Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Does contrivance necessitate a contriver?
    #816185 -

Surely you can see where this post is heading

The argument goes like this:

Part I:

If you were walking along a beach and as you were kicking and stirring up the sand you uncover a gold pocketwatch. You examine it and observe all the inner complexities and marvel at it's existence. It is so fascinating to you and you are left to conclude:

It was obviously made by man. Such contrivance necessitates a contriver. Surely it couldn't just come into being by random chance and luck.

Part II:

Imagine the human body. Imagine just a single anatomical feature of the human form, ie. the eye. It alone is infinitely more complex than a gold watch. There are still to this day many intricasies of the human eye that are not understood, where as the watch is completely understood and duplicated on a daily basis. So if random chance, the winds, temperature, luck, pressure, whatever can not forge a gold watch.....I ask you.......how can it forge life?

The human form necessitates a contriver.....................namely, GOD!!!

Let's keep it civil........I love good debate so lets go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


--------------------
An open mind is the greatest journey of all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: chemkid]
    #816304 -

Very thought provoking!

To me, God is not a person, being, or entity in any way shape or form. God is simply Nature. Nature created us. Not necessarily because it wanted to. A lot of things in Nature just happen. Maybe it created us just because it could; not forseeing the drastic repurcussions. Maybe someday we will mean the salvation of Nature, and therefore Nature needed to create us because we can do things with our minds and bodies that Nature can't. It's only Nature, after all

Nature doesn't need a gold watch.


--------------------
Namaste.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: chemkid]
    #816351 -

Alright, before I even get to your post I just have to state I love your title. "Be excellent to eachother" That really is a dman good phrase isn't it?

Anwho -
To answer your question: yes and no

I say that just because something is infinately intricate, that doesn't necessarily mean that it was created that way. But I certainly don't think cosmic winds blowing around haphazardly could have produced something like life purely by chance...surely there must be some reason why certain things come together the way they do. Something that comes to mind is an analogy I once heard about a jar of marbles that had exactly 1000 red marbles on the bottom and 1000 black ones on top. The idea was that if you began vigorously shaking the jar, sooner or later it would reach a point where all the red marbles would be evenly distributed amungst the black ones (even if only for a moment) and that if you continued to shake it sooner or later the jar would have to some day return to it's original state (again, even if only for a moment) Now this may make sense statistically (e.g. given enough time anything is possible regardless how unlikely or improbable) but from my observations this world isn't quite as simple as that. We are not an infinate amount of matter floating around aimlessly, there is structure to this world. This structure is what sets things apart. A water particle is not the same as a hydrogen peroxide particle, even thought they are essientially made up of the same two elements. Surely there must be some sort of reason why some hydrogen atoms pair up with oxygen and some choose instead to take things two on one. Why does this work like that? Is it purely about electronic balance as science has lead us to believe, or could there be a deeper underlying meaning behind it? I don't know, nor do I claim to even have a theory about that one. I do, however, feel like there is some sort of underlying principle governing the nature of existence. There are just too many unexplained things I've seen in this world that make me want to believe there is a spiritual side to things. So in that aspect: yes, I believe there is some sort of contriver. But do I give this contriver a title or a life force of it's own? No. If you want to call it God (as sometimes I do just for easy reference) then that's cool with me...in which case my answer should be simply yes. But I thought I should specifically add that 'no' up there because an unequivical 'yes' might lead others to assume that the 'god' I believe in is the same as the version of 'god' that is usually envoked by his very name


--------------------


"Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go..." T.S. Eliot

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: chemkid]
    #820096 -

Here's some ammunition.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: chemkid]
    #820948 -

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "does not!".

Sorry, couldn't resist.

To compare a watch to an organic organism is spurious. The watch cannot come into existence without a manufacturer. The laws of physics prevent it. An organic entity needs no manufacturer. Its only "manufacturers" were its progenitors. Inorganic chemistry and biochemistry are two entirely different kettles of fish.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Phred]
    #821086 -

Evolution doesn't mean there isn't a god...


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Revelation]
    #821132 -

Evolution doesn't mean there isn't a god...

Nor does it mean there is one.

Chemkid's implication was that the mere existence of a complex living organism is, in and of itself, proof of a creator.

pinky


--------------------

Edited by pinksharkmark (08/16/02 01:41 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: chemkid]
    #821166 -

Well if your talking about life itself, I think that Nature was involved in that...

But if your talking about how differently we evolved from the rest of the animal kingdom, then I think that another race of beings* was involved with that...

*(I won't call them extraterrestrials, because they very well may have been terrestrial.)


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: chemkid]
    #821340 -

Nor does it mean there is one.

