What you propose is far more complicated and difficult to demonstrate than what science claims.  Science does not claim that objective laws appeared from chaos.  They just claim that what they observe acts consistently in the same way.  They don't make the laws, they describe them.  And they admit that they could be wrong.  Do you know of a religion that does that?

 

Quite true.  Science cannot disprove ID but just cannot prove it.  It is politics that does the denying and just further proves how science has lost its initial purpose for the search for truth and is now a tool for pragmatic aims and political bias.

 

What you propose requires you to answer the same question: Did the intelligent designer just appear from chaos?  If not, where did it come from?  Another turtle further down? You also have to produce some evidence that there is an intelligent designer.  Why can't you just say, like science can and does, that there are some things that we just don't know... at least not yet?


It is not something that can be discussed on this site.  It is sufficient to note how many boards exist for so many different interpretations.  Yet the one that can answer such questions from an intellectual perspective doesn't exist.  It doesn't because there is insufficient interest.


To appreciate what the Source is and its relationship to Creation requires knowledge of Panentheism.  There is no place to discuss it so better left alone and just continue arguing details at the expense of the conscious appreciation of no-thing and its relationship to every-thing.


Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2010 - 2:30PM #78
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,050

Ken, udcstb,


Feb 6, 2010 -- 11:12AM, Ken wrote:

Feb 6, 2010 -- 10:35AM, udcstb wrote:

Feb 6, 2010 -- 7:31AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

... that Evolution of living forms happens, ultimately and strictly, on the basis of two "mechanism": Random Mutation and Natural Selection.


There are many other known mechanisms other than variation and natural selection.  Why do you assert "ultimately and strictly, on the basis of two "mechanism"?


He thinks that the "fundamental dogma," probably on the basis of a half-remembered high school biology class.


Then, by all means, illuminate us all on these "many other known mechanisms". You nomination for a Nobel Prize is assured.


BTW, if, among the "many other known mechanisms" you are going to mention genetic drift, please explain if and how it would produce speciation ... Cool


Mario

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2010 - 3:18PM #79
amcolph
Posts: 17,131

Feb 6, 2010 -- 2:30PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


Ken, udcstb,


Feb 6, 2010 -- 11:12AM, Ken wrote:

Feb 6, 2010 -- 10:35AM, udcstb wrote:

Feb 6, 2010 -- 7:31AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

... that Evolution of living forms happens, ultimately and strictly, on the basis of two "mechanism": Random Mutation and Natural Selection.


There are many other known mechanisms other than variation and natural selection.  Why do you assert "ultimately and strictly, on the basis of two "mechanism"?


He thinks that the "fundamental dogma," probably on the basis of a half-remembered high school biology class.


Then, by all means, illuminate us all on these "many other known mechanisms". You nomination for a Nobel Prize is assured.


BTW, if, among the "many other known mechanisms " you are going to mention  genetic drift, please explain if and how it would produce speciation ...


Mario




How about endosymbiosis?


And what's so special about 'speciation' anyway?


"Speciation is the process where a species diverges into two or more descendant species Evolutionary biologists view species as statistical phenomena and not categories or types. This view is counterintuitive since the classical idea of species is still widely held, with a species seen as a class of organisms exemplified by a "type specimen" that bears all the traits common to this species."


Are you still enamored of the classical idea of species?




This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 06, 2010 - 5:16PM #80
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,050

amcolph


Feb 6, 2010 -- 3:18PM, amcolph wrote:

How about endosymbiosis?


What about it indeed. Surely, anyway, you are referring to the Endosymbiotic theory, first proposed by by the Russian botanist Konstantin Mereschkowski in 1905, but substantially abandoned until the 1960s, when the observation that intracellular organelles of eucaryotes had their own DNA, "led to a resurrection of the idea". The main advocate, at the time, was Lynn Margulis, whith her 1967 paper, The Origin of Mitosing Eukaryotic Cells.


This theory, that in the meantime seems to have got substantial corroboration, far from being part of the Darwinan TeoE, including the Modern evolutionary synthesis, is in fact a theory that "bridges the gap" between procaryotes and eucaryotes: it is NOT (gradual) evolution, which can ONLY, essentially, be accounted for by the selective accumulation of small, BUT a transition. In fact it is the "explanatory theory" of one of 8 (the 4th, to be accurate) of The Major Transitions in Evolution identified by John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry in their work of 1995.


BTW, please, spare me the question why "transitions in evolutions" should not be counted among the "mechanisms" of Evolution: you would embarrass yourself, and, quite honestly, I would invite you to take lessons in biology.


[amcolph] And what's so special about 'speciation' anyway?


Gasp! The best answer to your embarrassing (four you ...) question is still the title of Charles' Darwin's capital work: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859), for obvious reasons shortened to (and bka) On the Origin of Species. I was precisely account for the self evident characters of stability, lack of "drift" and non interbreeding between "species" that Darwin wrote his book, to account for their origin without the explanation by means of creation, which he (rightly) perceived as fraught with religious (or anyway metaphysical) implications.


[amcolph]"Speciation is the process where a species diverges into two or more descendant species. Evolutionary biologists view species as statistical phenomena and not categories or types. This view is counterintuitive since the classical idea of species is still widely held, with a species seen as a class of organisms exemplified by a "type specimen" that bears all the traits common to this species."


The quotation, that you have whisked out from the online article by the boastful title "Evolution. The facts: no more, no less" (@ evolution.totallyexplained.com) may be a popular pamphelet, good to preach to the converted, but has very little in common with the facts of science. And the facts of science are that, so far, no spontaneous "diverge[nces] into two or more descendant species" has ever been unequivocally attested, either in the wild, or in the lab.



[amcolph] Are you still enamored of the classical idea of species?


Species are stable (which, mind you, does not mean that they are absolutely unchanging) and, if sexual, non mutually interbreeding with fertile offspring.


Whatever the ... specific (pun intended) webpage from the same website "Speciation. The facts: no more, no less" (@ evolution.totallyexplained.com) may say to the contrary, with abundant obfuscation, using terms like allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric, no known case of speciation due to the "reshuffling" or the "drift" in the "genetic pool" are proved beyond doubt. Not even famous "Galapagos finches"


To appreciate how mythical is, to a large extent the role of the "Galapagos Finches" in the development of Darwin's hypotheses on evolution, and the role of Peter and Rosemary Grant in inflating this myth, see Jonathan Well, LINK=> Icons of Evolution, Chapter 8, "Darwin's Finches" pp. 159-176


Mario

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 8 of 45  •  Prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 45 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook