Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[11_Panama_]

EAW, stay within the topic please. You annoy me alittle more each day. Are you retarded? I'm asking a real question..not trying to be mean. Are you?

[Yanoda]

Good job Col. I really wanted to stay out of this thread but you (Col.), gave me a thought. Talking about evolution. How is it possible that a plant can evolve? Wouldn't that plant have to be aware of itself? I mean, a plant is alive but is it aware of itself? Does it actually "think"? Here's where I'm going with this.....if it's a tropical plant, and it starts getting cold due to climate changes....does it "think" that I need to change? Does it "think" that I need to develop an antifreeze compound to survive? My thought is that to "evolve" it would have to be aware of itself, it would have to "think" rationaly, to understand the changes in his enviorment in order to survive. Right?

Please review your post Panama...
Evolution: noun
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.

The process of evolving does not mean one has to be conscious. It is the process through natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and gene flow.
Natural Selection: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25
Mutation: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/archive/ ... index.html
Genetic Drift: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... rift.shtml
Gene Flow: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... flow.shtml

Cheers

Yanoda

[Col. Hstar]

"Argumentum ad Ignorantiam"

I'll start with this one. You like to claim (since science being based solely on what can be proved) that there must be no God because there is no evidence to support this. Yet When I look all around myself and see, this planet that we live on, the absolute perfect conditions for sustaining human life, and down to the very fact that I am alive, I attribute that as proof and evidence of a higher power and creator. Please don't tell me I can not see this as evidence, because of evolution.

Never stated God absolutely does not exist. Only stated that current evidence indicates that a God does not exist. If evidence indicate otherwise, then it is safe to say it exists, which is lacking at the moment.
So your waiting for some divine sign
We do not live in perfect conditions, life (organisms etc.) have adapted to the environment to cope with it. We have natural disasters, the Universe is a harsh place (more than 99% of the known universe is not habitable, statistically).
70% of the Planet's surface is covered by sea water, 97% of water is saline which we cannot drink from.
Fresh water is about 2.5% of the total water we have, almost 70% of that is ice.
The planet has roughly only 13% arable land of the land surface, 5% that can support permanent crops.

The conditions of the planet is not perfect by far. Only small areas are decent for us to live on. Don't forget the mass extinctions that occurred in the past. Life adapts to the environment.

Not perfect? As you say the rest of the universe is uninhabitable, I would think that fact alone should prove my case.

This is your computer graphic project that you have been working on. It's looking great, you are obviously putting time and effort into making it, accounting for many small details even. Now would it be rational for me to look at that picture and say "oh wow, someone just set the computer to spit out some random code and miraculously this picture came together" No one would believe that in a million years. Yet you want us to believe that exactly that happened for this planet. (Which is far more complex then your drawing)

I appreciate you sharing my work. Your welcom
The watchmaker analogy, how very common...
I won't bother with this and let this link explain it (which does it far better than I can explain): http://www.atheist-community.org/faq/#watchmaker

I read it. All it does is rationalize things. "oh your assuming design because of order" I especially like the part where they try to say it benefits evolution because a watch design would have evolved many times before getting the current product. Um except you still need the first one to be designed by someone.

My argument isn't based on ignorance. I base it on common sense. You like to make these statements that mock the way people who believe in God explain things, but I can do that too.

argumentum ad ignorantiam - Argument from ignorance:
is a fallacy in informal logic.
It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

Based on the definition, your previous post does apply to that fallacy.

Thanks for simply pasting a definition. I still don't agree that it applies since I was not speaking of all evidence. Read my earlier post again as it shows what I meant

Here is an evolutionists view:
How did Earth form? Just happen by chance
How did life develop? Just happen by chance
Why do we have hundreds of religions with different views? They're all crazy
Why does the devil exist? Because..... oh wait you believe in the Devil but not God?

See, No thought from you either.

I have indicated the extreme side of the religious argument, I should have made that more clear in my previous post.
I also haven't claimed any specific individual or group that make this claim, unlike you who clearly states it is evolutionist arguments.
You posted directly in response to my post which directed that statement at me. Now your trying to change it because it is obviously an extreme POV. Mine on the other hand does point specifically at evolution. Even looking below where you go into greater detail of how you say evolution happened, the core of your theory is exactly that. "It Just happened"
The actual views in the scientific base:
How did Earth form? - Through the gravitational collapse of a massive molecular cloud. Most of the mass collected towards the center that jump started the fusion process. The rest collected into a protoplanetary disk from which the planets, moons and asteroids formed.
How did life develop? - The formation of amino acids in the early Earth from non-organic elements/compounds enabled the formation of more complex organic structures. Over long periods of time, the structures became more complex and eventually formed first simple organisms (bacteria ect.). Over time, through mutation and environmental feedback (adaption) the simple organisms became more specialized and more complex. The rest I leave since i don't want to write a 3 page essay.