In this universe, planets and stars form and some (at least one) planet(s) are capable of producing life. It's unlikely that the world would be this way by chance if there is just one universe with randomly "chosen" laws of physics. It has been theorized that there are millions of universes (existing at the same or different time dosn't really matter as far as I can see) and only in a small number would conditions be just right to produce life. This wouldn't seem to explain why there isn't just nothing. no life, no universe, no possibilty of a universe, just nothing at all. In fact it wouldn't even really be nothing, it would be beyond something or nothing. As this beyond is beyond all such things perhaps it's no great problem somehow to create something. perhaps the something it creates is an indication of its inherent qualities, not that i'm sure it has any inherent qualities or anything else because it's hard to know when your dealing with nothing (or something beyond nothing)

I think I need to get some sleep.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: chemkid]
    #821390 -

Imagine the human body.
May I imagine a young, nubile female in this thought-experiment?

Imagine just a single anatomical feature of the human form...
May I choose a different body part?

It alone is infinitely more complex than a gold watch.
*sigh* It didn't take long for you to stray from the path. Poetic license is NOT allowed in logical debate. The eye is more complex than a gold watch in some ways, less in others, but hardly "infinitely" more. Exaggeration never helps one's case.

There are still to this day many intricasies of the human eye that are not understood...
Lack of understanding points to what exactly? The simple molecule of H2O is not fully understood, so what?

where as the watch is completely understood and duplicated on a daily basis.
Here we go with your classic "strawman" - set 'em up, mow'em down. Of course we understand tools that we build.

So if random chance, the winds, temperature, luck, pressure, whatever can not forge a gold watch.....I ask you.......how can it forge life?
Lack of understanding once again does not require that one adopt a myth. What is the human need to fill a mysterious void with something, anything - even if wrong? When people did not understand the basics of pathogens, they quickly adopted the idea that the ill person was taken over by demons.

The human form necessitates a contriver.....................namely, GOD!!!
Your "ergo" is a huge hyper-jump in logic leaving out many intermediate steps and does not necessarily follow.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Swami]
    #821405 -

Poetic license is NOT allowed in logical debate.

It is for me.


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Swami]
    #821421 -

Your "ergo" is a huge hyper-jump in logic leaving out many intermediate steps and does not necessarily follow.

It is called extrapolation and is frequently used in philosophy. You dismiss this way too lightly. I expected more than a simple brushing aside, but your attitude precludes rather than encourages further discussion.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Phred]
    #821436 -

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "does not!".

To compare a watch to an organic organism is spurious. The watch cannot come into existence without a manufacturer. The laws of physics prevent it. An organic entity needs no manufacturer. Its only "manufacturers" were its progenitors. Inorganic chemistry and biochemistry are two entirely different kettles of fish.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Balderdash. Neither could I.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #821451 -

Actually I was encouraging him to fill in the missing intermediate steps, your apparent "cleverness" at parroting my words, notwithstanding.

If I find a bolt lying in the street, it is impossible to extraoplate that it came from a car. However, if I look at the engine block of my car and find an empty threaded hole, I could extrapolate that a bolt is missing.

Of coure you understand this and are just playing games for the sake of playing games rather than adding content.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Swami]
    #821477 -

Lack of understanding once again does not require that one adopt a myth. What is the human need to fill a mysterious void with something, anything - even if wrong?
Most people can't stand doubt and do not want to admit their ignorance, hence they 'take the leap of faith.' Problem solved, no doubt in their minds and a satisfaction of believing that they aren't ignorant. The reality is, we are all ignorant.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Swami]
    #821494 -

Of course I understand all of that.

Nevertheless I take umbrage at the notion of playing games merely for the sake I playing games. You are in no position to guess at the motivation of why I post what I post when I post it. You have chided others for doing so, so please don't be surprised to be chided in turn.

I parroted your words in an effort to play. That does not intimate that I am "playing games" in any other respect than word play. I did it to tease you. I teased you because I genuinely like you. Did it add content? No, from a strictly pragmatic point of view, it did not.

Must all my posts have content? That is a criterion I could never labor under. I assume you know that, but who am I to assume?


Strict dialectic without play or humor makes Jack a dull boy.

Call me Jack.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #821500 -

Look before you leap.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #821507 -

The reality is, we are all ignorant.

I like da way u tink.


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #821532 -

Relax bro, I like you too. I figure my content-to-post ratio is only about 18%. I was just playing back...

Now, back to the thread. The title is both a redundant and a rhetorical question, with the only possible answer being silence or "yes". This type of verbal "trickery" is poor argumentive style. However, the poster does not make a strong case that human being is, in fact, an invention or a planned device.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Swami]
    #821601 -

Relax bro, I like you too. I figure my content-to-post ratio is only about 18%. I was just playing back...

That's why I said, "Who am I to assume?" I was wondering if you were playing. (this darn medium...grumble grumble grumble) It is nice to know that there is reciprocity in this regard.

The title is both a redundant and a rhetorical question, with the only possible answer being silence or "yes". This type of verbal "trickery" is poor argumentive style. However, the poster does not make a strong case that human being is, in fact, an invention or a planned device.

