How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Spin-off from "Dialog on 'Creationists read this' "

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3061  Postby Cito di Pense » Mar 10, 2019 5:49 pm

Jayjay should probably try a forward modeling approach and, instead of looking at talking apes and concluding that they were inevitable from the creative intelligence of the biome, see if he can predict talking apes from trilobites.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 27876
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3062  Postby Alan B » Mar 10, 2019 6:09 pm

JJ Mode wrote:Let me see, now! Trilobites...
:think:
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9363
Age: 82
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3063  Postby Jayjay4547 » Mar 17, 2019 2:45 am

Cito di Pense wrote:Jayjay should probably try a forward modeling approach and, instead of looking at talking apes and concluding that they were inevitable from the creative intelligence of the biome, see if he can predict talking apes from trilobites.


I've been a guest worker in Namibia for a while (and for another week) so missed a couple of posts. You are off the mark when you claim I am cribbing off some unidentified other creationist.

It's very clear, considering what has happened since trilobites were common, that life on this planet has developed hugely creatively, measured by the appearance and then persistence of novel functionality. Just consider the internet. And if you want something more clearly biological, consider human speech.

What might not be so clear to you but I think is the case, is that this creativity is associated with large biomes. When land bridges have formed, land animal species have tended to invade smaller areas from larger ones. I admit, Not always, for example successive tranches of hominoids invaded the Eurasian landmass from the somewhat smaller Africa. But as a rough guide, so that the island of Guernsey hasn't innovated as much as has Africa. According to Wikipedia, the Island effect or Fosters's rule is that on small islands species may grow bigger or smaller. I'm suggesting, that is the limit of the creative genius associated with small areas. A counter argument would be that small islands tend to be ephemeral, so Guernsey could have produced human speech, given a bit more time.

We associate genius with the human intellect and you might be reluctant to associate it with biomes. Fenrir doesn't think a laptop is creative. Maybe so. But a massively linked system of PCs with server nodes and programmed with AI? Maybe there has been genius around this planet long before humankind came along and our brains and language, enable us to express a copy of that genius. So, in that we might imitate nature. A riff on that is that genius is often associated with something outside the individual brain, as in the Muses. Maybe genius is no more a unique quality of humans than is gravity.

Biomes are more creative than you. Get used to it.

So the line I'm onto is about genius and the creativity of something bigger than we are, something we are embedded in. Then your challenge that I be able to predict humans from trilobites, is contrary to my sense.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 935
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3064  Postby Sendraks » Mar 17, 2019 9:06 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:So the line I'm onto is about genius and the creativity of something bigger than we are, something we are embedded in. Then your challenge that I be able to predict humans from trilobites, is contrary to my sense.


Something non-predictive. Non-testable. And therefore, bollocks.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15065
Age: 102
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3065  Postby Jayjay4547 » Mar 20, 2019 4:35 am

Sendraks wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:So the line I'm onto is about genius and the creativity of something bigger than we are, something we are embedded in. Then your challenge that I be able to predict humans from trilobites, is contrary to my sense.


Something non-predictive. Non-testable. And therefore, bollocks.


Biomes are more creative than you also, for all the billions of synapses in your brain and for all the slow mechanisms of the creation.

Over the lifetime of biomes, and over your lifetime

By a few orders of magnitude.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 935
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3066  Postby Sendraks » Mar 20, 2019 9:41 am

I refer you to my previous comment and note your failure to acknowledge the significance of it. Instead you prefer once again to engage in disingenuous and evasive commentary.

Thank you for the reminder as to why you are not worth engaging with.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15065
Age: 102
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3067  Postby zoon » Mar 20, 2019 10:36 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:So the line I'm onto is about genius and the creativity of something bigger than we are, something we are embedded in. Then your challenge that I be able to predict humans from trilobites, is contrary to my sense.


Something non-predictive. Non-testable. And therefore, bollocks.


