Disturbing Passage from The Bible

01/17/2007 06:03:23 PM · #726

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by Flash:
You stated that "its accepted that man is predisposed to heirarchy". From this it is logical to conclude that the highest form on the heirarchy is God - at least that is historically his place.

It is spurious logic.

Proposition A. Man is predisposed to hierarchy.
Conclusion 1. God is the highest form of hierarchy.

The proposition is not supporting your conclusion. If we accept Proposition A, it does not lead necessarily to Conclusion 1. For one thing, youâ��ve need another proposition, such as Proposition B) God exists. That would get you closer to your goal of Conclusion 1, but we donâ��t agree on Proposition B and it is not a given. However, youâ��ve skipped ahead in your argument to take your Conclusion 1 as a proposition in your next series of arguments.

Proposition C. God is the highest form of hierarchy.
Proposition D. Man is predisposed to hierarchy.
Conclusion 2. God exists.

You need to better support Conclusion 1 before you can use it as Proposition C.

This is the most helpful reply to any of my posts so far. Much appreciate your depiction of how you view my argument.

Let me begin at the end and work backwards and see if then when coming forward it makes more "logical" sense.

For those who believe in God, God historically is at the highest point of the heirarchy. I know of no believers who place any entity higher than God nor am I aware of any throughout history.

For those who do not believe in God, then God cannot be at the top of the heirarchy. But something must be or there would be no heirarchy.

For those who do not believe in God, then it is unlikely that they would believe in angels or spirits or other unseen entities, so ther would exist nothing to be higher on the heirarchy than them. unless of course they claimed some animal to be higher, but that is non-sense.

Since Heirarchies exist (Louis's "given") then either God is at the top of the heirarchy or man is. For believers it is God. For non-believers it is man.

This is so straight forward that I cannot grasp how one could see it any differently.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

01/17/2007 06:16:29 PM · #727

Originally posted by Flash:

For those who do not believe in God, then God cannot be at the top of the heirarchy. But something must be or there would be no heirarchy.

I think that you identify the issue: there is no 'order' or 'hierarchy' except the one that you invent solely for the purpose of positioning your 'god'.

David Ey

Nikon D80

01/17/2007 08:25:06 PM · #728

Oh, but there is order. There is order in everything and when that order goes amiss bad things happen. Just think what happens when genes get messed up....all sorts of problems rear their ugly head....sometimes there may be even two heads...or no arms...or co-joined...etc. Science, mathematics and creation all go hand in hand whether you want to accept it or not.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/17/2007 08:47:30 PM · #729

Originally posted by David Ey:

If there were order then genetic disorders would not happen. We would have no conjoined twins.

Nietzsche said "Out of Chaos Comes Order" :-P

I agree that Science, mathematics and creation go together and I am kinda digging on M-Theory.

Message edited by author 2007-01-17 20:48:23.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/17/2007 09:30:31 PM · #730

Originally posted by David Ey:

Science, mathematics and creation all go hand in hand whether you want to accept it or not.

This sort of thing is the end of all argument. It contains no logic, no supportive evidence, no facts, and makes no room for interpretation or debate. This is a non-argument, and can never be part of a true discourse.

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

01/17/2007 10:19:54 PM · #731

Well, it is really pretty simple if you think about it. Which would you say would be the hardest to build, a human brain or a computer? Which is more complex, more mysterious and still has many features we don't understand how works? I'd say the computer is far simpler. I wonder why a computer didn't just wash up out of the sea, maybe just a TRS80, but never the less a (poof) computer with all its magic silicone. It's because it had a creator, same as our universe and that wonderful little brain of ours. Now, the wind has blown through the forests for quite a long time. How much longer do you figure it will be before it blows some of those trees into the shape of a house? I'd bet it ain't gonna happen.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/17/2007 10:23:01 PM · #732

Chicken or the egg...the paradox is a bitch :-P

01/17/2007 11:58:06 PM · #733

Originally posted by David Ey:

I wonder why a computer didn't just wash up out of the sea, maybe just a TRS80, but never the less a (poof) computer with all its magic silicone. It's because it had a creator, same as our universe and that wonderful little brain of ours.

