What is Dart's concept of God?

[_EAllusion]

You "discovered" no such thing. My argument regarding a popular atheistic reliance on Popper is based on my observations on this forum.

Your statements are not grounded in any understanding of Popper, philosophy of science, atheism, or as best I can tell, anything. They also were strange, meaning uncommon. Vox Day happens to say roughly the same things. It was no leap to imagine you picked this up from that source if you have borrowed first or second-hand other things from the same source.

As far as what you are saying now, indeed the lack of explanatory power is the chief problem for the type of design arguments you want to make and other ones to. That's just a fancy way of saying it doesn't effectively explain anything because it lacks traits of good explanations. But that doesn't rest on Popperian falsificationism. Heck, the idea that falsifiability is a desirable trait of empirical explanations for things doesn't rest on falsificationism. That's a much more narrow idea. To wit, explanatory power is a notion accepted by the vast majority of philosophers of science, whereas Popper is not. You can't reject the notion of explanatory power by pointing out that some of Popper's ideas fail. And someone isn't bringing up Popper simply by bringing up falsifiablity, explanatory power, etc.

[_dartagnan]

Good morning mob.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack. You're going to get a lot more s*** for this statement than if you had just offered a somewhat-indefensible conception of God (or at least, you should).

I can assure you, the fact that I'm a theist is enough to guarantee this, period. In the immortal words of Clint Eastwood, "these Mong broads are like badgers!"

The fact that you can not respond to my points, without offering demands and ridicule, shows how weak your positions are. You cannot deal with the fact that my position is precisely the same as Einstein's and Flew's. Even Hawking said the fact that the universe has a beginning makes it reasonable to assume a creator. This needs repeating because you repeatedly ignored it. I don't recall anyone chastizing them for daring to say these things without offering a scientific model detailing God's proposed values. They didn't feel the need to offer up a scientific concept, and neither do I. Why should I?

This is just a red herring gimmick the New Atheists came up with and you guys are simply mimicking them, with no understanding of the fact that these kinds of demands have no value, other than rhetorical. It is just your way of forcing your opponent into your paradigm, while avoiding the elephant in the room: the fact that the cosmological evidence is pointing more and more directly towards God. The God hypothesis explains all the evidence you're pretending doesn't exist. The evidence strongly points to an intelligent source being responsible. Even aspects of evolution require an intelligent design, such as flight. The fossil record doesn't even begin to prove, in a scientifc manner, the leaps made by evolutionary biologists who simply assume a crawling creature evolved into a flying creature with no intelligent guidance.

I'm not rejecting evolution, I am simply saying reason dictates that it could not have happened without intellectual guidance. I had a past discussion on this issue and I think that is what led to the confusion about me being an ID proponent, supposing I rejected evolution. I don't. This is something EA wrote many months ago and I'm not sure how I missed it:

It's hard to take Kevin seriously when he talks about the mutation that turned fish into birds. Why not talk about the mutation that turned reptiles into humans? Or prokaryotes into maple trees? It might not be obvious to him, but he is betraying a stark lack of background knowledge necessary to have a conversation on the level he wants to. If it were possible, I think he could benefit a lot from 3 or 4 college level bio courses. It wouldn't have to be organic evolution. Just zoo, botany, genetics, and ecology.

Here's a link to a fun NOVA episode on issues surrounding understanding the origin of flight:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/microraptor/producer.html

EA thinks my question is answered in college science classes, but I think this is because he misunderstands the question. He thought I was disputing evolution in general, but there was a reason I was referring to specific mutations: these strongly imply intelligent design. EA does this all the time. He misrepresnts, either intentionally or not, and then proceeds to use his misunderstanding as a basis to declare his opponent ignorant. Posioning the well is usually his first step in any debate.

So why did I talk about birds and not trees? Because this species poses a problem for scientists hoping to explain the development of flight via natural selection, adaptation, ecological pessures, etc. The growth of wings suggests teleological design. These mutations supposedly took thousands of years to take place so during this transition there had to be an "end"(flight) that was known for these "means" (gradual growth of wings) to occur.

EA apparently didn't understand my point and read the article in question or else he would have realized it proved my point. It essentialy stated that scientists have not the foggiest idea how wings first emerged or why, and even worse, the fossil record does not support the popular theories. Don't believe me? Go read it yourself.

The biologist Steve Vogel explained via analogy that,"Nature in effect must transmute a motorcycle into an automobile while providing continuous transportation." I found this citation the other day and it pretty much dovetailed with my previous argument. How could creatures evolve from crawling to flying ones while traveling efficiently? How could they do so without intelligent guidance and how would that have benefited them when their evolution would have left them vulnerable to predators? Nothing flies without first understanding and complying with the law of aerodynamics. Did mutating genes learn these laws and comply accordingly? Is that the source of intelligence? Either way, intelligence had to be involved at some point in the process. What ecological pressures could possibly force something to seek refuge in the skies in order to survive? Evolution doesn't even begin to answer these questions. But guided evolution explains everything.

Stephen Jay Gould once said, "Our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediaries in many cases has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." Apparently, Dawkins didn't get the memo.

Dart refuses to answer

Antishock, do I really need to go look up all the threads where this has been addressed?
Here is one, but I know there are pleny others.