Biomes are more creative than you also, for all the billions of synapses in your brain and for all the slow mechanisms of the creation.

Over the lifetime of biomes, and over your lifetime

By a few orders of magnitude.

When you say: "Biomes are more creative than you", it seems to me that you are saying something very like Orgel's second rule: "Evolution is cleverer than you are". As the brief Wikipedia article on Orgel's rules here points out, there is no implication of forward thinking or goal directedness, the "rule" is saying that the results of evolution by natural selection often give the impression of having been very cleverly designed, by human standards. Quoting the entire entry on Orgel's second rule:
Orgel's Second Rule
"Evolution is cleverer than you are."

This rule is well known among biologists. It does not imply that evolution has conscious motives or method but that people who say "evolution can't do this" or "evolution can't do that" are simply lacking in imagination.[3]

Orgel's second rule tells us that the process of natural selection is not itself intelligent, clever or purposeful but that the products of evolution are ingenious.[4]

When you say that biomes are creative, are you suggesting that anything other than evolution by natural selection is at work? If not, I am happy to agree with you that the results of evolution are often extraordinarily impressive, and that the entire environment of evolutionary adaptiveness is to be taken into account when thinking about how animals, including humans, evolved.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3062

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3068  Postby Jayjay4547 » Mar 22, 2019 12:45 am

zoon wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:So the line I'm onto is about genius and the creativity of something bigger than we are, something we are embedded in. Then your challenge that I be able to predict humans from trilobites, is contrary to my sense.


Something non-predictive. Non-testable. And therefore, bollocks.


Biomes are more creative than you also, for all the billions of synapses in your brain and for all the slow mechanisms of the creation.

Over the lifetime of biomes, and over your lifetime

By a few orders of magnitude.

When you say: "Biomes are more creative than you", it seems to me that you are saying something very like Orgel's second rule: "Evolution is cleverer than you are". As the brief Wikipedia article on Orgel's rules here points out, there is no implication of forward thinking or goal directedness, the "rule" is saying that the results of evolution by natural selection often give the impression of having been very cleverly designed, by human standards. Quoting the entire entry on Orgel's second rule:
Orgel's Second Rule
"Evolution is cleverer than you are."

This rule is well known among biologists. It does not imply that evolution has conscious motives or method but that people who say "evolution can't do this" or "evolution can't do that" are simply lacking in imagination.[3]

Orgel's second rule tells us that the process of natural selection is not itself intelligent, clever or purposeful but that the products of evolution are ingenious.[4]

When you say that biomes are creative, are you suggesting that anything other than evolution by natural selection is at work? If not, I am happy to agree with you that the results of evolution are often extraordinarily impressive, and that the entire environment of evolutionary adaptiveness is to be taken into account when thinking about how animals, including humans, evolved.

There’s a family resemblance between the claim “Evolution is cleverer than you are” and “Biomes are more creative than you” and they raise some of the same questions. It seems to me though, that the underlying issue is deeply involved with the precise words used. Use just the right words and the thing will show its face. So I want to unpack the words I used.

Firstly, “Biomes” are physical things you can point to for evidence. Human societies can destroy a biome, or climate change can do that. And when a biome is destroyed, an observable quality of creativity seems also to be destroyed. Darwin’s hedgerow that he could point out to his reader as delightful, is a biome refuge, is it not? It marks the edge of a field “put under cultivation”. And historically, some biomes have been more creative than others; out of Africa came an animal that can talk but “Mauritius” turned pigeons into dodos.

When you think of a “person” as creative, the boundary of the thing with that quality tends to move outwards, not inwards to just a part of the person, and not to some mechanism whereby that person behaves. So one might say that the ”Elizabethan era” was creative for staged drama and that Shakespeare’s creativity was sparked by “his time”.

