Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mad Kally · 08-07-2002, 10:04 AM

How about focusing on the post and trying to think?

Don't make me get out that magic lime green eyeball shirt that you wear.

Typhon · 08-07-2002, 10:04 AM

One of the problems with your theory is that you seem to be arguing (correct me if I'm wrong) for a sort of progressive evolution, i.e. simple to complex.

While this is an old misconception of evolution, it is no longer felt by many (if not most) of those involved in evolution to be a correct view of evolution.

Evolution has caused the spread of biological diversity, and many of the most successful organisms are some of the simplest. These are organisms where evolutionary forces have not halted, take viruses for example, but where the evolutionary output has not thrust these successful simple organism down a progressive path of complexity, designed or otherwise.

I'd recommend you read Stephen J. Gould's book, "Full House" for a much better explanation of this issue.

Cheers,

.T.

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]

Jonesy · 08-07-2002, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kind Bud:


Suppose it is not today, but 10 million years prior to today. Homo sapiens sapiens has not yet emerged from the primates living at that time. Can you say that at that time in history, evolution had a meaning? No one who could conceive of "evolution" or "meaning" had been born yet. Put another way, at that time evolution had not produced a being capable of assigning or perceiving meaning.

Put another way, is meaning inherent in an object or process, or is meaning a product of the human mind? This is a very old question. Another way of asking it is "Do ideas exist independent of the minds that contemplate them?"

We have simply reached a stage in our evolution when we are now 'smart enough' to realise that 'things that exist have a meaning', including the way we evolved. What this meaning is, is the next step. The people you mention from the past where simply less evolved intellectually than we are today and hence it didn't even 'cross their minds' to think about the 'meaning of our existence' and 'the meaning of the process in which we have evolved UP TO the point in time where we are at the moment'.

Jonesy · 08-07-2002, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Kally:
How about focusing on the post and trying to think?

Don't make me get out that magic lime green eyeball shirt that you wear.

I'm not making you do anything - you can say/show whatever you want - but then don't try to blame that 'your post made me show it' - you should take any blame for anything that you post. And I don't see any point in your comment, to be honest with you.

KC · 08-07-2002, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thiaoouba:


Who and how designed the laws of physics and chemistry? He/it/they/(whatever) must be pretty smart, eh?

Who says the physical properties of the universe were designed? You?

Cheers,

KC

Jonesy · 08-07-2002, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Typhon:
One of the problems with your theory is that you seem to be arguing (correct me if I'm wrong) for a sort of progressive evolution, i.e. simple to complex.

While this is an old misconception of evolution, it is no longer felt by many (if not most) of those involved in evolution to be a correct view of evolution.

Evolution has caused the spread of biological diversity, and many of the most successful organisms are some of the simplest. These are organisms where evolutionary forces have not halted, take viruses for example, but where the evolutionary output has not thrust these successful simple organism down a progressive path of complexity, designed or otherwise.

I'd recommend you read Stephen J. Gould's book, "Full House" for a much better explanation of this issue.

Cheers,

.T.

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]

Biggest mistake: to say that viruses are 'simple'.

What makes anyone say this? It is obvious that viruses, like any living thing, are not only NOT simple, but actually LEARN - eg. when people try to 'beat' viruses' with drugs, they become resistant - this is learning.

Just because something is small and people belive it was one of the first steps in evolution, does not mean that this something is simple.

I contend that 'everything was complex' from the start, no matter what pieces of things these intial things were. Evolution was the 'interplay' between these 'complex from the start' things - and since evolution was designed, as I contend, this means that many things may have reached some form and stayed there according to a 'program' while it took more time for other things to develop.

Jonesy · 08-07-2002, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KCdgw:


Who says the physical properties of the universe were designed? You?

Cheers,

KC

Any one with a trace of intelligence would realise that 'laws' of physics are 'laws' due to design. you do not get a 'law' randomly - this is a contradiction and please, think about it, because it is important to realise that any law requires a design of the law first.

"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein.

KC · 08-07-2002, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thiaoouba:


Any one with a trace of intelligence would realise that 'laws' of physics are 'laws' due to design. you do not get a 'law' randomly - this is a contradiction and please, think about it, because it is important to realise that any law requires a design of the law first.

"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein.

.

You are making an unsupported assertion, which is easily recognized by anyone with a trace of intelligence. Please show how ANY physical phenomenon described by a law requires a designer. I strongly suggest a book by phsyicist Victor Stenger, 'The Unconscious Quantum", which dispels your particular notion in an unceremonious fashion.

Cheers,

KC

Sci_Fidelity · 08-07-2002, 10:34 AM

Quote:

What makes anyone say this? It is obvious that viruses, like any living thing, are not only NOT simple, but actually LEARN - eg. when people try to 'beat' viruses' with drugs, they become resistant - this is learning.

They don't "learn", and they don't "become resistant." There will be a number of resistant individuals in the population, and those are the ones which survive and reproduce.

Jonesy · 08-07-2002, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KCdgw:
.

You are making an unsupported assertion, which is easily recognized by anyone with a trace of intelligence. Please show how ANY physical phenomenon described by a law requires a designer. I strongly suggest a book by phsyicist Victor Stenger, 'The Unconscious Quantum", which dispels your particular notion in an unceremonious fashion.

Cheers,

KC

"Please show how ANY physical phenomenon described by a law" DOES NOT REQUIRE a Designer. You cannot. No one can. And out of the two possibilities that are left (designer or no designer) - even though we cannot PHYSICALLY prove either - we can intellectually BETTER prove the one that holds that 'designer is required'

08-07-2002, 10:04 AM	#12
Typhon Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mount Aetna Posts: 271	One of the problems with your theory is that you seem to be arguing (correct me if I'm wrong) for a sort of progressive evolution, i.e. simple to complex. While this is an old misconception of evolution, it is no longer felt by many (if not most) of those involved in evolution to be a correct view of evolution. Evolution has caused the spread of biological diversity, and many of the most successful organisms are some of the simplest. These are organisms where evolutionary forces have not halted, take viruses for example, but where the evolutionary output has not thrust these successful simple organism down a progressive path of complexity, designed or otherwise. I'd recommend you read Stephen J. Gould's book, "Full House" for a much better explanation of this issue. Cheers, .T. [ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-07-2002, 10:04 AM	#11
Mad Kally Banned Join Date: May 2001 Location: LALA Land in California Posts: 3,764	How about focusing on the post and trying to think? Don't make me get out that magic lime green eyeball shirt that you wear.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.