I know for a fact that I discussed this with CK for the first time about a year ago. Later I did so with EA, the Dude, Tarski, and others. The only quality I can attribute to God is that it/he/she is an intelligent force, because that is where the evidence leads. If the evidence later suggests it is a man of plasma floating on a throne around Uranus, then I'd be happy to plug that into a scientific model. But so far the evidence doesn't suggest it, so I feel no reason to attribute anthropomorphic qualities whatsoever. Unlike so many atheists, I do not go beyond the evidence.

What is my "ontological explanaton" for the universe? Put it this way, there is absolutely nothing that science has proved about the universe that I disagree with. If you think I should, then take your best shot. Tell me what cosmological facts must be at odds with my acceptance of God. Just one.

The Big Bang suits me just fine. What you have to explain is why an atheist who accepts the big bang isn't obligated to explain where matter came from, yet a theist must. This is the kind of special pleading one finds throughout Dawkins.

Do I believe Jesus Christ existed? Yes I do. That doesn't make me a Christian anyore than believing Muhammad existed makes me a Muslim. Just because have proved idiots like Bill Maher have flat out lied about Jesus, doesn't make me a Chrristian. It just means I'm someone who respects the truth, even if others don't. By the way, I noticed you've used Robert Spencer's work on numerous occassions. Far more than I have ever referenced Vox Day (once!). I guess following you're own logic, you must be "stealth Catholic." Say it ain't so antishock. Say it ain't so!

Your statements are not grounded in any understanding of Popper, philosophy of science, atheism, or as best I can tell, anything.

What exactly did I say that was wrong? That atheists have used Popper's distinction of science/nonscience to argue against God? This is established fact and you haven't even begun to prove otherwise. Again, all one has to do is read through the ubiquitous examples on this forum, as well as those appearing on MAD. You're just pulling the usual EA stunt by declaring I have no understanding of XYZ because I argued something I never really argued. It is almost as if you immediately begin with every response, assuming I don't know anything, and then you proceed to reinterpret what I said in the most twisted way to accomodate that premise. You should really abandon this gambit because I've always been here to correct your straw man, and ultimately it reflects poorly on you. Though in the short run, I suppose it might give you and your buddies here a temporary rush of superiorority, making it all worth it. This is usually the case for ego junkies. I suggest rehab, because it would make these discussions much more civil and productive.

As far as what you are saying now, indeed the lack of explanatory power is the chief problem for the type of design arguments you want to make and other ones to

But God explains far more than you're willing to concede. It explained plenty for Einstein as it does for me. The evidence strongly points towards an intelligent source for so many of the universal phenomena that manifest themselves here on earth as well as in the cosmos. On earth the strongest evidence for me is consciousness and guided evolution. In space we know that the universe appears to have been a put up job. All teh laws are mathematicaly intwined which suggests teleology.

There has to have been an intelligence behind so many of these things that cannot be explained in the pradigm of materialism. You avoid this fact with the usual diversions, making the God hypothesis appear to create more trouble than its worth, as if the hypothesis raises more questions than it answers. This is just a Dawkins ploy that ignores the fact that these questions exist already. It is very much like the Mormon apologetic that asks a gazillion questions about the Book of Abraham papyri, making it all too much trouble to get into so they dismiss it on those grounds.

What existed before the big bang? Where did matter come from? How did life originate from dead matter? You take solace in the "we don't know," but theists can't? These questions already exist, it is just that those in the pious followers in the religion of materialism accept on blind faith that some day their priests in labcoats will be able to provide answers. It isn't based on evidence, and it sure as hell isn't science. It is a materialistic paradigm driving permitted assumptions while excluding others.

That's just a fancy way of saying it doesn't effectively explain anything because it lacks traits of good explanations.

I guess here is the part where you go read a scientific basis in some journal for what must count as traits for "good" explanations? This is your problem. Your mind is so closed because you've limited yourself to particular scientific paradigm developed by people who propose things and then let the most popular idea flourish. When the most popular one manifests itself, you declare it absolute law and let it drive your conclusions in everything. Scientific paradigms have changed over time, and you as an atheist are picking the parts of various ones that appeal to your brand of radical atheism. But real scientists generally know there is nothing unreasonable about assuming the existence of God. Remember Hawking! I've demonstrated this on numerous occassions, and yet you consistently ignore the citations I present, and instead wait for the slight mention of someone you can actually attack, like Vox Day and start attacking him on positions I never even agreed with. Good grief!

But that doesn't rest on Popperian falsificationism. Heck, the idea that falsifiability is a desirable trait of empirical explanations for things doesn't rest on falsificationism.

See what I mean? Totally misrepresent what I said. I'm not talking about what is generally "desirable." I don't pretend to know the desires of thousands of atheists, even if you do.

You missed the point, which is this: the idea that one argument is science and another is not science, rests upon Popper's criterion of demarcation. Atheists here don't complain because the God theory isn't "desirable" to them. They complain because they say it isn't science therefore it can't be true. By what standard do they argue it isn't science? By appealing to Popper's philosophy, whether or not they even realize it derives from Popper - some do, some apparently don't. You've done nothing to prove me wrong and you certainly haven't shown that I misunderstand Popper. The only way you can pretend to do so is by misrepresenting what I've argued. I guess some things never change.

To wit, explanatory power is a notion accepted by the vast majority of philosophers of science, whereas Popper is not.

Popper is a notion? You're weren't clear on this point.

You can't reject the notion of explanatory power by pointing out that some of Popper's ideas fail.

Too bad for you, I haven't rejected the notion of explanatory power. I believe it can be helpful sure. In fact, I believe God explains far more than any alternative theory favored by atheists. I simply pointed out that this is another aspect of Popper's philosophy of science, which atheists have adopted. They simply assert that God explains nothing, therefore it isn't science, and therefore it isn't true.