Indeed. But that is what I have come to respect from this forum as a rule. I do not mind. It beats a sharp stick in the eye any day. Chemkid's idea is nothing new. Pascal looked at the universe and compared it to a watch which was more Cartesian ideology and a mechanical outlook on the cosmos than anything else. Nevertheless, as poor as Chemkid's version of it might be I find the overall idea to have merit. Pascals's watch analogy was, indeed, a poor analogy but not so with the cell. Whereas the cell was thought to have been a sack of water as far as fifty years ago, modern biology, and in particular, microbiology, has shown us that the cell is incredibly complex and I think the watch analogy fits it like duck in the water. Or something similar.

To me the idea that the complexity of a cell can be brought about by natural causes through evolution is preposterous. The link I provided earlier in the thread gives abundant evidence that the "theory" of evolution is incomplete at best and downright deceptive at worst.

Since this is not a "science" forum the discussion only approaches spirituality obliquely and it is the most banal dialectics I have ever endured. I probably will not post much in this thread but only snipe from time to time.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #821672 -

To me the idea that the complexity of a cell can be brought about by natural causes through evolution is preposterous.

Then how is it brought about? That is the way organic living entites develop... from relative simplicity to relative complexity. A duck is orders of magnitude more complex than an amoeba. A frog is orders of magnitude more complex than than a frog ovum.

People who have difficulty accepting that a relatively unsophisticated starting point (primordial proto-bacteria) can eventually result in a very sophisticated end product (humans) must perforce believe that any complex entity can be brought into existence only by the actions of an entity even more complex. "Since a human is such a wondrous and complex mechanism, it can only be the creation of an entity even more wondrous and complex" -- i.e. God.

Philosophically, of course, this does nothing more than push the question back a step. "Humans are too complex to have been created by anything other than a superior being." If we accept this, the obvious next question is, who created God? Obviously (according to this train of thought) God could only have been created by Super God, who was created by Mega God, ad infinitum.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: mirror_saw]
    #821684 -

mirror-saw writes:

This wouldn't seem to explain why there isn't just nothing. no life, no universe, no possibilty of a universe, just nothing at all.

Many physicists and especially astrophysicists have observed the same thing. The real question to them is not why the universe is of such and such or so and so nature, with this particular set or that particular set of laws, but why there is anything at all.

From a philosophical standpoint, the "why" is not the issue. The universe IS. It is the job of philosophy to aid man in existing within it.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Phred]
    #821799 -

From a philosophical standpoint, the "why" is not the issue. The universe IS.

True enough. If the universe didn't exist, there would be no one to ask why it didn't.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #821804 -

It beats a sharp stick in the eye any day.

Someone needs to actually test out this hypothesis. Perhaps a sharp stick in the eye is the most pleasurable experience imaginable...


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Phred]
    #822690 -

Then how is it brought about? That is the way organic living entites develop... from relative simplicity to relative complexity. A duck is orders of magnitude more complex than an amoeba. A frog is orders of magnitude more complex than than a frog ovum.


This is a common error that is circulated about how biology in general and evolution in particular works.

" Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it. One common mistake is believing that species can be arranged on an evolutionary ladder from bacteria through "lower" animals, to "higher" animals and, finally, up to man. Mistakes permeate popular science expositions of evolutionary biology. Mistakes even filter into biology journals and texts. For example, Lodish, et. al., in their cell biology text, proclaim, "It was Charles Darwin's great insight that organisms are all related in a great chain of being..." In fact, the idea of a great chain of being, which traces to Linnaeus, was overturned by Darwin's idea of common descent."

People who have difficulty accepting that a relatively unsophisticated starting point (primordial proto-bacteria) can eventually result in a very sophisticated end product (humans) must perforce believe that any complex entity can be brought into existence only by the actions of an entity even more complex.

"Biology came of age as a science when Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species." But, the idea of evolution wasn't new to Darwin. Lamarck published a theory of evolution in 1809. Lamarck thought that species arose continually from nonliving sources. These species were initially very primitive, but increased in complexity over time due to some inherent tendency. This type of evolution is called orthogenesis. Lamarck proposed that an organism's acclimation to the environment could be passed on to its offspring. For example, he thought proto-giraffes stretched their necks to reach higher twigs. This caused their offspring to be born with longer necks. This proposed mechanism of evolution is called the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Lamarck also believed species never went extinct, although they may change into newer forms. All three of these ideas are now known to be wrong."

Taken from here.

Are you Lamarckian in your thought?

If we accept this, the obvious next question is, who created God? Obviously (according to this train of thought) God could only have been created by Super God, who was created by Mega God, ad infinitum.

Unless one presupposes a self-existent being. I have a re-worked version of the Cosmological Argument that I find intriguing. When I get the time I will start a new thread about it.

Cheers,



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Swami]
    #822691 -


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #822703 -

Are you Lamarckian in your thought?

No. But as you pointed out, the question of whether more complex organisms arose through the Darwinian model of mutation and natural selection or through some Lamarckian process is a SCIENTIFIC question, not a philosophical one.