Secondly, the meaning of “creative” rings different bells than “clever”. Creation happens when some functionality comes into the world that wasn’t there before. Like the pancreas, heart and liver, or like the capacity for speech. The product of creativity is observable. And cleverness and creativity don’t necessarily go hand in hand.

Having aired a dangerous idea, Orgel and also you, hedge it round with cautions that have little force when we are talking about something that can surprise us. We can’t really scope that which surprises us. Religion is partly a societal attempt to paint The Creation. The founding document of the Jewish religion is Genesis, The Creation. And there’s that root term gene, also tied into your calling the products of evolution “ingenious”.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 935
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3069  Postby Macdoc » Mar 22, 2019 6:23 am

You are personifying natural processes and endowing them with forethought.

Many birds and animals and fish indeed are creative and show forethought but not a biome or a process like evolution no matter how "beautiful to our eyes" the outcome might be.

It's little different than endowing gravity.
You are just playing word games to get your sky daddy in the selfie.

Look at the Milky Way and wonder....no intermediate needed. :nono:

Who gives a flying fuck about some ignorant desert dwellers musings. Most get past the tooth fairy about grade 8....what happened to you? :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 15071
Age: 71
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3070  Postby zoon » Mar 22, 2019 2:18 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:
zoon wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Sendraks wrote:

Something non-predictive. Non-testable. And therefore, bollocks.


Biomes are more creative than you also, for all the billions of synapses in your brain and for all the slow mechanisms of the creation.

Over the lifetime of biomes, and over your lifetime

By a few orders of magnitude.

When you say: "Biomes are more creative than you", it seems to me that you are saying something very like Orgel's second rule: "Evolution is cleverer than you are". As the brief Wikipedia article on Orgel's rules here points out, there is no implication of forward thinking or goal directedness, the "rule" is saying that the results of evolution by natural selection often give the impression of having been very cleverly designed, by human standards. Quoting the entire entry on Orgel's second rule:
Orgel's Second Rule
"Evolution is cleverer than you are."

This rule is well known among biologists. It does not imply that evolution has conscious motives or method but that people who say "evolution can't do this" or "evolution can't do that" are simply lacking in imagination.[3]

Orgel's second rule tells us that the process of natural selection is not itself intelligent, clever or purposeful but that the products of evolution are ingenious.[4]

When you say that biomes are creative, are you suggesting that anything other than evolution by natural selection is at work? If not, I am happy to agree with you that the results of evolution are often extraordinarily impressive, and that the entire environment of evolutionary adaptiveness is to be taken into account when thinking about how animals, including humans, evolved.

There’s a family resemblance between the claim “Evolution is cleverer than you are” and “Biomes are more creative than you” and they raise some of the same questions. It seems to me though, that the underlying issue is deeply involved with the precise words used. Use just the right words and the thing will show its face. So I want to unpack the words I used.

Firstly, “Biomes” are physical things you can point to for evidence. Human societies can destroy a biome, or climate change can do that. And when a biome is destroyed, an observable quality of creativity seems also to be destroyed. Darwin’s hedgerow that he could point out to his reader as delightful, is a biome refuge, is it not? It marks the edge of a field “put under cultivation”. And historically, some biomes have been more creative than others; out of Africa came an animal that can talk but “Mauritius” turned pigeons into dodos.

When you think of a “person” as creative, the boundary of the thing with that quality tends to move outwards, not inwards to just a part of the person, and not to some mechanism whereby that person behaves. So one might say that the ”Elizabethan era” was creative for staged drama and that Shakespeare’s creativity was sparked by “his time”.

Secondly, the meaning of “creative” rings different bells than “clever”. Creation happens when some functionality comes into the world that wasn’t there before. Like the pancreas, heart and liver, or like the capacity for speech. The product of creativity is observable. And cleverness and creativity don’t necessarily go hand in hand.

Having aired a dangerous idea, Orgel and also you, hedge it round with cautions that have little force when we are talking about something that can surprise us. We can’t really scope that which surprises us. Religion is partly a societal attempt to paint The Creation. The founding document of the Jewish religion is Genesis, The Creation. And there’s that root term gene, also tied into your calling the products of evolution “ingenious”.