This is a non sequitur. Aside from the fact that truth is not only determined by science, "explanatory power" is just nother way of referring to persuasiveness, and clearly this has proved persuasive to many highly intelligent, former atheists (Einsten and Flew still haven't been dealt with). One theory has more explanatory power than another only, "if it offers a better metaphor, it if accounts for most if not all the known data in a more persuasive way." (Evaluating Scientific Evidence, p.46)

The multiplicity of universal constants that share the common denomintor value that they are necesary for life on earth, and that they are clearly tied together mathematically, has teleology written all over it, and is therefore best explained with the hypothesis of a superior intelligence responsible for writing these laws. This takes in more evidence than the atheistic approach, which is to just ignore these evidences and say its just the way they are as a result of a random universe. Talk about explaining nothing!

Having said this, the usage of explanatory power varies in science, from scientist to scientist, from field to field. It isn't the universal standard for determining truth as presented by atheists on these forums:

While an oceanographer suggested that, "Almost everything comes down to explanatory power," a planetary scientists indicated that, "I see more of the opposite -- models tend to be very specific to the task at hand." A geologist noted that both approaches were used within that field. In this case, he suggested that the use of explanatory power was largely a matter of personal choice: "This varies widely. Some people only want to explain their data or the regions they study without much concern for generalizing. Others think that developing models that explain only one area with no applicability anywhere else in the world is a waste of time." It didn't get any better as the field shifted from the core sciences to engineering, math, and computer science. A mathematician indicated that explanatory power isn't actually used in his field, which favors "relevance," or the ability to solve problems or provide further understanding of the formal system by which mathematics operates. He did note, however, that mathematicians engage in a similar process of testing the limits at which something can be generalized. One engineer noted that, "A lot of value is given to explanatory power," while a second claimed, "Very little is focused here." -
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science ... /9/16/5315

When I get back in town I will start a thread in celestial addressing antishock's questions in further detail, so it will be an easy reference point for future requests. It really gets old having to explain myself so many times, but what really gets old is the accusatons leveled against me for being a "stealth christian" or what not.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Good morning mob.
The fact that you can not respond to my points, without offering demands and ridicule, shows how weak your positions are. You cannot deal with the fact that my position is precisely the same as Einstein's and Flew's.

The idea that you can know something exists -- without knowing what that thing is -- is preposterous beyond ridicule.

Even Hawking said the fact that the universe has a beginning makes it reasonable to assume a creator. This needs repeating because you repeatedly ignored it. I don't recall anyone chastizing them for daring to say these things without offering a scientific model detailing God's proposed values. They didn't feel the need to offer up a scientific concept, and neither do I. Why should I?

Hawking and Einstein (and even Flew) aren't stupid enough to think that just because the universe has a creator means that we know anything about the creator. It could be all-good, as you think, but it could also be all-evil, or partly good and partly evil. It could be omniscient, or it could only know enough to get the universe rolling, or it could be incredibly stupid and just happen upon creation of the universe by accident. It could have a will, or it could not, or it could have something else entirely that we don't even understand. This creator could even be a mere mechanistic, evolutionary process -- it has been shown pretty conclusively that some aspects of morphology that look like an intelligently-designed process are actually the result of mindless genetic trial-and-error. Your argument, "The universe looks like it was intelligently designed, therefore it was intelligently designed" is of the exact same form as "Triangle ABC looks like an isosceles triangle, therefore...", and fails for the same reasons.

This is just a red herring gimmick the New Atheists came up with and you guys are simply mimicking them, with no understanding of the fact that these kinds of demands have no value, other than rhetorical. It is just your way of forcing your opponent into your paradigm, while avoiding the elephant in the room: the fact that the cosmological evidence is pointing more and more directly towards God. The God hypothesis explains all the evidence you're pretending doesn't exist. The evidence strongly points to an intelligent source being responsible.

What does the God hypothesis explain that the "Fairies" hypothesis does not?

Even aspects of evolution require an intelligent design, such as flight. The fossil record doesn't even begin to prove, in a scientifc manner, the leaps made by evolutionary biologists who simply assume a crawling creature evolved into a flying creature with no intelligent guidance.

You are very clearly an Intelligent Design proponent, despite your previous protests. You are also wrong. (I don't think this is a coincidence.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flight

There are a ton of beneficial intermediaries between ground locomotion and flying. Behe and his ilk ask questions like "What's the use of half a wing?" My answer: ask a "flying" squirrel, or a "flying" frog.

So why did I talk about birds and not trees? Because this species poses a problem for scientists hoping to explain the development of flight via natural selection, adaptation, ecological pessures, etc. The growth of wings suggests teleological design. These mutations supposedly took thousands of years to take place so during this transition there had to be an "end"(flight) that was known for these "means" (gradual growth of wings) to occur.

Wrong. Again, there are many useful intermediates between ground locomotion and flight.

EA apparently didn't understand my point and read the article in question or else he would have realized it proved my point. It essentialy stated that scientists have not the foggiest idea how wings first emerged or why, and even worse, the fossil record does not support the popular theories. Don't believe me? Go read it yourself.

In other words, "I'm not imaginative enough to figure out how evolution did it, therefore God must be responsible." What awful, awful logic.