The fact remains that 4 billion years or so ago, the most complex living organism were single-celled organisms less sophisticated than modern bacteria. The closer one gets to modern times, the more complex the living organisms at the top of the taxonomic tree become. The trend is undeniable -- over time (through WHATEVER mechanism), complex living organisms appear where there were none before.

Unless one presupposes a self-existent being.

Precisely. One must SUPPOSE it as an arbitrary postulate.

What puzzles me is how the same people who "just can't buy" a gradual process of change from simple, primitive organisms to complex modern organisms through processes which adhere to the laws of physics because it is too "unbelievable", apparently have no difficulty in buying the argument of an incredibly complex being (The Creator) springing into existence fully formed from one instant to the next.

Which scenario is harder to swallow?

Further, there is overwhelming physical evidence to support the theory of change (whether Darwinian or LaMarckian or some as-yet undiscovered amalgam of the two), and none whatsoever for the existence of God.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Phred]
    #823184 -

"One common mistake is believing that species can be arranged on an evolutionary ladder from bacteria through "lower" animals, to "higher" animals and, finally, up to man. Mistakes permeate popular science expositions of evolutionary biology."

Juxtaposed against:

"The trend is undeniable -- over time (through WHATEVER mechanism), complex living organisms appear where there were none before."

= ????

No need to answer, just an observation.

Precisely. One must SUPPOSE it as an arbitrary postulate.

Indeed, many such hypotheses are born that way.

What puzzles me is how the same people who "just can't buy" a gradual process of change from simple, primitive organisms to complex modern organisms through processes which adhere to the laws of physics because it is too "unbelievable", apparently have no difficulty in buying the argument of an incredibly complex being (The Creator) springing into existence fully formed from one instant to the next.

That's the best long sentence I have seen in quite a while. I understand. But the issue of complexity as discussed here, within the paradigmatic schema, is the value that equivocation obtains. Hence, the misunderstanding of the two singular views. God is one. How complex is that?

Which scenario is harder to swallow?

From your explanation it is obvious that the former would be more accessible to reason.

Further, there is overwhelming physical evidence to support the theory of change (whether Darwinian or LaMarckian or some as-yet undiscovered amalgam of the two), and none whatsoever for the existence of God.

When we speak of physical evidence we are exemplifying our own presuppositions contained within the paradigm. Other types of answers can not be included into the investigation when it is so framed. One needs to enlarge the scope of inquiry before any fruitful answers can be found. The term, fruitful, here is not used arbitrarily but does denote a subjective preference.

Cheers,

[edit] I forgot to add, "Lay some of that qua stuff on me." I like it when you talk that way. [end edit]

Edited by Mr_Mushrooms (08/17/02 08:28 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #823700 -

"One common mistake is believing that species can be arranged on an evolutionary ladder from bacteria through "lower" animals, to "higher" animals and, finally, up to man. Mistakes permeate popular science expositions of evolutionary biology."

Again, this is arguing science rather than philosophy, but it is still a crock. Who wrote that? Someone who has no idea what he is talking about.

The earliest organisms to appear on the earth were less complex than the ones that appeared later. New techniques in DNA analysis show that simpler, older organisms predated newer, more complex organisms. If the author objects to calling them "higher" and "lower", fine -- call them "ancient" and "modern", or "simple" and "complex".

The key point is that, regardless of how they are classified taxonomically, unicellular organisms predate multicellular organisms, organisms without a central nervous system predate those with a central nervous system, invertebrates predate vertebrates, etc.

pinky



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Phred]
    #823790 -

Ars Scientia.... my life. As such, I'm going to have to interject here...
Evolution is a MISNOMER. (it implies progress...)
Darwin himself hated the term... HIS theory was "descent with modification", NOT evolution. I think it was Spencer that fucked it all up... fuckin' Brits...


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Sclorch]
    #823838 -

Sclorch is correct. "Descent with modification" is the term Darwin preferred, and is more accurate. "Differentiation" would do, too, I suppose.

Just because an organism is more complex it does not necessarily follow that it is superior. When it comes to the task at hand -- survival -- it is apparent that many of the simpler organisms are better at it than many of the complex ones.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Phred]
    #823936 -

Sorry to disagree with you but the information I posted came from TalkOrigins.org, the premium website for evolution. They are the "top dogs", the creme de la creme, the shitz, the king of the mountain, best of the best of the best, so to speak. I posted a link to where the information came from. Some of these people are the top biologists/evolutionists in the world. They are the vanguard. But they are not the only ones who know that a single cell is far more complex than anyone ever dreamed of.

"Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibily small, weighing less than 10 to the 12th power grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."

Micheal Denton, molecular biologist

Your idea of increasing complexity is incorrect. And though this is a philosophical discussion it is proper to show that a premise is incorrrect.

Ancient=simple
Modern=complex
Link? Citation?

The key point is that, regardless of how they are classified taxonomically, unicellular organisms predate multicellular organisms, organisms without a central nervous system predate those with a central nervous system, invertebrates predate vertebrates, etc.