It seems to me (as to Macdoc, if I understand his answer to you correctly), that the heart of your argument is that functionality, or purposefulness, is wholly different from the causal phenomena studied by science? You say above:
Secondly, the meaning of “creative” rings different bells than “clever”. Creation happens when some functionality comes into the world that wasn’t there before. Like the pancreas, heart and liver, or like the capacity for speech.

It appears that you are claiming that creative biomes can produce functionality, while merely clever evolution cannot.

Your argument is essentially the same as Paley’s argument from design, that organs such as the eye (or the heart or liver) are clearly functional, so they must have been designed for a purpose, as a watch is designed. Darwin showed how this functionality could have come about with no prior design, through descent with random modifications, and natural selection. This is all that is needed for the evolution of eyes, hearts or speech.

We find it easy to think in terms of goals and intentions, because we’ve evolved to predict other people very effectively by guessing what their goals are, then using the similarity of one brain to another to work out how the other person may try to implement those goals. This evolved social thinking is still massively more effective than scientific knowledge of brain mechanisms for predicting people in real time, so it’s still easy to suppose that purposive action is inherently different from mere mechanism, although it isn’t: the mechanisms involved are merely too complex for us to understand so far.

Because of the same social thinking, we also find it easy and natural to see the functionality of organs like the eye or heart as obviously pre-designed, but again there is no reason to suppose that anything other than scientific causality was at work, the difficulty is in coming to terms imaginatively with the long timespans and the number of generations needed for major evolutionary changes. Evolution is cleverer than we are, it’s capable of producing the powerful impression of inherently purposive functionality.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3062

Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3071  Postby Jayjay4547 » Mar 27, 2019 6:16 am

Macdoc wrote:You are personifying natural processes and endowing them with forethought.

I observe natural processes and attribute creativity to the behaviour of biomes.. The information flows towards the observer; I’m not painting the world but pointing to something in the world that you might (in principle) agree about.
Macdoc wrote:Many birds and animals and fish indeed are creative and show forethought but not a biome or a process like evolution no matter how "beautiful to our eyes" the outcome might be.

Birds and animals and fish, in their lifetimes, are much less creative even than individual human beings and we are in turn orders of magnitude less creative than biomes are in their lifetimes.

Again, you impute “forethought” to what I am arguing for, which I haven’t done. Forethought isn’t a clear aspect of creativity. Nor should your quotes around “beautiful in our eyes” be taken as a quote from me.

Macdoc wrote:It's little different than endowing gravity.
You are just playing word games to get your sky daddy in the selfie.
Look at the Milky Way and wonder....no intermediate needed. :nono:

I’m not endowing anything, pretty much everything is different from gravity and I’m trying to find the right words to describe what has happened on this planet over the last half a billion years.
Macdoc wrote:Who gives a flying fuck about some ignorant desert dwellers musings. Most get past the tooth fairy about grade 8....what happened to you? :coffee:

Your “ignorant desert dwellers” must be the Jewish prophets. A lot of people must have paid pretty close attention to what they wrote down, seeing that the Torah swept the imagination of the Mediterranean societies, sparked two major world religions with billions of human adherents and determined Western civilisation for more than 1500 years.

The tooth fairy is at quite a different level than the Abrahamic notion of God, the former being a sort of in-joke that some parents play on their young children. The Abrahamic notion of God is an imagining or intuiting, over many generations, of what the Creator of the universe might be. Although Judaism and Islam especially, take care not to delineate or picture this being.