The biologist Steve Vogel explained via analogy that,"Nature in effect must transmute a motorcycle into an automobile while providing continuous transportation." I found this citation the other day and it pretty much dovetailed with my previous argument. How could creatures evolve from crawling to flying ones while traveling efficiently? How could they do so without intelligent guidance and how would that have benefited them when their evolution would have left them vulnerable to predators? Nothing flies without first understanding and complying with the law of aerodynamics. Did mutating genes learn these laws and comply accordingly? Is that the source of intelligence? Either way, intelligence had to be involved at some point in the process. What ecological pressures could possibly force something to seek refuge in the skies in order to survive? Evolution doesn't even begin to answer these questions. But guided evolution explains everything.

Why do you think evolution can't account for these phenomena? I suspect that you don't actually understand how it works. I could be wrong, though, so let's hear your explanation.

Stephen Jay Gould once said, "Our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediaries in many cases has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." Apparently, Dawkins didn't get the memo.

Do you know anything about the biological theory of punctuated equilibria? It's inconsistent with gradualist accounts of evolution, and Gould was its biggest proponent. It is NOT incompatible, however, with evolution by natural selection (sans intelligent design). I don't think you've done your homework.

Antishock, do I really need to go look up all the threads where this has been addressed?
Here is one, but I know there are pleny others.

I know for a fact that I discussed this with CK for the first time about a year ago. Later I did so with EA, the Dude, Tarski, and others. The only quality I can attribute to fairies is that they are an intelligent force, because that is where the evidence leads. If the evidence later suggests it is a man of plasma floating on a throne around Uranus, then I'd be happy to plug that into a scientific model. But so far the evidence doesn't suggest it, so I feel no reason to attribute anthropomorphic qualities whatsoever. Unlike so many atheists, I do not go beyond the evidence.

What is my "ontological explanaton" for the universe? Put it this way, there is absolutely nothing that science has proved about the universe that I disagree with. If you think I should, then take your best shot. Tell me what cosmological facts must be at odds with my acceptance of fairies. Just one.

The Big Bang suits me just fine. What you have to explain is why an atheist who accepts the big bang isn't obligated to explain where matter came from, yet a fairyist must. This is the kind of special pleading one finds throughout Dawkins.

Do I believe Jesus Christ existed? Yes I do. That doesn't make me a Christian anyore than believing Muhammad existed makes me a Muslim. Just because have proved idiots like Bill Maher have flat out lied about Jesus, doesn't make me a Chrristian. It just means I'm someone who respects the truth, even if others don't. By the way, I noticed you've used Robert Spencer's work on numerous occassions. Far more than I have ever referenced Vox Day (once!). I guess following you're own logic, you must be "stealth Catholic." Say it ain't so antishock. Say it ain't so!

Your statements are not grounded in any understanding of Popper, philosophy of science, atheism, or as best I can tell, anything.

What exactly did I say that was wrong? That atheists have used Popper's distinction of science/nonscience to argue against fairies? This is established fact and you haven't even begun to prove otherwise. Again, all one has to do is read through the ubiquitous examples on this forum, as well as those appearing on MAD. You're just pulling the usual EA stunt by declaring I have no understanding of XYZ because I argued something I never really argued. It is almost as if you immediately begin with every response, assuming I don't know anything, and then you proceed to reinterpret what I said in the most twisted way to accomodate that premise. You should really abandon this gambit because I've always been here to correct your straw man, and ultimately it reflects poorly on you. Though in the short run, I suppose it might give you and your buddies here a temporary rush of superiorority, making it all worth it. This is usually the case for ego junkies. I suggest rehab, because it would make these discussions much more civil and productive.

But the fairies hypothesis explains far more than you're willing to concede. It explained plenty for Einstein as it does for me. The evidence strongly points towards an intelligent source for so many of the universal phenomena that manifest themselves here on earth as well as in the cosmos. On earth the strongest evidence for me is consciousness and guided evolution. In space we know that the universe appears to have been a put up job. All the laws are mathematicaly intwined which suggests teleology.

There has to have been an intelligence behind so many of these things that cannot be explained in the pradigm of materialism. You avoid this fact with the usual diversions, making the fairy hypothesis appear to create more trouble than its worth, as if the hypothesis raises more questions than it answers. This is just a Dawkins ploy that ignores the fact that these questions exist already. It is very much like the Mormon apologetic that asks a gazillion questions about the Book of Abraham papyri, making it all too much trouble to get into so they dismiss it on those grounds.

What existed before the big bang? Where did matter come from? How did life originate from dead matter? You take solace in the "we don't know," but fairyists can't? These questions already exist, it is just that those in the pious followers in the religion of materialism accept on blind faith that some day their priests in labcoats will be able to provide answers. It isn't based on evidence, and it sure as hell isn't science. It is a materialistic paradigm driving permitted assumptions while excluding others.

I guess here is the part where you go read a scientific basis in some journal for what must count as traits for "good" explanations? This is your problem. Your mind is so closed because you've limited yourself to particular scientific paradigm developed by people who propose things and then let the most popular idea flourish. When the most popular one manifests itself, you declare it absolute law and let it drive your conclusions in everything. Scientific paradigms have changed over time, and you as an atheist are picking the parts of various ones that appeal to your brand of radical atheism. But real scientists generally know there is nothing unreasonable about assuming the existence of fairies. Remember Hawking! I've demonstrated this on numerous occassions, and yet you consistently ignore the citations I present, and instead wait for the slight mention of someone you can actually attack, like Vox Day and start attacking him on positions I never even agreed with. Good grief!