That is one of the possible interpretation of the available evidence, I agree. I also think it is an incorrect one.

I do not think we should delve to deep into the scientific aspect since this is a philosophy forum.

Hey, I thought you were going to put "qua" in there somewhere? Dude, you let me down!

Cheers,


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Sclorch]
    #823947 -

I am not sure what Darwin hated but you are correct. The foundation of his theory was descent with modification or "natural selection". Yes, I can see it oh so clearly now. "The survival of the fittest", what a tautological masterpiece that was. And please, don't anyone bring up the fact that Darwin didn't make that axiom. I know that. But it is what his "theory" amounts to.

Hey Sclorch! I missed ya!

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #824058 -

the information I posted came from TalkOrigins.org, the premium website for evolution. They are the "top dogs", the creme de la creme, the shitz, the king of the mountain, best of the best of the best, so to speak.

I know. I've read lots of stuff at that site on previous visits. Whether they are the best, I can't say. But they are good. I just wanted to know which of the dozens of contributors made that statement. The statement, sloppy as it is, is no endorsement of a Creator.

Again, this is SCIENCE, not philosophy, but that website is NOT a creationist website. The contributors to the site believe in some form of evolution, whether Lamarckian or Darwinian or who-knows-whatian. They don't assume that because there is a "watch" there must be a "watchmaker", inappropriate though that analogy is. They may disagree about the exact mechanism by which complex lifeforms arise, but they don't disagree with the basic premise.

Your idea of increasing complexity is incorrect. And though this is a philosophical discussion it is proper to show that a premise is incorrrect.
Ancient=simple
Modern=complex

You disappoint me. I had thought you a careful reader. I was very careful to use such phrases as "more complex" and "less complex", "increasingly complex", "relative complexity", etc.

I never stated that bacterial cells aren't complex. I merely stated that a human (or a frog, for that matter), is orders of magnitude more complex than a bacterium. I further stated that the LESS complex life forms (bacteria) predate the MORE complex life forms (frogs). I can guarantee you no contributor on that website disagrees with either of these statements.

Is it your contention that humans (or even frogs) have been in existence as long as bacteria? If so, you'll have a tough time convincing me, let alone any contributor to that website.

I do not think we should delve to deep into the scientific aspect since this is a philosophy forum.

Agreed. I still await a philosophical explanation of why you say, "the idea that the complexity of a cell can be brought about by natural causes through evolution is preposterous" while having less difficulty with the spontaneous springing into existence of a fully formed omnipotent Creator (obviously of far greater complexity than a bacterium).

This, to me, does not compute.

pinky



--------------------

Edited by pinksharkmark (08/17/02 03:55 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Phred]
    #824269 -

Sorry but I misread your posts a bit. I am only human and while I have a grasp of vocabulary and sometimes even syntax the most obvious point of a post may elude me if I am looking elsewhere.

You seem to be saying that life became more and more complex the more it evolved or passed generationally through descent with modification. Is that correct?

If it is I would be interested in seeing a citation or a link to a website that offers the same statement.

Are you further saying that a bacterium is less complex than a man because the man's DNA strand is longer? Or what?

I do not think that man has been around as long as bacteria.

I still await a philosophical explanation of why you say, "the idea that the complexity of a cell can be brought about by natural causes through evolution is preposterous" while having less difficulty with the spontaneous springing into existence of a fully formed omnipotent Creator (obviously of far greater complexity than a bacterium).

I did not say that I had a philosophical explanation of why I think evolution, as understood to be macroevolution, is preposterous.

I do have several arguments that are completely philosophical that tie into it though.

One is the immaterial aspect of the mind and another one is a re-worked Cosmological argument for the existence of God. Each involves quite a bit of groundwork before the argument can begin properly. I will be introducing both of them when the requisite groundwork has been laid. I do not rush things like these as that makes one prone to error.

What I was alluding to in a previous post about the paradigmatic schema and equivocation is that the idea of the complexity of God juxtaposed against the complexity of a living organism of any kind is a categorical error and seems to be equivocating.

God as He is understood by many philosophers is known to be a self-existent Being which means He was not created or came into creation ex nihilo.

Ex nihilo nihil fit?

You should look at the link above where I said something like, "Some Ammunition". It is a link to a site that refutes, brilliantly I might add, the supposed "facts" of evolution on the TalkOrigins.org site.

As an aside, I am wondering what other influences you have in philosophy. You're not a Quine fan I hope.

Logical positivism creeps me out.

I am delighted you are posting in this forum. I am sure your participation will prove to be interesting.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #824281 -

Mr. Mushrooms I have come to expect more from you than a link to such an obviously biased source.
I don't have much time and I see that you are engaged in a nice debate with Pinky about the nature of defining the words "ancient" "simple" "modern" and "complex", so I won't be as thorough as I like to be. Here is just one contradiction from your source.