It’s offensively intrusive of you to ask “what happened to you?” However, as it happened, after about 15 years as an atheist I got so disturbed by the kind of things atheists were saying that I felt it time to grow. I looked for an Anglican church because that seemed where the conundrum I faced was most expressed and I looked for a female priest because I had grown impatient with male behaviour. Those steps worked well for me.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 935
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3072  Postby Macdoc » Mar 27, 2019 8:06 am

Deny all you want ....you are endowing a biome with purposed action ....just another fairy wish.

creativity
/ˌkriːeɪˈtɪvɪti/Submit
noun
the use of imagination or original ideas to create something; inventiveness.
"firms are keen to encourage creativity"
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 15071
Age: 71
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3073  Postby Cito di Pense » Mar 27, 2019 10:02 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:However, as it happened, after about 15 years as an atheist I got so disturbed by the kind of things atheists were saying that I felt it time to grow.


I wish I could believe that you're giving us the whole story, here, but there's a mismatch between your propensity for storytelling and my lack of gullibility. I can understand why you collapse it all into the "I used to be an atheist" ditty, but your audience has not just fallen off the turnip truck, and realizes that you may be suppressing details to keep yourself from lying for Jebus.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m trying to find the right words to describe what has happened on this planet over the last half a billion years.


Well, there's another mismatch, for you, the one between your enthusiasm and your ability. That Templeton prize is still well out of reach for you, dear toiler in the Wasteland.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 27876
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3074  Postby Fenrir » Mar 27, 2019 10:16 am

Well yeah, but his prose is heading for Chopra territory.

I.e. jayjay can't rely on facts or logic so his ramblings become so vague and meaningless they eventually disappear up their own fundament.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3259
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3075  Postby Sendraks » Mar 27, 2019 11:50 am

JayJay's creative biomes are just another form of special pleading to shoehorn outcomes into whatever narrative JayJay likes. I'm sure JayJay has no grasp of how unscientific that is.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15065
Age: 102
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3076  Postby Macdoc » Mar 27, 2019 2:14 pm

yup - Even Lovelock self destructed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 15071
Age: 71
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3077  Postby Jayjay4547 » Mar 29, 2019 5:29 am

zoon wrote:
It appears that you are claiming that creative biomes can produce functionality, while merely clever evolution cannot.

Your argument is essentially the same as Paley’s argument from design, that organs such as the eye (or the heart or liver) are clearly functional, so they must have been designed for a purpose, as a watch is designed. Darwin showed how this functionality could have come about with no prior design, through descent with random modifications, and natural selection. This is all that is needed for the evolution of eyes, hearts or speech.

We find it easy to think in terms of goals and intentions, because we’ve evolved to predict other people very effectively by guessing what their goals are, then using the similarity of one brain to another to work out how the other person may try to implement those goals. This evolved social thinking is still massively more effective than scientific knowledge of brain mechanisms for predicting people in real time, so it’s still easy to suppose that purposive action is inherently different from mere mechanism, although it isn’t: the mechanisms involved are merely too complex for us to understand so far.

Because of the same social thinking, we also find it easy and natural to see the functionality of organs like the eye or heart as obviously pre-designed, but again there is no reason to suppose that anything other than scientific causality was at work, the difficulty is in coming to terms imaginatively with the long timespans and the number of generations needed for major evolutionary changes. Evolution is cleverer than we are, it’s capable of producing the powerful impression of inherently purposive functionality.


What you describe as “evolved social thinking” seems to me strikingly asocial, even autistic, when you explain it through ”the similarity of one brain to another to work out how the other person may try to implement those goals”. A fisherman who avoids wading into water infested with crocodiles, behaves that way because he reads a sign saying “Stay out of the water”. The sign was put there by a local authority made up of socialised people. Society taught the fisherman to read in the first place. It has nothing to do with a similarity between the fisherman’s brain and the crocodiles’. Acacia trees, that don’t have brains at all, also react cooperatively to being browsed by pumping toxins into their leaves.

