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

MagicBag Grow Bags
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: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
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 10:28 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 05:55 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
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

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 08:09 PM
by MokshaIs
* God - The Ultimate Drug Manufacturer OrgoneConclusion 851 18 01/10/10 08:29 AM
by Chronic7
* Biological and lingustic evolution
( 1 2 all )		 DividedQuantumM 700 22 02/19/17 05:18 PM
by sudly
* The robot revolution
( 1 2 all )		 Mixomatosis 3,454 39 11/26/03 05:34 AM
by ZenGecko
* Christianity vs Jesus
( 1 2 3 all )		 Kush_Zombie 2,112 52 06/10/16 12:18 PM
by zzripz
* Psychology as a whole- Do you buy it?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )		 skatealex2 12,487 192 05/05/09 11:43 AM
by daytripper23
* what are you working for?
( 1 2 all )		 kaiowas 3,925 33 05/24/09 05:58 PM
by PDU
* Athiest Death Theory
( 1 2 all )		 LiquidSmoke 4,890 36 09/09/02 08:25 PM
by jayson

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,800 topic views. 1 members, 28 guests and 14 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 0.027 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.