See what I mean? Totally misrepresent what I said. I'm not talking about what is generally "desirable." I don't pretend to know the desires of thousands of atheists, even if you do.

You missed the point, which is this: the idea that one argument is science and another is not science, rests upon Popper's criterion of demarcation. Atheists here don't complain because the fairies theory isn't "desirable" to them. They complain because they say it isn't science therefore it can't be true. By what standard do they argue it isn't science? By appealing to Popper's philosophy, whether or not they even realize it derives from Popper - some do, some apparently don't. You've done nothing to prove me wrong and you certainly haven't shown that I misunderstand Popper. The only way you can pretend to do so is by misrepresenting what I've argued. I guess some things never change.

Too bad for you, I haven't rejected the notion of explanatory power. I believe it can be helpful sure. In fact, I believe the fairy hypothesis explains far more than any alternative theory favored by atheists. I simply pointed out that this is another aspect of Popper's philosophy of science, which atheists have adopted. They simply assert that the invocation of fairies explains nothing, therefore it isn't science, and therefore it isn't true.

This is a non sequitur. Aside from the fact that truth is not only determined by science, "explanatory power" is just nother way of referring to persuasiveness, and clearly this has proved persuasive to many highly intelligent, former afairyists (Einsten and Flew still haven't been dealt with). One theory has more explanatory power than another only, "if it offers a better metaphor, it if accounts for most if not all the known data in a more persuasive way." (Evaluating Scientific Evidence, p.46)

The multiplicity of universal constants that share the common denomintor value that they are necesary for life on earth, and that they are clearly tied together mathematically, has teleology written all over it, and is therefore best explained with the hypothesis of a superior intelligence responsible for writing these laws. This takes in more evidence than the afairyist approach, which is to just ignore these evidences and say its just the way they are as a result of a random universe. Talk about explaining nothing!

Having said this, the usage of explanatory power varies in science, from scientist to scientist, from field to field. It isn't the universal standard for determining truth as presented by atheists on these forums:

When I get back in town I will start a thread in celestial addressing antishock's questions in further detail, so it will be an easy reference point for future requests. It really gets old having to explain myself so many times, but what really gets old is the accusatons leveled against me for being a "stealth christian" or what not.

AAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH FAIRIES!!!!!!

[_dartagnan]

The idea that you can know something exists -- without knowing what that thing is -- is preposterous beyond ridicule.

Not when the evidence overwhelming suggests something exists. The evidence pretty much proves intelligence exists. Some atheists admit this and go with the "aliens did it" theory. I guess technically, God would be considered an alien too.

Just think about what you're saying here. I think we've just stumbled acoss the primary deficiency in your thinking, because you'e got your mind strapped down with atheistic logic.
Let's say we land on Mars and find a giant factory or mouse trap of sorts. Each component is carved out of Mars rock and each functions in a way to serve an overall purpose, which is to, oh I don't know, stack rocks in piles of one hundred.

Now by your logic, we can't say we know something intelligent was responsible for this. Why? Because according to you, it is "preposterous beyond ridicule" to say you know something did it unless you know exactly what that something is!

I suppose that if you were the astronaut observing this phenomenon, you would report back to Houston that you saw an interesting formaton of Mars erosion, and that the Mars winds were pushing different components to give the appearance that they were actually functioning by design, and that the rocks piled up exactly one hundred, is just a random coincidence since there probably exists a zillion universes outside this one.

Hawking and Einstein (and even Flew) aren't stupid enough to think that just because the universe has a creator means that we know anything about the creator.

Earth to JSM, isn't that what I just said? I'm being lambasted for saying precisely that; that I don't know anything about God to give a "concept." All I said is that I know it is intelligent, which is about as much as Einstein said.

It could be all-good, as you think, but it could also be all-evil, or partly good and partly evil.

Good and evil have nothing to do with it.

It could be omniscient, or it could only know enough to get the universe rolling, or it could be incredibly stupid and just happen upon creation of the universe by accident.

Incredibly stupid, even though it, by necessity, would be responsible for writing the laws of the universe? I only see one thing incredibly stupid at this point. We are talking about what caused creation, not what stumbled upon it and simply observed it. Get with the program.

Your argument, "The universe looks like it was intelligently designed, therefore it was intelligently designed" is of the exact same form as "Triangle ABC looks like an isosceles triangle, therefore...", and fails for the same reasons.

You guys simply cannot get past your propensity for straw man arguments can you? The universe doesn't merely "look like" it was designed. Everything we know about the universe demands this conclusion. The universal laws pont to its existence. Einstein didn't look up and say, wow those stars look like they were put there by design. The design from cosmos argument is far more intricate than you're willing, or perhaps able to understand. But the least you could do is stop recreating the argument to suit the usual atheistic dismissal.

What does the God hypothesis explain that the "Fairies" hypothesis does not?

Not familiar with the fairy hypothesis. I have in the past tried to avoid using the word God and have preferred to use terms like "intelligent source," and referring to it as "he/she/it" to convey the message that nothing is realy known aside from the fact that "he/she/it" is intelligent. The proble with atheists s that they like to dumb down the argument to suit their need to ridicule. They don't want to disrupt their worldview that makes them superior to the majority of humanity, so they have to continuously misrepresent the theistic argument in the most riduclous manner, such as Dawkin's method of comparing God to Santa Claus and your usage of fairy.

You are very clearly an Intelligent Design proponent, despite your previous protests. You are also wrong. (I don't think this is a coincidence.)