You giving us how the earth came to be. We are talking about Why it came to be. I say it was designed by a creator, you say all of those developed on there own

Why do we have hundreds of religions with different views? They're all crazy

Very ignorant of you to make that claim. Though if you call them crazy for their religious view, does that mean you also call yourself crazy?
Your very ignorant if you think I was talking about myself. Even you pointed out that I was writing what a evolutionist response would be. You can't twist words to make your own arguments, use them in the context they are given
Why do we have hundreds of religions with different views? People developed different cultures and views. Respectively, they developed their own form of religions to suit their culture.
Why does the devil exist? Never said I believe in the devil. Though if you believe in God(s) created everything, then it/they also created all the evils in the world.
I believe that God created the being, who by that beings own choice, rebelled and chose an evil course, and thus became the Devil. He is responsible for his evils. Humans who commit evil here do so of their own volition. The world and the humans on it are subjected to the influence of the Devil. We have free will, we can choose to ignore or embrace that influence

When it all comes down to it. The theory of evolution and natural selection is based on faith just as much as belief in a creator. Sure you can make experiments and read those results as adding weight to your argument but the bottom line is, you don't know for sure. So just like my beliefs, you too must take a leap of faith.

Belief: noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
3. confidence; faith; trust.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith.

Faith: noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing.
2. belief that is not based on proof.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.
5. a system of religious belief.

I have provided several points and data that indicate the validity of the Evolutionary process, and support of my argument. Claiming that I put faith/belief in that is false in both definitions. Unlike, your position which fits the definitions of both Belief and Faith.
Your trying to reinterpret results. The evolutionary process does not explain the origin of the process.

An argument of ignorance. No, an argument of faith

Read further up of this post for the definition of 'An argument of Ignorance', to which your position clearly fits.

Cheers

Yanoda

[The Master]

Dang you guys are serious about all this

[Darth Crater]

I plan to address that massive wall of text Homestar posted at some point (EDIT: nevermind, nothing in there worth dignifying with response), but for now, something more interesting (to me): musings on certainty.

First off. We can never be absolutely, 100% certain of anything. Even though we have records of the sun rising every day, it's possible that something will happen to stop the sun rising tomorrow (say, it randomly fails to radiate any light in our direction that day. Vastly improbable, but not completely impossible). It's possible that the sun has, in fact, never risen, and you've had false memories of it implanted in your head.

None of that ers. We can't get absolute certainty, so we don't have to care about it. All we need is sufficient confidence in something's truth to call it "certain". The sun has risen every day. Our studies of orbital and stellar mechanics tell us that the planet should rotate to the right position for a sunrise, and the sun should be shining. We have enough confidence in the sun's rising that we can say we are "certain" about it, then proceed to treat its odds as 100% instead of some long string of 9's to save cognitive time.

So, basically, trying to bring absolute certainty into a discussion is pointless. Just consider the evidence or lack thereof, use that to work out your favored hypothesis and your confidence in it. Then, if your confidence is high enough go ahead and treat it as certain.

Note that there are times when you still need to consider the odds, for example infinitesimal chances of extreme outcomes. If you're choosing between two options, one of which will always kill 10 people, and the second has a 1 in 10^6 probability of killing 10^9 people (on average, kills 1,000 people), you should actually do the math and select the first option. Odds like the sun not shining on us, however, are on a far smaller scale than this.

[11_Panama_]

Good job Col. I really wanted to stay out of this thread but you (Col.), gave me a thought. Talking about evolution. How is it possible that a plant can evolve? Wouldn't that plant have to be aware of itself? I mean, a plant is alive but is it aware of itself? Does it actually "think"? Here's where I'm going with this.....if it's a tropical plant, and it starts getting cold due to climate changes....does it "think" that I need to change? Does it "think" that I need to develop an antifreeze compound to survive? My thought is that to "evolve" it would have to be aware of itself, it would have to "think" rationaly, to understand the changes in his enviorment in order to survive. Right?

Please review your post Panama...
Evolution: noun
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.

The process of evolving does not mean one has to be conscious. It is the process through natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and gene flow.
Natural Selection: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25
Mutation: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/archive/ ... index.html
Genetic Drift: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... rift.shtml
Gene Flow: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... flow.shtml

Cheers

Yanoda

I still don't believe any of your mombo jumbo Yanoda. I believe that no man on Earth is supposed to know all. That is also done by design.

