Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Diest,

Surely the point is that all ideas whether they be "scientific" or "religious" can only be evaluated in terms of "social utility". When I advocate "evolution" over "Genesis" I am makiing a statement about "best fit" for predicting or retrodicting observations. The theist can only dispute "best fit" by ad hoc arguments like "our observations are biased and illusary" or "granted to us by God" or that "prediction in this world is in God's gift and what matters is the next world". These ad hoc arguments are supercilious yet perform the social function of providing psychological security and social stability for many.

0 Replies

elequently stated. Cool

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Diest,

Surely the point is that all ideas whether they be "scientific" or "religious" can only be evaluated in terms of "social utility". When I advocate "evolution" over "Genesis" I am makiing a statement about "best fit" for predicting or retrodicting observations. The theist can only dispute "best fit" by ad hoc arguments like "our observations are biased and illusary" or "granted to us by God" or that "prediction in this world is in God's gift and what matters is the next world". These ad hoc arguments are supercilious yet perform the social function of providing psychological security and social stability for many.

I think Deist said it best:

Quote:

The point is that truth is not created but discovered. Creationism is by no intended pun created. 1+1=2 even before it was discovered, the earth orbited the sun before it was discovered. The famous n-body newtonian problem has an answer even now, but will never be solved. Truth exists beyond what we are shown or what we can readily comprehend.

Therefore, I will ask you the question: Who invented evolution?

0 Replies

Your question is a rhetorical device known as begging the question. There is no reason to assume that evolution was "invented," nor any reason to assume that there is any sentience (any "who") involved. Of course, you probably think yourself clever with that question, but you are making two a priori assumptions in asking that question.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Your question is a rhetorical device known as begging the question. There is no reason to assume that evolution was "invented," nor any reason to assume that there is any sentience (any "who") involved. Of course, you probably think yourself clever with that question, but you are making two a priori assumptions in asking that question.

"Begging the question" assumes the answer to the question - I do not, hence my (not so clever) and [definitely not rhetorical] question.

There is however plenty of reason to assume that everything that everything in existence was invented - or else the creationist's entire position is disproven.

Def. of creation: "the act of making, inventing, or producing".

My question only assumes that evolution was invented by an entity - just as everything in existence was invented by an entity. Can you disprove this? If not invented by an entity - then what/who/how?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

There is however plenty of reason to assume that everything that everything in existence was invented - or else the creationist's entire position is disproven.

Then who invented the creator of the universe? Who invented the creator of this creator?
If EVERYTHING must have been invented you have to ask those questions as well...

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
There is however plenty of reason to assume that everything that everything in existence was invented - or else the creationist's entire position is disproven.

Then who invented the creator of the universe? Who invented the creator of this creator?
If EVERYTHING must have been invented you have to ask those questions as well...

Ouch.

Quote:

Truth exists beyond what we are shown or what we can readily comprehend.

If you understand this statement then you understand that to truly seek truth you must actively challenge what you readily comprehend. Truth beyond what we undersand as it is now doesn't mean that we can only assume that everything we know to be false, such logic collapses on itself.

Again, the SCIENTIST is constantly challenging their own arguement in the persuit of the truth, or should I say more precise version of the truth.

The FAITHFUL simply convince themselves that they've seen enough to be conclusive.

0 Replies

Diest, I absolutely agree with you that we can comprehend very little.
In fact, personally, I actually believe that we can only comprehend an infinitely small amount of the ABSOLUTE.

However, I don't agree that the "inventor" is excluded from the logic of the following statement:
"There is however plenty of reason to assume that everything that everything in existence was invented - or else the creationist's entire position is disproven."

If everything was invented and God is SOMETHING (even if he's beyond human beings and our reality), he is part of EVERYTHING. As such, I simply must ask the question: who invented the inventor of everything?

Diest TKO wrote:

The FAITHFUL simply convince themselves that they've seen enough to be conclusive.

That's subjective.
Being convinced (in terms of faith) that you've seen enough (through word of mouth) is different from actually seeing/measuring enough reliable evidence.

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
There is however plenty of reason to assume that everything that everything in existence was invented - or else the creationist's entire position is disproven.