"Some attempts to discredit the Bible are wildly absurd — like the idea that there is too much sedimentary rock in the world to have been deposited by the one-year Flood. It is claimed that the Ark would have floated on an ocean of ‘earthy soup’ and no fish could have survived.[31] This argument takes no account of how water actually carries sediment. The claim naively assumes that all the sediment was evenly mixed in all the water throughout the Flood year, as if thoroughly stirred in a ‘garden fishpond’. Sedimentation does not occur like this. Instead, moving water transports sediment into a ‘basin’ and, once deposited, it is isolated from the system.[12] The same volume of water can pick up more sediment as it is driven across the continents, for example, by earth movements during the Flood."

"“Sediment kilometres thick covering metamorphic rocks took millions of years to erode.”[41] [Only at the erosion rates observed today. There is no problem eroding kilometres of sediment quickly with large volumes of fast-moving water during the Flood.]"

Now, just where the hell did all of that sediment go? It certainly isn't at the bottom of any oceans.

Pinky:

"The key point is that, regardless of how they are classified taxonomically, unicellular organisms predate multicellular organisms, organisms without a central nervous system predate those with a central nervous system, invertebrates predate vertebrates, etc. "

Mr. Mushrooms:

"That is one of the possible interpretation of the available evidence, I agree. I also think it is an incorrect one."

This is just laziness on your part Mr. Mushrooms and you know it (but I forgive you, I also have limited resources for extended debate in this forum). If you see Pinkys afformentioned factual observation as a "possible interpretation", agree with it and then mention that you "think it is incorrect" then it necessitates that you give SOME sort of explanation; don'tcha think?

I am disappointed that you would engage in such drivel as the link that you posted. It doesn't become you at all and I think that we both know that you can do much better, with your own mind, than what is protrayed in that "source".

Oopps, almost forgot the topic at hand. No, I don't think my eye's complexity proves the existance of the invisible man.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Phred]
    #824296 -

i just want to say that to me philosophy and science are not separate fields - ok so they are separate but i think they need to be used together or they become meaningless. or something. like staring off into space dreaming what if this maybe that god space time aliens prophecy etc could be called philosophy....but then every piece of research done by physicists, biologists, or scientists in every field raises many philosophical questions. fuck it i don't know exactly what i'm trying to say here so i'll shut up. but really guys get as scientific as you like, or even as scientific as you can, because i think it helps all or at least some of us think, and often the more scientific, research-based the discussions get the deeper they get and the further we get in discussing them. or something like that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: mr freedom]
    #824324 -

Just one quick comment and then I'll let it ride.

There is bias all right. But not all of it is from the website you gave a cursory glance.

You are fairly intelligent and I enjoy your posts, even your opinions. But I do think that the link I provided is a very good, even exceptional, rebuttal to the "theory" of evolution.

You need to read it closely to be more familiar with it, I thinks.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Traveller]
    #824330 -

Thank you for your kind words.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #824333 -

I will endeavor to do so. You do understand that I am in NO WAY disparaging the messenger?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: mr freedom]
    #824337 -

Yes, Mr. Freedom, I got that. If I thought otherwise I would have mentioned ad hominem and "poisoning the well". It did not seem as if you were doing that.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #824356 -

Well, not to stray to far off-topic, but I have been accused of lacking a sense of humor.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: mr freedom]
    #824372 -

LOL!!! I don't know. That certainly made ME laugh!

I'm off for the evening.

Good night, Mr. Freedom

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #825818 -

"The survival of the fittest", what a tautological masterpiece that was

You're wrong. That statement is NOT a tautology. It is only a tautology if you use the common definition of "fitness".

From "Evolutionary Analysis" by Freeman and Herron (2nd ed, pg. 61):
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is often criticized- by nonbiologists- as tautological, or circular in its reasoning. That is, after reviewing Darwin's four postulates, one could claim, "Of course individuals with favorable variations are the ones that survive and reproduce, because the theory defines favorable as the ability to survive and reproduce."

The key to resolving the issue is to realize that the word "favorable," although a convenient shorthand, is misleading. The only requirement for natural selection is for certain variants to do better than others, as opposed to random ones. As long as a nonrandom subset of the population survives better and leaves more offspring, natural selection will result.

Notes from an Organic Evolution professor:
The Nature of Natural Selection

1) Natural Selections Acts on Individuals, but the consequences are to the population (or species) not the individual.
a. Individuals don?t evolve.

2) Natural Selection Acts on the Phenotype, but Evolution is the change in heritable variation.
a. Changes in frequency of nonheritable characters are not evolution (cold and body size).

3) Natural Selection is backward looking, not forward looking.
a. Because something may be useful tomorrow is not natural selection

4) Natural Selection Can Produce New Traits, Even Thought it Acts on Existing Traits.
a. Horse?s leg

5) Natural Selection is NOT Perfect or Optimal
a. Relative fitness differences is important

6) Natural Selection is nonrandom, but it is Not progressive
a. E. coli is a good bacteria and you are a very bad bacteria

7) Fitness is not Tautological (circular)
a. Fitness is a correlation

8) Natural Selection Acts on Individuals Not Groups
a. i.e., there is no such thing as Altruism (actions that while decreasing the actors fitness increase the groups).
b. This point is arguable


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Sclorch]
    #825866 -

Nice job!