...or maybe it's because metallic, silicon-based life forms don't grow in the sea. Your ignorance of the processes you downplay is jaw dropping. Computers aren't living things that reproduce and evolve, and there is no survival benefit for trees to assume the shape of a house. The only one claiming that computers magically appeared is you... in the form of created human brains (poof). If you asked which is more complex, a computer or the brain of the earliest single-cell animal, which in turn led to increasingly complex organisms over the course of billions of years, I'd go with the computer.

01/18/2007 06:49:48 AM · #734

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by Flash:

For those who do not believe in God, then God cannot be at the top of the heirarchy. But something must be or there would be no heirarchy.

I think that you identify the issue: there is no 'order' or 'hierarchy' except the one that you invent solely for the purpose of positioning your 'god'.

I'm not sure I understand your post. We agreed (I thought) earlier [page 28 or 29] that man was predisposed to a heirarchy (Louis posted that it was a "given"). Given that, then something must be at the top of the heirarchy for both believers and non-believers.

If you are now claiming that man is not disposed to a heirarchy, then please clarify.

sp

Message edited by author 2007-01-18 06:54:16.

01/18/2007 07:00:34 AM · #735

Originally posted by scalvert:

...the brain of the earliest single-cell animal, which in turn led to increasingly complex organisms over the course of billions of years...

For evolutionists, do I understand the position to be that life began as a single cell organism and evolved into what we know as life today?

If life began as a single cell organism, where did it come from?

How do you explain that some members of species changed and others stayed as members of that species?

If evolution was a linear process from a single cell, then why hasn't all life linearly progressed?

01/18/2007 07:23:10 AM · #736

I thought this morning of an interesting way to use an existing analogy of RonB's (used in the More from Gore thread).

Originally posted by RonB:

"If the map and the road do not agree...trust the road"

I thought about how this old saying might apply to this debate. From my point of view, it looks like this.

There are many maps created by many mapmakers. Each map outlines a path. The maps tend to outline a single road to a desirable destination, but beset by wrong turns that will end disastrously.

Each map is headed with the words "This is the one true road. Other map makers will try to fool you into taking a different path, but do not believe them."

The maps are all different, but some paths cross, or even follow the same route for a short while. Some roads are very short, and the maps almost new. Other maps show thousands of miles of preceding terrain, and the oldest maps (showing the path for many thousands of preceding miles) are almost invisible with age.

Followers choose one map from this book of thousands. Often, they will barely glance at any other map before determining it to be correct. This is often because the surrounding crowd is following their map, or because that person is told or persuaded by parents or friends that it is the correct map.

Followers of each map will be reassured that their map must be the correct map for various reasons, including the fact that stories will be passed down from previous followers of the accuracy of the map for thousands of miles past, the map is followed by many, and the fact that their map "feels right".

People help each other along their various paths, but followers of one path will tend to help followers of the same or similar maps. There are some people that they will not help at all, and some people will fight over which map is the correct one.

Sometimes, the road is littered with evidence that contradicts any particular map. For example, cars with odometers showing 100,000 miles travelled, when a map quite clearly indicates that the road is a one way street only 5,000 miles long. However, followers can rationalise these things (they are probably deceptions placed by other map makers).

However, if those people were to open their eyes they would realise that there are no roads, only people moving in different directions around a large open landscape. There are people who like to make maps, and maps help others make sense of the large unending landscape. Any map, if followed, "feels right". At the end of their lives, people simply stop travelling whatever path they have chosen for themselves. It would be a much better place if all those people realised that people are not restricted to one or other map or road and if they all helped each other.

01/18/2007 09:00:25 AM · #737

Originally posted by Flash:

If life began as a single cell organism, where did it come from?

I don't know... but as with any other mysterious phenomenon (gravity, magnetism, lightning, auroras, etc.) lack of understanding does not eliminate the possibility that a natural mechanism exists. We may very well answer that question within my lifetime.

Originally posted by Flash:

How do you explain that some members of species changed and others stayed as members of that species?

Because species don't HAVE to change. If an animal can find food, keep itself safe and reproduce in its current form, then there's little need to change.