Then who invented the creator of the universe? Who invented the creator of this creator?
If EVERYTHING must have been invented you have to ask those questions as well...

Absolutely - fair is fair! :wink:

0 Replies

You're correct, if you persue the arguement of everything in existance was made, you then must follow a invention/creator relation tree backwards to singularity. Then you must assume that the tree from that point backwards forms linearly.

Many creationists, or intellegent-design adovacates propose the watch in the forrest riddle.

"If you found a watch in the middle of the forrest on a stump. would you assume it developed that way, or would you assume it was placed there?"

This riddle illustrates that latency of logic needed to perpetuate divinity.

My answer has always been the following:

"I'd assume as you would guess that it was placed there, it's far too complex to just have the parts just fall into place into a watch.

However, the watch isn't they only thing in the universe, If I only look at the watch then everythng must be created/invented. If I look up from the stump, I'm still in the woods. Could I make the same assumptioions about the trees and the animals? I can't.

If I was walking and came accross a boulder that I could concieve to be a geometrically perfect sphere, would I have to assume that someone shaped it that way? Several forces act on the rock, can it not achieve its shape without a creator's intrevetion? What if it's not a boulder, but a small pebble, still perfectly round from rolling along the bottom a stream bed for millions of years. You seen to think that it must have been created, isn't it more probable that the tiny rock is just a product of nature just like you and me? Why assume that a small round rock must be created?"

They hate that answer.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

My question only assumes that evolution was invented by an entity - just as everything in existence was invented by an entity. Can you disprove this? If not invented by an entity - then what/who/how?

You can't assume that everything in existence was invented by an entity.

And no, we can't disprove it, or prove it.

We simply don't know. As humans, we lack the philosophical and perceptual mechanisms necessary to know about things which by assumption, exceed our reality.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

"Begging the question" assumes the answer to the question - I do not, hence my (not so clever) and [definitely not rhetorical] question.

However . . .

baddog1 then wrote:

My question only assumes that evolution was invented by an entity - just as everything in existence was invented by an entity. Can you disprove this? If not invented by an entity - then what/who/how?

So, you claim you do not assume the answer, yet you assume that evolution has been "invented" by an entity. That is a classic case of begging the question. You claim to demonstrate that evolution is not a random occurrence, that it is the product of a creation--and you assume in your premise that evolution was "invented." You have begged the question.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
My question only assumes that evolution was invented by an entity - just as everything in existence was invented by an entity. Can you disprove this? If not invented by an entity - then what/who/how?

You can't assume that everything in existence was invented by an entity.

And no, we can't disprove it, or prove it.

We simply don't know. As humans, we lack the philosophical and perceptual mechanisms necessary to know about things which by assumption, exceed our reality.

I agree it's hard to believe that everything in existence was invented ros. However when one considers the definition of creation (the act of making, inventing, or producing) it is reasonable to deduce that everything was "made, invented or produced". Then further deduction would lead to who/what "made, invented or produced"...

Thoughts?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
"Begging the question" assumes the answer to the question - I do not, hence my (not so clever) and [definitely not rhetorical] question.

However . . .

baddog1 then wrote:
My question only assumes that evolution was invented by an entity - just as everything in existence was invented by an entity. Can you disprove this? If not invented by an entity - then what/who/how?

So, you claim you do not assume the answer, yet you assume that evolution has been "invented" by an entity. That is a classic case of begging the question. You claim to demonstrate that evolution is not a random occurrence, that it is the product of a creation--and you assume in your premise that evolution was "invented." You have begged the question.

You should really learn about fallacious arguments. Rolling Eyes

In order to have a fairly logical conversation/debate - it's important that all parties maintain the flow and intent of the conversation. (Even if they disagree!) With concern - I will try this one more time.

My original question was: Who invented evolution? You launched into a bunch of off-topic rhetoric that I addressed. Now you're changing my original question so as to prove your "begging the question" theory. That is not conducive to any sort of decent conversation!