I appreciate the labor you put into the post. Yes, of course if you redefine a word you can get it to mean anything. Such ad hoc redefinitions do not impress me.

It is only a tautology if you use the common definition of "fitness".

Fitness? I said nothing about fitness.

Glad to see you back. I missed you.

I agree with the bulk of the professor's ideas.

Good post! Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #825893 -

Mr_Mushrooms writes:

You seem to be saying that life became more and more complex the more it evolved or passed generationally through descent with modification. Is that correct?

Correct.

If it is I would be interested in seeing a citation or a link to a website that offers the same statement.

I could provide hundreds of thousands of links and citations. Any biology text written in the last century, for example.

Are you further saying that a bacterium is less complex than a man because the man's DNA strand is longer?

No (although human DNA does contain more information than bacterial DNA), I say it because it is self evident that a multicellular organism is more complex than a unicellular one. Not only is each cell in the multicellular organism as complex (actually more so) as a bacterial cell, but those cells are further organized into co-operative structures (circulatory system, muscles, nervous system, etc.), adding a further layer of complexity that unicellular organisms cannot possess.

I am completely baffled as to why I am having to explain this so many times. Is it really your contention that a single bacterial cell is as complex as human? Do you not agree that a fully grown human is much more complex than a blastocyte? Perhaps I am the one who should be asking for citations.

I do not think that man has been around as long as bacteria.

Then you believe that at one point bacteria were created, then at some later date man was created, correct?

What I was alluding to in a previous post about the paradigmatic schema and equivocation is that the idea of the complexity of God juxtaposed against the complexity of a living organism of any kind is a categorical error and seems to be equivocating.

I don't understand this statement. Can you rephrase it in simpler terms?

God as He is understood by many philosophers is known to be a self-existent Being which means He was not created or came into creation ex nihilo.

Which means what, exactly? That God predates the universe?

You should look at the link above where I said something like, "Some Ammunition". It is a link to a site that refutes, brilliantly I might add, the supposed "facts" of evolution on the TalkOrigins.org site.

I have spent time at that link before. It does not refute the concept of evolution. At best it points out some unresolved holes in the DARWINIAN model (or what is popularly understood to be the Darwinian model -- not necessarily the same thing) of modification over generations. I disagree that it is "brilliant". Some of the arguments are downright ludicrous.

As an aside, I am wondering what other influences you have in philosophy. You're not a Quine fan I hope.

I don't know who Quine is. I have no influences other than the ones I listed previously. I'm an atheistic Realist, or Aristotelian, or Objectivist, or combination thereof. Logical Positivism is gibberish not worthy of study.

pinky




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Phred]
    #825969 -

Delightful.

I could provide hundreds of thousands of links and citations. Any biology text written in the last century, for example.

One would suffice. Would you please post it? I used a search engine to find this axiomatic truth you proclaim and was unable to find it.

No (although human DNA does contain more information than bacterial DNA), I say it because it is self evident that a multicellular organism is more complex than a unicellular one. Not only is each cell in the multicellular organism as complex (actually more so) as a bacterial cell, but those cells are further organized into co-operative structures (circulatory system, muscles, nervous system, etc.), adding a further layer of complexity that unicellular organisms cannot possess.

I am completely baffled as to why I am having to explain this so many times. Is it really your contention that a single bacterial cell is as complex as human? Do you not agree that a fully grown human is much more complex than a blastocyte? Perhaps I am the one who should be asking for citations.

I understand now. Your definition of complexity is a different one than I am using. I define biological complexity at the DNA level and you are saying that a tree is more complex than the nut of the tree. You are including structure in your definition and I was not. This can easily be resolved by posting a link that explicates your idea.

If you are confused about anything I say and I can provide a citation or a link to help clarify the matter I will.

Then you believe that at one point bacteria were created, then at some later date man was created, correct?

I often find that the dissemination of a small piece of my opinions can lead to huge misunderstandings. To give you that without a proper context might not be helpful to our dialogue.

Which means what, exactly? That God predates the universe?

If God is an eternal being and the universe is finite then the answer would be axiomatic, wouldn't it?

Ex nihilo nihil fit. Latin for "out of nothing, nothing comes"

I have spent time at that link before. It does not refute the concept of evolution. At best it points out some unresolved holes in the DARWINIAN model (or what is popularly understood to be the Darwinian model -- not necessarily the same thing) of modification over generations. I disagree that it is "brilliant". Some of the arguments are downright ludicrous.

Well, we all have our opinions, don't we?

I don't know who Quine is. I have no influences other than the ones I listed previously. I'm an atheistic Realist, or Aristotelian, or Objectivist, or combination thereof. Logical Positivism is gibberish not worthy of study.