[Col. Hstar]

I plan to address that massive wall of text Homestar posted at some point (EDIT: nevermind, nothing in there worth dignifying with response)

I didn't think I was being offensive or undignified. Was I?

EDIT: The massive wall of text isn't all mine. For reasons of giving clarity I just quoted Yanoda's comments and gave my responses in red

[Darth Crater]

Sorry, I didn't feel there was anything in there worth wasting my time on. Clearly you disagree. Thus, have some time.

So your waiting for some divine sign

Yes, that would be nice. Any way in which it can be demonstrated that a deity is measurably affecting events? There would be celebration across the scientific community.

Not perfect? As you say the rest of the universe is uninhabitable, I would think that fact alone should prove my case.

... So the fact that the universe does not appear to be created for humans supports your theory that it was created for humans? Would you also believe in a creator if we discovered the world and universe were almost uniformly habitable by humans? (I know I'd be considering it seriously.) Opposing evidence can't support the same belief.

I read it. All it does is rationalize things. "oh your assuming design because of order" I especially like the part where they try to say it benefits evolution because a watch design would have evolved many times before getting the current product. Um except you still need the first one to be designed by someone.

To be honest, that page's arguments seem rather scattered. However, are you in fact doing anything other than assuming design because of order?

You giving us how the earth came to be. We are talking about Why it came to be. I say it was designed by a creator, you say all of those developed on there own

You specifically asked "How did Earth form"? Maybe you meant something different. Giving you the benefit of the doubt... Why does there have to be a reason or guiding mind behind it happening? I don't see any need for that.

I believe that God created the being, who by that beings own choice, rebelled and chose an evil course, and thus became the Devil. He is responsible for his evils. Humans who commit evil here do so of their own volition. The world and the humans on it are subjected to the influence of the Devil. We have free will, we can choose to ignore or embrace that influence

How is this different from the scenario where there is no deity involved, good or evil, and humans have "free will" (in a general sense; technically we don't because our thoughts are a deterministic process) simply because we do? What does your hypothesis explain about the world, or predict, that makes it more valuable or useful?

Your trying to reinterpret results. The evolutionary process does not explain the origin of the process.

Yeah, it would be nice if people would actually separate discussion about natural selection (proven to happen, lots of well-founded science behind it) and natural abiogenesis (also has good science behind it, and is what we have the most evidence for; just harder to experimentally replicate).

[Col. Hstar]

Sorry, I didn't feel there was anything in there worth wasting my time on. Clearly you disagree. Thus, have some time.

Actually I though I pissed you off, by the way you said you wouldn't dignify it with a response. You could have said you just disagree, which basically when all this is said and done, will be the final result.

... So the fact that the universe does not appear to be created for humans supports your theory that it was created for humans? Would you also believe in a creator if we discovered the world and universe were almost uniformly habitable by humans? (I know I'd be considering it seriously.) Opposing evidence can't support the same belief.

No I believe the universe is well tailored for humans living on earth, and the fact that inside of this universe whcih alone would not support human life, we find a planet which does....

To be honest, that page's arguments seem rather scattered. However, are you in fact doing anything other than assuming design because of order?

I failed to see where assuming design was wrong. If I see a name written in the sand, I wouldn't assume it occur naturally. That name implys not just order, but intelligence. The earth not only has order, but in being specifically capable of supporting human life, shows intelligence

You specifically asked "How did Earth form"? Maybe you meant something different. Giving you the benefit of the doubt... Why does there have to be a reason or guiding mind behind it happening? I don't see any need for that.

It was Yanodas quote first. Read the previous post. i was doing a copy paste thing. Although my comment still works. In essence aside from the mechanics of how the earth was made, and evolutionists stance is that it just happened

How is this different from the scenario where there is no deity involved, good or evil, and humans have "free will" (in a general sense; technically we don't because our thoughts are a deterministic process) simply because we do? What does your hypothesis explain about the world, or predict, that makes it more valuable or useful?

It's different because many refuse to believe in God because they feel he is responsible for the evil we see today. They assume he is not going to do anything about it. Knowing the origins of evil allows someone to accept the situation we find ourselves in today. In a world surrounded by the influence of the devil.

You don't need to respond if you don't want to. I don't mind talking about my beliefs, if someone wants me to explain my beliefs regarding a specific questions I won't mind. As I said before, no one is going to change their beliefs on a game website, I just thought you were offended by what I said

[11_Panama_]

Give 'em hell Col. (No pun intended).