Back to my original question: "Who invented evolution"? This is a literal question! It is not rhetorical, nor do I know the answer. It is very simply - a question! By deduction - I assumed that someone/something invented evolution - I did not say who - nor do I know! They are separate issues over a relative subject - at best! Shocked

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
My question only assumes that evolution was invented by an entity - just as everything in existence was invented by an entity. Can you disprove this? If not invented by an entity - then what/who/how?

You can't assume that everything in existence was invented by an entity.

And no, we can't disprove it, or prove it.

We simply don't know. As humans, we lack the philosophical and perceptual mechanisms necessary to know about things which by assumption, exceed our reality.

I agree it's hard to believe that everything in existence was invented ros. However when one considers the definition of creation (the act of making, inventing, or producing) it is reasonable to deduce that everything was "made, invented or produced". Then further deduction would lead to who/what "made, invented or produced"...

Thoughts?

I don't think you can rely on the definition of "creation/invention" to convince yourself that it's reasonable to deduce that everything was "made, invented or produced".

You simply don't know that.

For example, here's something to think about: As we currently understand things (cosmology), 'Time' itself is an aspect of our Universe which is contained within our Universe. Our Universe is a self-enclosed space-time bubble, it's not a space bubble which arose within a previously existing flow of time.

Anything which happened outside of our Universe, or before (if the concept of 'before' even has meaning outside of our Universe) it, would not necessarily have a flow of time, or even the concept of time.

The very idea of 'creating', or 'inventing' something pre-assumes that a flow of time is occuring, and we can't make that assumption. Humans don't even have the conceptual apparatus to think about conditions without a flow of time. In a logical sense, it's impossible for something to be created, or invented when there is no flow of time, so you certainly can't assume that something was created when you don't even know if conditions existed which allow for actions (as we understand them) to occur.

We have absolutely no information to work with regarding anything outside of our self-enclosed Universe. We have mathematical possibilities for M-Branes and other such constructs, but they only exist as mathematical theory, they are not testable because we can not reach outside of (or even perecive anything outside of) our Universe.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

You're correct, if you persue the arguement of everything in existance was made, you then must follow a invention/creator relation tree backwards to singularity.

That's correct, and the scientific approach can run into similar issues:
Atoms consist of this, which consists of this, consists of this, etc... Now, what does the smallest thing consist of?

The fact is that we don't have the answers when it comes to certain things... and it seems that inserting God as a middleman doesn't solve anything either: We're still stuck with the same kinds of questions.

Heres another thing:
The universe seems like a big place...
If the universe "happened", what's going to stop it from happening again "somewhere else"? In fact, what force would stop it from happening an infinite number of times?

Personally, I strongly believe in the Multiverse theory.. and as such I believe in cosmic conicidences. If there's an infinite number of universes, and no law of physics stops a specific thing from happening (no matter how complex), then I think that everything that CAN happen WILL happen. So whether life is a common occurence on many planets, or a very rare thing, it will happen somewhere... sometime...

Therefore I think that the DNA, or the first and most simple forms of life (even if they're very complex and "almost" impossible to happen), were destined to happen somewhere.

If you get the chance, please read this article, which talks about a possible explanation for "everything":
Random Reality
It's probably the most interesting and intriguing thing I've ever read. It's just a theory, but still very interesting.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
My question only assumes that evolution was invented by an entity - just as everything in existence was invented by an entity. Can you disprove this? If not invented by an entity - then what/who/how?

You can't assume that everything in existence was invented by an entity.

And no, we can't disprove it, or prove it.

We simply don't know. As humans, we lack the philosophical and perceptual mechanisms necessary to know about things which by assumption, exceed our reality.

I agree it's hard to believe that everything in existence was invented ros. However when one considers the definition of creation (the act of making, inventing, or producing) it is reasonable to deduce that everything was "made, invented or produced". Then further deduction would lead to who/what "made, invented or produced"...

Thoughts?

I don't think you can rely on the definition of "creation/invention" to convince yourself that it's reasonable to deduce that everything was "made, invented or produced".

You simply don't know that.

For example, here's something to think about: As we currently understand things (cosmology), 'Time' itself is an aspect of our Universe which is contained within our Universe. Our Universe is a self-enclosed space-time bubble, it's not a space bubble which arose within a previously existing flow of time.