Originally posted by Flash:

If evolution was a linear process from a single cell, then why hasn't all life linearly progressed?

It's not linear. It's a random, chaotic process. If it were linear, then flu vaccines would be a cinch.

01/18/2007 09:04:10 AM · #738

Originally posted by Flash:

I think that this is the quote that you are referring to.

Originally posted by Louis:

It's accepted that humanity is predisposed to forming hierarchies and observing the universe in terms of hierarchy. It doesn't further the discussion to argue points already accepted. If you would like to argue the first point, then your entire argument falls apart right off the bat.

First, while Louis may have accepted that humanity is predisposed towards forming hierarchies, then that does not mean that there is a fundamental or absolute hierarchy: merely that we form them for our own purposes.

Our rankings are arbitrary and useful to us for certain purposes (eg in determining who to obey), but do not represent any greater truth. An example might be the order of the planets: you could order them in terms of size, or heat, or speed, or extent of biological life, or proximity to the sun, or richness in plutonium. They would all be different orders - we think in terms of hierarchy and order, but that hierarchy does not exist independently.

To take your example, I might rank everything in terms of visibility in the visible spectrum. Even if you believed in him, god should come right down at the bottom. This does not prove that god does not exist, any more than your placing him at the top of your hierarchy is evidence for his existence.

Secondly, I believe that Louis was accepting the first proposition in order to discuss deeper problems with the logic - not accepting it as a matter of fact.

01/18/2007 09:06:39 AM · #739

Originally posted by scalvert:

It's not linear. It's a random, chaotic process. If it were linear, then flu vaccines would be a cinch.

There is a strong line of reasoning that evolution is not random or chaotic, but probable (once life is established).

01/18/2007 09:57:49 AM · #740

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by scalvert:
It's not linear. It's a random, chaotic process. If it were linear, then flu vaccines would be a cinch.

There is a strong line of reasoning that evolution is not random or chaotic, but probable (once life is established).

I was referring to the actual mechanism of natural selection, not whether it is likely. There is no way to predict a particular adaptation that leads to a more successful species. Let's assume that thicker hair helps an animal to survive in cold weather. In a population of animals, some may be born with slightly thicker hair and some slightly thinner, a few might even have dramatically thicker hair. If the climate doesn't change and food is readily available, then there may no real advantage to thicker hair. Indeed it may be a DISadvantage if it leads to overheating. You might also have a population with widely varying hair thickness that has little effect on survival until something happens to weed out a particular trait. If, for example, the climate becomes colder or food sources become more limited in warm areas, then animals with thicker hair will tend to have an advantage and be more likely to survive and reproduce. From the next generation, those with even thicker hair will tend to have an even greater advantage and continue the trend until an economical balance is achieved between warmth and the ability to find food.

What makes this so unpredictable and chaotic is that an animal that happens to be born with dramatically thicker hair might have a huge advantage during a sudden climate shift (say after an asteroid strike or series of volcanic eruptions), but it could also slow the animal down and make him easier prey or maybe a virus or storm kills him before he can reproduce. In that case, the animal couldn't pass this feature on to future generations and the trait might not be successful until a "luckier" animal is born with this feature and/or after predators have succumbed to the cold. If only one animal has this feature and the gene is recessive, then it may still fail to be passed along. If the climate change is rapid and no animals are born with thick enough hair or the ability to find a warmer environment, then the entire species could die off, too. The climate could also shift back to a warmer trend and eliminate the advantage. Maybe another animal develops the ability to "fluff" his hair a little to provide variable insulation. After billions of years of this dance of chance, we see only the successes... extremes that have developed from far simpler adaptations that happened to appear at the right time and place to make a difference.

01/18/2007 10:02:46 AM · #741

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
How do you explain that some members of species changed and others stayed as members of that species?

Because species don't HAVE to change. If an animal can find food, keep itself safe and reproduce in its current form, then there's little need to change.

I would add that variety is promoted by the variety of environments (themselves changing) found on this planet.

Polar bears are different to black bears because they moved into and adapted to a polar climate. Over time, they may look very different (if they survive that long).