No I'm not. Just because you're to shallow to understand what Inteligent Design is, doesn't change the fact that McGrath, Collins and myself do not support ID movement. But keep pounding that drum if that's your only recourse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flight

There are a ton of beneficial intermediaries between ground locomotion and flying.

And yet you cannot produce. Instead, you pretend to rebut a NOVA article with something from the wiki! ROFL. And the wiki doesn't refute anything I've said, nor does it explain how something that requires intelligence, could be produced sans intelligence.

Behe and his ilk ask questions like "What's the use of half a wing?" My answer: ask a "flying" squirrel, or a "flying" frog.

More straw men? I am not Behe, nor have I read his stuff. It must really burn you up inside to know you can't merely conflate my arguments with some ID proponent. I'm sure there are similarities, but it takes a smart person to know what the crucial differences are. So far it doesn't seem anyone here is interested in those. You desperately need me to be an ID proponent, which speaks volumes about the weakness of your position, becase that is the only kind of argument you're prepared to tackle.

In other words, "I'm not imaginative enough to figure out how evolution did it, therefore God must be responsible." What awful, awful logic.

That isn't the logic at all. The fact is evolution by itself can't do what Dawkins proposes. An intelligent source must be responsible. Here is something from Antony Flew in response to Dawkins:

In my book Darwinian Evolution, I pointed out that natural selection doesn't positively produce anything. It only eliminates, or tends to eliminate, whatever is not competitive. A variation does not need to bestow any actual competitive advantage in order to avoid elimination; it is sufficient that is does not burden its owner with any competitive disadvantage. To choose a rather silly illustraton, suppose I have useless wings tucked away under my suit coat, wings that are too weak to lift my frame off the ground. Useless as they are, these wings do not enable me to escape predators or gather food. But as long as they don't make me more ulnerable to predators, I will probably survive to reproduce and pass on my wings to my descendants. Darwin's mistake in drawing too positive an inference with his suggestion that natural selection produces something was perhaps due to his employment of the expressions "natural selection or "survival of the fittest" rather than his own ultimately preferred alternative, "natural preservation."

Dawkins's The Selfish Gene, was a major exercise in popular mystification. As an atheist philosopher, I considered this workf of popularization as destructive in its own ways... Dawkins labors to discount or depreciate the upshot f fifty or more years' work in genetics - the dicovery that the observable traits of organisms are for the most part conditioned by the interactions of many genes, while most genes have manifold effects on many such traits. For Dawkins, the means for producing human behavior is to attribute to genes characteristics that can significantly be attributed only to persons. Then, after insisting that we are all the choiceless creatures of our genes, he infers that we cannot help but share the unlovely personal characteristics of those all-controlling monads.

Genes, of course, can be neither selfish nor unselfish and more than they or any other nonconscious entities can emerge in competition or make selections. But this dd not stop Dawkins from proclaiming that his book 'is not science fiction; it s science....We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.' Although he later issues occasional disavowals, Dawkin gave no warning in his book against taking him literaly. He added, sensationally that, 'the argument of this book s that we and all other animals, are machines created by our genes.'

If any of this were true, it would be no use to go on as Dawkins does, to preach: 'Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.' No eloquence can move programmed robots. But in fact none of it s true - or even faintly sensible. Genes, as we have seen, do not and cannot necessitate our conduct. Nor are they capable of the calculation and understanding required to plot a course of either ruthless selfishness or sacrificial compassion.

Peter Williams also points out the fallaciousness of Dawkins's arguments, incorporating the citations already provided. Perhaps the context will pound the point home:

According to the theory of evolution, biological systems evolve through the incremental accumulation of beneficial mutations. Dawkins explains why: ‘The larger the leap through genetic space, the lower the probability that the resulting change will be viable, let alone an improvement. [Hence] evolution must in general be a crawl through genetic space, not a series of leaps.’ [7] He describes this gradual approach to obtaining biological complexity as ‘Climbing Mount Improbable.’ [8] Improbable because, as Steven Vogel writes, the theory stipulates that ‘Nature in effect must transmute a motorcycle into an automobile while providing continuous transportation.’ [9] As Stephen Jay Gould admitted: ‘Our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediaries in many cases has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’ [10] Nevertheless, Dawkins, who assumes that evolution must be true because it is the only theory able to fill in the explanatory gap left by the exclusion of design, is content to say that even though we have no idea what path organisms took up Mount Improbable, they must have done so: ‘however daunting the sheer cliffs that the adaptive mountain first presents, graded ramps can be found the other side and the peak eventually scaled’ [11] How does Dawkins know that these ‘graded ramps can be found’ in advance of showing what they are, without even looking for them? Because Dawkins’ justification for this assumption is philosophical rather than scientific: ‘Without stirring from our chair, we can see that it must be so’, [12] explains Dawkins, ‘because nothing except gradual accumulation could, in principle, do the job. . .’ [13] What job? The job of explaining life naturalistically! Dawkins’ conclusion rests upon his presupposition that there is no designer. - http://arn.org/docs/williams/pw_dawkinsfallacies.htm

So, that's that.

Why do you think evolution can't account for these phenomena? I suspect that you don't actually understand how it works. I could be wrong, though, so let's hear your explanation.

Don't even give me that "you just don't understand evolution" cop out. I understand what evolution argues for and I agree with it at the scientific level. But on the philosophical level, evolutionary biologists propose to extend the concept of evolution to explain things not supported by science. They are taking advantage of their positions and selling naïve people damaged goods. Life has evolved, no doubt. What I don't agree with is the notion that creatures can blindly figure out how to fly. I'm not saying they didn't evolve, I'm saying no reasoning could explain how crawling creatures took flight without some preexistent intelligence guiding it. That they can blindly figure out how to form eyes to see, that they can blindly develop senses not available to humans, etc.