Anything which happened outside of our Universe, or before (if the concept of 'before' even has meaning outside of our Universe) it, would not necessarily have a flow of time, or even the concept of time.

The very idea of 'creating', or 'inventing' something pre-assumes that a flow of time is occuring, and we can't make that assumption. Humans don't even have the conceptual apparatus to think about conditions without a flow of time. In a logical sense, it's impossible for something to be created, or invented when there is no flow of time, so you certainly can't assume that something was created when you don't even know if conditions existed which allow for actions (as we understand them) to occur.

We have absolutely no information to work with regarding anything outside of our self-enclosed Universe. We have mathematical possibilities for M-Branes and other such constructs, but they only exist as mathematical theory, they are not testable because we can not reach outside of (or even perecive anything outside of) our Universe.

I'm gonna be honest with you here. You may be 100% correct in all that you say above. However - in my chosen life, at this particular time - I must live with the facts as we know them. (Not discounting anything here ros!) Therefore - I choose to assume that all standardized definitions are correct - and react from there.

If the time comes that I'm afforded the opportunity to look beyond the scope of "normalcy" - I will jump in all the way. Until then though - I am unable to even consider "reinventing the wheel"! :wink:

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Back to my original question: "Who invented evolution"? This is a literal question!

It is literally a question which assumes, first, that evolution was "invented," and second, that someone ("who") invented evolution. Therefore, it begs the question.

Quote:

It is not rhetorical, nor do I know the answer. It is very simply - a question! By deduction - I assumed that someone/something invented evolution - I did not say who - nor do I know! They are separate issues over a relative subject - at best! (emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)

It is a question which makes two assumptions, and therefore it begs two questions.

Explain how you deduce that someone or something "invented" evolution? Your previous statement that all things are "invented" is an insufficient response, in that it constitutes a statement from authority, an authority for which no one here has any reason to assume you possess, and an authority for which you provide no substantiation.

Yes, it is tedious to discuss anything rhetorically with someone who doesn't understand logical fallacy--but i'm getting used to your lack of rhetorical skill and the bankruptcy of your points of view, it doesn't bother me.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Back to my original question: "Who invented evolution"? This is a literal question!

It is literally a question which assumes, first, that evolution was "invented," and second, that someone ("who") invented evolution. Therefore, it begs the question.

Quote:
It is not rhetorical, nor do I know the answer. It is very simply - a question! By deduction - I assumed that someone/something invented evolution - I did not say who - nor do I know! They are separate issues over a relative subject - at best! (emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)

It is a question which makes two assumptions, and therefore it begs two questions.

Explain how you deduce that someone or something "invented" evolution? Your previous statement that all things are "invented" is an insufficient response, in that it constitutes a statement from authority, an authority for which no one here has any reason to assume you possess, and an authority for which you provide no substantiation.

Yes, it is tedious to discuss anything rhetorically with someone who doesn't understand logical fallacy--but i'm getting used to your lack of rhetorical skill and the bankruptcy of your points of view, it doesn't bother me.

Have already answered each of your questions on this very post. Focus! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

I'm gonna be honest with you here. You may be 100% correct in all that you say above. However - in my chosen life, at this particular time - I must live with the facts as we know them. (Not discounting anything here ros!) Therefore - I choose to assume that all standardized definitions are correct - and react from there.

Hi Baddog,

I guess I didn't explain all that very well before. Let me see if I can shorten it up a bit.

You say you want to live with the facts as we know them, that's fine. One fact as we currently know it is that space/time as we experience it, does not extend beyond our Universe.

We don't know what's out there, maybe NO time, or maybe DIFFERENT time, but we know it's not OUR time.

It's fine if you want to use standardized definitions. I agree with that, and I use standardized definitions regularly. But standard definitions only apply WITHIN our Universe, not outside of it.

In short, based on reality as we currently understand it, you cannot reasonably assume that the Universe was created or invented.

If you're asking "who invented evolution" within our Universe, then the answer is simple, nobody did. Evolution is a structural aspect of nature itself, as much as the processes of nuclear fusion and radioactive decay.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know