Interestingly, you can observe "chains" of species in neighbouring environments (eg microclimates in mountainous regions) where each has undergone an environmental shift. Neighbouring species may be able to produce offspring together, demonstrating their genetic proximity. In some places, the chain loops around and the species at two ends of a chain are neighbours, but the intervening differences make them incompatible as mates.

01/18/2007 10:06:15 AM · #742

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by scalvert:
It's not linear. It's a random, chaotic process. If it were linear, then flu vaccines would be a cinch.

There is a strong line of reasoning that evolution is not random or chaotic, but probable (once life is established).

I was referring to the actual mechanism of natural selection, ...

yes - I thought you meant it in this context, but it is an easy swipe for someone to come along and say "what are the chances of xyz happening" in a chaotic environment - actually, the odds are very good, but it is easy to mistake the random elements in the process with the result.

01/18/2007 12:47:54 PM · #743

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
If life began as a single cell organism, where did it come from?

I don't know... but as with any other mysterious phenomenon (gravity, magnetism, lightning, auroras, etc.) lack of understanding does not eliminate the possibility that a natural mechanism exists. We may very well answer that question within my lifetime.

Originally posted by Flash:
How do you explain that some members of species changed and others stayed as members of that species?

Because species don't HAVE to change. If an animal can find food, keep itself safe and reproduce in its current form, then there's little need to change.

Originally posted by Flash:
If evolution was a linear process from a single cell, then why hasn't all life linearly progressed?

It's not linear. It's a random, chaotic process. If it were linear, then flu vaccines would be a cinch.

What I read here is that man evolved from a single cell organism due to a need for the single cell organism to survive. Billions of years of random variation, with survival as the catalyst, resulted in all species and man.

Yes? No?

01/18/2007 12:50:28 PM · #744

Originally posted by Flash:

In a teeny, tiny nutshell... yes.

01/18/2007 12:53:03 PM · #745

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
What I read here is that man evolved from a single cell organism due to a need for the single cell organism to survive. Billions of years of random variation, with survival as the catalyst, resulted in all species and man.

Yes? No?

In a teeny, tiny nutshell... yes.

Thanks.

In the beginning was there one or more than one single cell?

01/18/2007 12:54:58 PM · #746

Originally posted by Flash:

In the beginning was there one or more than one single cell?

Most likely one. Note that you personally began as a single cell too. ;-)

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/18/2007 01:05:05 PM · #747

Originally posted by scalvert:

Most likely one. Note that you personally began as a single cell too. ;-)

I don't remember ;-}

However I concur that life begins as a fertilization of an egg cell by a sperm cell. (I am not claiming that life begins AT fertilization - [although many would] - only that life begins as a cell/s).

The origin of one cell generated all known life, based on the survival of the first cell that became multiple cells, some of who died off and were forced to adapt/change, which resulted in larger life forms, ever more adept at surviving their particular enviornment.

If this is true, then we are merely a leg on the evolution ladder and will adapt/change to our enviornment as it mandates in the future.

Yes? No?

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/18/2007 01:07:09 PM · #748

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
In the beginning was there one or more than one single cell?

Most likely one. Note that you personally began as a single cell too. ;-)

Not really the whole truth. The single cell wasn't the beginning of "HE". Before the single cell that became "HE", there were TWO cells - two haploid cells that were created by a process of meiosis, not mitosis. When they joined, a diploid cell was formed - it was that diploid cell that became "HE".

Louis

Nikon D800

01/18/2007 01:16:25 PM · #749

Originally posted by Flash:

[quote=scalvert]The origin of one cell generated all known life, based on the survival of the first cell that became multiple cells, some of who died off and were forced to adapt/change, which resulted in larger life forms, ever more adept at surviving their particular enviornment.

I am not adept enough at evolutionary theory to determine whether or not this fits the theory of the origin of life, but I would say that it is not a given that one cell generated all known life, or that this was the singular original "cell" from which other cells emerged. It seems perfectly reasonable to theorize that some kind of "proto-cell" or grouping of cells or chemicals or other material was the genesis of some kind of community of organisms that ultimately organized into multi-celled beings. So I would tread this "single cell" theory carefully, unless someone knows the facts of the theorem.