You can try dismissing the problem and caling me unimaginative, but I've got the authority on evolution essentially supporting my point: "‘Our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediaries in many cases has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Well sorry Gould, not so according to the armchair atheists here at Mormon discussions!

Do you know anything about the biological theory of punctuated equilibria? It's inconsistent with gradualist accounts of evolution, and Gould was its biggest proponent. It is NOT incompatible, however, with evolution by natural selection (sans intelligent design). I don't think you've done your homework.

This doesn't solve the problem mentioned above. Unless it plugs intelligence into the equaton, it still remains unreasonable to say evolution is not guided.

[_Moniker]

The evidence strongly points to an intelligent source being responsible. Even aspects of evolution require an intelligent design, such as flight. The fossil record doesn't even begin to prove, in a scientifc manner, the leaps made by evolutionary biologists who simply assume a crawling creature evolved into a flying creature with no intelligent guidance.

Did you ever figure out why modern apes aren't homo sapiens? Was that explained to you and did you grasp it?

Let's think about a common ancestor and think about what environment that common ancestor was in where a mutation would be beneficial. Was it a tree dwelling animal? Did it leap from tree to tree and, perhaps, glide? Was it ground dwelling and had to leap to capture prey or to avoide predators? Any mutations that were beneficial where the creature could be more capable of avoiding predators would certainly be passed on to subsequent generations. A mutation that allowed the creature to more effectively find prey/food would ensure that this creature was able to survive longer and pass on their genes to the next generation.

Ants:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 010352.htm

Did God want ants to be able to glide? Were mosquitoes behind God's master plan?

EA thinks my question is answered in college science classes, but I think this is because he misunderstands the question. He thought I was disputing evolution in general, but there was a reason I was referring to specific mutations: these strongly imply intelligent design. EA does this all the time. He misrepresnts, either intentionally or not, and then proceeds to use his misunderstanding as a basis to declare his opponent ignorant. Posioning the well is usually his first step in any debate.

What mutations are you specifically thinking of that imply intelligent design?

Let's think about penguins for a moment. Do you think God wanted penguins (they are birds!) to be slow and cumbersome on land and not be able to fly, yet, be able to dive into the water for food?

So why did I talk about birds and not trees? Because this species poses a problem for scientists hoping to explain the development of flight via natural selection, adaptation, ecological pessures, etc. The growth of wings suggests teleological design. These mutations supposedly took thousands of years to take place so during this transition there had to be an "end"(flight) that was known for these "means" (gradual growth of wings) to occur.

You always think evolution has a goal. It doesn't.

We can observe that flightless birds lost their ability to fly when they didn't need to avoid predators on the ground. The kokapo of New Zealand is a flightless parrot. It has wings and it is a bird and when predators came into New Zealand the kokapo's began to be gobbled up. Wow, that flight certainly would have come in handy. YET, why couldn't they fly anymore? They hadn't had a need to fly (even though they were birds and had been able to fly at one time) for a very, very, very long time and so their environment did not hamper their ability to survive by being flightless. The environment changed with the introduction of predators and since they could no longer fly they were almost wiped out. God? No. Nature.

K, I don't have much time to spend on this, just wanted to reply a bit.

[Guest]

I don't have much time to spend on this, just wanted to reply a bit.

Neither do I, but when I do, I try to respond to what people actually say. I'd appreciate it if you did the same. I recognize nothing you just said as a response to anything in my posts.

[_Moniker]

I don't have much time to spend on this, just wanted to reply a bit.

Neither do I, but when I do, I try to respond to what people actually say. I'd appreciate it if you did the same.

I did reply to what you said, yet, didn't want to reply to each and every bit of it because a lot of it is repetitive or doesn't interest me. I attempted to explain how environment does play a role in how flight came about and how we can see even later how environment played a role after flight was established, and then not needed anymore.

You don't get to dictate what or how I reply, though. Sorry.

[_dartagnan]

Sigh....

I've said nothing about apes. You did.
I've said nothing about flightless birds. You did.
I said nothing about ants. You did.

I'm not "dictating" anything to you, I am simply telling you that you're not addressing anything I've said; at least nothing I haven't already addressed. And you rarely do. Which is fine, just don't expect me to debate you on points I have not argued against. And your tendency to take every response in the most personal way (I'm "dictating"?!) makes serious discussion difficult. Its bad enough as it is with the mob here. A woman scorned is hardly the missing ingredient to this recipe for disaster.

I know what you think you are "explaining," but you're not telling me anything I haven't already read from Dawkins. I'm simply saying that environmental pressures have not been proven to be the sole cause of the emergence of flight, nor can it be. There is no intelligent force behind ecological pressures. None of you have addressed the simple fact that something as difficult as flight requires compliance with certain laws. Thinking humans took thousands of years before understanding these laws and obtaining flight, and yet we're to believe that noninteligent, blind forces of nature created the most efficient flying entities we've ever seen, not just once, but on several occassions?

Acheiving this end requires an understanding. Understanding by what? Certainly not the creature itself. It doesn't know that those nubs under its arms are going to provide flight to the future of its species. What about its genes? Genes are not conscious entities either, contrary to Dawkins' science fiction. So what else is there that could be the basis for the teleology of flight? What makes any creature purpose driven?

A creature developing wings doesn't do so overnight. It takes thousands of years before wings are fully developed and flight is possible, which means for thousands of years a species is mutating to serve a particular end and it doesn't even know it. So yes, there is an obvious purpose. It is trying to get into the air for whatever reason. You mimick Dawkins and say for survival or some other benefit, but this is just speculation, it isn't proven science.

[_Moniker]

Sigh....

I've said nothing about apes. You did.
I've said nothing about flightless birds. You did.
I said nothing about ants. You did.

If you can't understand that a common ancestor is important in understanding how flight evolved I can't help you. Looking at flightless birds shows how environment plays a part on how animals evolve. You think birds are the only thing that fly? Insects predated flying birds by quite a time span, as far as I'm aware.

I'm not "dictating" anything to you, I am simply telling you that you're not addressing anything I've said; at least nothing I haven't already addressed. And you rarely do. Which is fine, just don't expect me to debate you on points I have not argued against. And your tendency to take every response in the most personal way (I'm "dictating"?!) makes serious discussion difficult. Its bad enough as it is with the mob here. A woman scorned is hardly the missing ingredient to this recipe for disaster.

You don't understand that I was attempting to explain some simple things, to you. You told me my reply wasn't in response to your points - yes, it was. A few of them. I don't want to get into a back and forth with you, personally. I'd rather debate. You don't know what you're arguing. You again and again say that evolution has a goal. It doesn't. You repeat simple myths and don't even get that I'm attempting to explain the basics to you, that apparently you don't get because you are hostile to evolution and run to sites that attack the theory without you even having a basic understanding of it.

I know what you think you are "explaining," but you're not telling me anything I haven't already read from Dawkins. I'm simply saying that environmental pressures have not been proven to be the sole cause of the emergence of flight, nor can it be. There is no intelligent force behind ecological pressures. None of you have addressed the simple fact that something as difficult as flight requires compliance with certain laws. Thinking humans took thousands of years before understanding these laws and obtaining flight, and yet we're to believe that noninteligent, blind forces of nature created the most efficient flying entities we've ever seen, not just once, but on several occassions?

I am not a devotee of Dawkins. Of course environment is not the sole cause of flight emerging. THIS is why I talked about mutations that may be beneficial. Not only did nature create efficient flying systems ever seen, yet, ALSO some rather not needed components such as wings that were no longer needed. Perfect? Far from it.

Acheiving this end requires an understanding. Understanding by what? Certainly not the creature itself. It doesn't know that those nubs under its arms are going to provide flight to the future of its species. What about its genes? Genes are not conscious entities either, contrary to Dawkins' science fiction. So what else is there that could be the basis for the teleology of flight? What makes any creature purpose driven?

You think that everything happens because some intelligence thinks it should. I don't understand this reasoning. Do you think nature is perfect? I seriously don't understand what the hell you think about this.

A creature developing wings doesn't do so overnight. It takes thousands of years before wings are fully developed and flight is possible, which means for thousands of years a species is mutating to serve a particular end and it doesn't even know it. So yes, there is an obvious purpose. It is trying to get into the air for whatever reason. You mimick Dawkins and say for survival or some other benefit, but this is just speculation, it isn't proven science.

There is no end to evolution! It is trying to get into the air to survive! If it doesn't need to be in the air to survive guess what may happen? Maybe it now needs to go into the ocean to survive? Welp, lookie there - it may start going in the ocean and be a freakin' penguin.

I also am not mimicking Dawkins. I'm more interested in the nuts and bolts of evolution and I think that's where you should start. Don't think about it as atheist vs. theist. Think of it as science and go to science books, websites, and people and find out about it.

[_JohnStuartMill]

moderator edit by harmony: I think I lost part of this post. Sorry.

This has gone on too long already. Dartagnan, you are now my online moderator edit by harmony: delete personal attack.

Don't even give me that "you just don't understand evolution" cop out. I understand what evolution argues for and I agree with it at the scientific level. But on the philosophical level, evolutionary biologists propose to extend the concept of evolution to explain things not supported by science. They are taking advantage of their positions and selling naïve people damaged goods. Life has evolved, no doubt. What I don't agree with is the notion that creatures can blindly figure out how to fly. I'm not saying they didn't evolve, I'm saying no reasoning could explain how crawling creatures took flight without some preexistent intelligence guiding it. That they can blindly figure out how to form eyes to see, that they can blindly develop senses not available to humans, etc.

Then you don't agree with evolution on a scientific level, because the whole idea about evolution (in the scientific sense of the term, not just as in the definition "gradual change") is that it is mechanistic.

You can try dismissing the problem and caling me unimaginative, but I've got the authority on evolution essentially supporting my point: "‘Our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediaries in many cases has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Well sorry Gould, not so according to the armchair atheists here at Mormon discussions!

See what I did there with the italics? Gould is arguing against a specific kind of evolution by natural selection (i.e., the kind that is not guided by an intelligent force), not the whole thing altogether. (Actually, I agree with Gould more than Dawkins on this distinction between punctuated equilibria and gradualism, to which you are comically ignorant.) See how the italicized word brings it all into perspective? Here, I'll give you a similar example:

"dartagnan is not a dimwit with two purple heads."

Get it?

This doesn't solve the problem mentioned above. Unless it plugs intelligence into the equaton, it still remains unreasonable to say evolution is not guided.

[/quote] moderator edit by harmony: delete personal attack