The strangely labored style of explanation you called “evolved social thinking” seems to me to derive from Descartes’ I think therefore I am; an early seriously wrong step in the Enlightenment.(according to Antonio Damasio’s “Descartes’ Error”). A sounder starting point is the African ubuntu philosophy. Wikipedia translates that in a counterpoint to cogito, as ”I am because we are” but it can be understood more developmentally as “a person becomes human through other people”. The 20th century Scottish philosopher John Macmurray pointed out that a baby first experiences the world through its relationship with its mother and builds its understanding through a widening of relationships with other people.

This is an important issue because cogito is both an autistic position and also an assertion that the speaker is himself god-like, “I am”. See Caldwell-Harris and others, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf “Persons with autistic spectrum disorder were much more likely than those in our neurotypical comparison group to identify as atheist or agnostic, and, if religious, were more likely to construct their own religious belief system”. So, the notion of our understanding the world through an evolved similarity of one brain to another is autistic, an aspect of atheist ideology and wrong. Living in a society so intellectually dominated by atheist ideology, we can only detect the ideology when it makes strikingly wrong claims.

You say that my argument is essentially Paley’s but I see Paley’s argument as an overreach beyond the observation that biomes are creative. His position was unhistorical. A man doesn’t come across a watch of the heath; palaeontological research has taught him that a billion years ago there were no watches, and the various bits and pieces that enable the watch to go through the arc of its life and procreate, appeared successively. The analogy becomes interestingly awkward at this point but anyway, surely the only thing the man is permitted to conclude is that (a) this involved massive creativity and (b) it was associated, geographically, with the rind of the planet- the biosphere. By the same faculty, he could say that “Tesla was creative”. When Tesla died, his creativity died also. If the biosphere becomes toxic to life, creativity on the planet would also die.

You said, It appears that you are claiming that creative biomes can produce functionality, while merely clever evolution (vide Orgel) cannot”. But I would rather claim that Orgel was overreaching to speak of “clever” instead of the observable “creative” and too abstract in identifying “evolution” as the responsible agent. Natural selection is surely a key mechanism but without a population of little critters he studied, a tiny biome, he wouldn’t have observed creativity.
.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 935
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3078  Postby Cito di Pense » Mar 29, 2019 7:45 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:[Acacia trees, that don’t have brains at all, also react cooperatively to being browsed by pumping toxins into their leaves.


You refuse to consider that you repeatedly throw effect underneath the wheels of cause, because your assumption is that these conditions did not begin as lucky accidents that persist because they led, for example, to the preferential survival of Acacia trees that produce toxins in their leaves when browsed. You are misusing, and purposefully so, it would seem, the concept of creativity. That's what religious nuttery is best at: Blessing language and then bending it for purpose.

It's your assumption that even products of evolution like toxins in Acacia leaves were something that Acacia trees dreamed up in order to save themselves from being browsed. You're publishing comic books, JJ. Get serious for a moment. It's still the case that 95% or more of every species that has ever "browsed" or been "browsed" is now extinct. Everybody has to eat, and when your food supply goes, so do you. Sometimes that doesn't happen because of your precious biome. Sometimes a volcano erupts or the ocean currents are diverted by plate tectonic events or a meteorite hits. You rationalise (and even relentlessly exclude consideration of) facts that indicate how the biome is subject to events happening in an inorganic, and dominantly inorganic, universe and that endogenously lead to mass extinction. What life produces are fungible solutions to exploiting each ecological niche it explores, and just waits for extinction to open things up again. For all you know, there may be a water ocean beneath the ice of Enceladus, teeming with life. You'll just throw effect under the wheels of cause again, even if you appreciate that possibility.