Quine is a logical positivist. I was really into Rand at one point. A dialogue on her might be interesting.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #827355 -

"The survival of the fittest", what a tautological masterpiece that was.

"'Tis is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change."
- Charles Darwin

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: ]
    #828082 -

Mr-Mushrooms writes:

I used a search engine to find this axiomatic truth you proclaim and was unable to find it.

It was not axiomatic until the discovery of the fossil record. However, there is no point me posting several hundred thousand links here, because, as you point out, your definition of "complexity" differs from mine and the authors of those works.

I define biological complexity at the DNA level...

DNA is not an organism. DNA is the blueprint for an organism. Let's pose a hypothetical. If we were having this dialogue fifty years ago, before Watson and Crick's work on DNA, would you still say that a frog is no more complex than an e. coli bacterium?

I often find that the dissemination of a small piece of my opinions can lead to huge misunderstandings. To give you that without a proper context might not be helpful to our dialogue.

I eagerly await the full context, then.

I was really into Rand at one point. A dialogue on her might be interesting.

I would welcome a dialogue on her work. Why are you no longer "into" her? Did you discover flaws in her theories?

pinky



--------------------

Edited by pinksharkmark (08/19/02 11:23 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Phred]
    #829652 -

From a philosophical standpoint, the "why" is not the issue. The universe IS. It is the job of philosophy to aid man in existing within it.


There is no pre-established harmony between the furtherance of truth and the well-being of mankind. - Nietzsche (H.A.2.H)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Phred]
    #829976 -

Well I guess since this is my post I should jump back in (been out of town....sorry)

I finally trudged through alll the replies and am pleasantly surprised as to the responses it has received. I feel I must clarify what my intentions were by posting this.

1.) It was not my intention to make evolution and creationism face off. To be perfectly blunt I believe in both.

Contradictory you say????????????

I believe in our almighty creator. I believe that he set this whole thing in motion. I believe that he bestowed the ability to adapt as a gift upon us. Imagine life in all its myriad forms living in a hostile and everchanging world. It seems reasonable that every living cell would soon be extinct if not for the ability to "roll with the punches"
I find it unlikely that a random formation of primordial soup has fathered all life. I find it much more likely that "GOD" gave that initial spark to the primordial soup. Hence the watch analogy. From this the Darwinian model takes over. Call me naive but I feel there is no contradiction in having both paradigms hold hands instead of beating each other up. I have a ton of evidence for believing what I do. I can and will post some references if you wish.

When the early astonomers first proposed that the earth was not the center of the universe but rather a mere planet in a random solar system in a random galaxy......everyone felt like this was blasphemy and the end of religion. Now it is just so silly to think it deals religion a blow. I feel the same about evolution. It seems like it is anti-religion now but somewhere down the road we will find that religion and science can once again coexist and we'll wonder why we ever thought that evolution precludes religion.


--------------------
An open mind is the greatest journey of all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: mirror_saw]
    #831408 -

mirrorsaw-
What a great quote.
"There is no pre-established harmony between the furtherance of truth and the well-being of mankind." - Nietzsche (H.A.2.H)


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Sclorch]
    #832235 -

I don't know how sane he was, but you have to admire the iconoclastic spirit!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: mirror_saw]
    #832261 -

He was incredibly sane (until his collapse I'd imagine).
Read "What Nietzsche Really Said" by Robert Solomon and Kathleen Higgins, and dispel any ill notions of the man.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: Sclorch]
    #832305 -

(until his collapse I'd imagine)

I don't doubt he was fully coherent in that sense but I may check out the book you recommend. One I do have to read is "Nietzsche and Buddhism", It will be interesting to see how the author can link them together.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Does contrivance necessitate a contriver? [Re: mirror_saw]
    #832510 -

It will be interesting to see how the author can link them together.
I don't think it will be too hard, as Nietzsche was a Zen master.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Contrived Spirituality..... andrewss 1,438 16 04/19/10 06:09 PM
by MokshaIs
* God - The Ultimate Drug Manufacturer OrgoneConclusion 837 18 01/10/10 06:29 AM
by Chronic7
* Biological and lingustic evolution
( 1 2 all )		 DividedQuantumM 690 22 02/19/17 03:18 PM
by sudly
* The robot revolution
( 1 2 all )		 Mixomatosis 3,400 39 11/26/03 03:34 AM
by ZenGecko
* Christianity vs Jesus
( 1 2 3 all )		 Kush_Zombie 2,111 52 06/10/16 10:18 AM
by zzripz
* Psychology as a whole- Do you buy it?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )		 skatealex2 12,382 192 05/05/09 09:43 AM
by daytripper23
* what are you working for?
( 1 2 all )		 kaiowas 3,900 33 05/24/09 03:58 PM
by PDU
* Athiest Death Theory
( 1 2 all )		 LiquidSmoke 4,822 36 09/09/02 06:25 PM
by jayson

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,734 topic views. 1 members, 161 guests and 11 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.044 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 16 queries.