You just don't want to accept human beings as the outcome of a series of chance events layered with lucky accidents that enhance survival. And don't forget, the jury's still out. You understand that humans can foul their own nest, and with the best of intentions can't overcome politics, which they like better than cleaning house. Ask your Anglican pals how they see the hand of god waving when a volcano erupts. It's the end of one thing and the beginning of something else.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 27876
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3079  Postby Jayjay4547 » Mar 30, 2019 11:21 am

Macdoc wrote:yup - Even Lovelock self destructed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

The last paragraph of the entry you linked to, shows that you are 180 degrees from the truth:

Criticism in the 21st century
The Gaia hypothesis continues to be broadly skeptically received by the scientific community. For instance, arguments both for and against it were laid out in the journal Climatic Change in 2002 and 2003. A significant argument raised against it are the many examples where life has had a detrimental or destabilising effect on the environment rather than acting to regulate it.[8][9] Several recent books have criticised the Gaia hypothesis, expressing views ranging from "... the Gaia hypothesis lacks unambiguous observational support and has significant theoretical difficulties"[61] to "Suspended uncomfortably between tainted metaphor, fact, and false science, I prefer to leave Gaia firmly in the background"[10] to "The Gaia hypothesis is supported neither by evolutionary theory nor by the empirical evidence of the geological record".[62] The CLAW hypothesis,[18] initially suggested as a potential example of direct Gaian feedback, has subsequently been found to be less credible as understanding of cloud condensation nuclei has improved.[63] In 2009 the Medea hypothesis was proposed: that life has highly detrimental (biocidal) impacts on planetary conditions, in direct opposition to the Gaia hypothesis.[64]
In a recent book-length evaluation of the Gaia hypothesis considering modern evidence from across the various relevant disciplines the author, Toby Tyrrell, concluded that: "I believe Gaia is a dead end. Its study has, however, generated many new and thought provoking questions. While rejecting Gaia, we can at the same time appreciate Lovelock's originality and breadth of vision, and recognise that his audacious concept has helped to stimulate many new ideas about the Earth, and to champion a holistic approach to studying it".[65] Elsewhere he presents his conclusion "The Gaia hypothesis is not an accurate picture of how our world works".[66] This statement needs to be understood as referring to the "strong" and "moderate" forms of Gaia—that the biota obeys a principle that works to make Earth optimal (strength 5) or favourable for life (strength 4) or that it works as a homeostatic mechanism (strength 3). The latter is the "weakest" form of Gaia that Lovelock has advocated. Tyrrell rejects it. However, he finds that the two weaker forms of Gaia—Coeveolutionary Gaia and Influential Gaia, which assert that there are close links between the evolution of life and the environment and that biology affects the physical and chemical environment—are both credible, but that it is not useful to use the term "Gaia" in this sense.[67]
]

See? That isn’t Lovelock self destructing, that’s OTHER people dissing HIS theory. 180 degrees

Contra Clarke’s First Law, a scientist doesn’t need to be “distinguished but old” to be untrustworthy when stating that something is impossible, he might be young and not even distinguished, so long as his language betrays that he is defending an establishment position. Scientists are just as capable of behaving badly as Boeing executives or British parliamentarians.

The basic reason why the scientific establishment is against the Gaia hypothesis is because it addresses that part of the world that owns us; not the part which is the realm of legitimate scientific enquiry. If Strong Gaia exists then we are embedded in her and not much we can do about it except worship what is greater than us. And since creativity has been massively expressed on this planet for half a billion years at least, then it might be impossible to distinguish creativity from Strong Gaia.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 935
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3080  Postby zoon » Mar 30, 2019 3:49 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:... If Strong Gaia exists then we are embedded in her and not much we can do about it except worship what is greater than us. And since creativity has been massively expressed on this planet for half a billion years at least, then it might be impossible to distinguish creativity from Strong Gaia.

When you say "creativity has been massively expressed on this planet", you appear to mean that phenomena such as functioning eyes could not have come about as a result of evolution by natural selection. What is your argument for this view? For example, the earliest stage in the evolution of eyes, according to Wikipedia here, seems to be light-sensitive proteins in single-celled animals. Are you saying that random mutations, followed by selection for survival, could not have resulted in the appearance of those proteins?
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3062

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests