Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The highly optimized genetic code

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Our actions have been objectively determined to be deterministic.
    So you had no choice but to post this?

    Brings to question the degree of validity of our reason since there are so many different conflicting ways people think they can get to know the Creator.
    Which doesn't exclude the possibility that one way is valid.

    No, it is the history of the success and reliability of human reasoning in the real world. Humans are very very successful reasoning and intelligent species. To question the validity and reliability of human reasoning would question God's existence as the Creator.
    I don't question the validity of reason, I only insist that an argument for the validity of reason must assume the validity of reason in order to make the argument--which is circular.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      Well, the primate genomes are far enough apart that I think Behe would attribute new genes and so on to design.
      He doesn't. He accepts common descent for primates. He explicitly defines things as requiring design at the family level.

      You've even mentioned this in the past. You just argue for the sake of argument, and can't even be bothered to remember your own ones, and disavow the people you lean on whenever you think it's convenient and forget what they said.

      You show no respect for anyone here.

      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      And I'm not that familiar with new genes in Drosophila,
      Yes, you are, because you've quoted back a reference i gave you in a different discussion. You apparently can't remember.

      As a result, everything after this point is a giant irrelevancy, because it ignores most cases of new genes within the Drosophila lineage. Nice show.
      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        Because that destroys the basis of the validity of thought.
        How so?

        Well, why not? If our actions are not determined for us, then they are not the result of natural processes.[/quote]
        Science can't assume (or conclude) that anything is supernatural.

        And I believe there is a Creator who has revealed himself as trustworthy. And again, the other options only lead to insanity.

        No, I start with the validity of reason as a first principle. Proofs of the validity of reason are circular.

        This sounds like you are also making the validity of reason be a first principle, how can we interpret our experiences except by using reason?

        Well, we certainly didn't give ourselves that ability! And if reason can't come from non-reason, then we have to invoke an agent outside ourselves.
        Okay, we'll phrase it your way. The validity of reason is a first principle.

        Now you only have to prove that determinism destroys the basis of the validity of thought, and that reason can't come from non-reason, and we'll have complete agreement.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
          He doesn't. He accepts common descent for primates. He explicitly defines things as requiring design at the family level.
          Just to be clear, there are multiple families within primates, but you can definitely do an analysis within the hominids, for example.
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            So you had no choice but to post this?


            Which doesn't exclude the possibility that one way is valid.


            I don't question the validity of reason, I only insist that an argument for the validity of reason must assume the validity of reason in order to make the argument--which is circular.

            Blessings,
            Lee
            This does not make sense.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Stoic View Post
              How so?
              If we are robotic machines, created by random and mindless processes, then there is no reason to trust our reason.

              Science can't assume (or conclude) that anything is supernatural.
              Well, if something is not a result of natural processes, then the conclusion is the supernatural. Thus science can help determine if a result is due to natural processes.

              Okay, we'll phrase it your way. The validity of reason is a first principle.
              Alrighty...

              Now you only have to prove that determinism destroys the basis of the validity of thought, and that reason can't come from non-reason, and we'll have complete agreement.
              If mindless machinery determines my thoughts, then I have no reason to suppose my thoughts to be trustworthy. We have to break that connection for human reason to be valid.

              Blessings,
              Lee
              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                If we are robotic machines, created by random and mindless processes, then there is no reason to trust our reason.
                Did you forget that the validity of reason is a first principle?

                Well, if something is not a result of natural processes, then the conclusion is the supernatural. Thus science can help determine if a result is due to natural processes.
                You can't determine whether a result is due to natural processes when you start by assuming that everything is due to natural processes (which science does).

                Alrighty...

                If mindless machinery determines my thoughts, then I have no reason to suppose my thoughts to be trustworthy. We have to break that connection for human reason to be valid.
                Again, did you forget that the validity of reason is a first principle?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                  Did you forget that the validity of reason is a first principle?
                  Well, I'm arguing for the invalidity of non-reason, a rather different matter, after starting from the validity of reason.

                  You can't determine whether a result is due to natural processes when you start by assuming that everything is due to natural processes (which science does).
                  I submit that it is incorrect to assume that everything is due to natural processes (such as our thoughts).

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    Well, I'm arguing for the invalidity of non-reason, a rather different matter, after starting from the validity of reason.
                    The validity of human reasoning is based on the nature of humans are, and not your selective speculation to justify a Creationist Agenda.


                    I submit that it is incorrect to assume that everything is due to natural processes (such as our thoughts).

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    Submit all you want there is evidence of any other causes other than natural causes.

                    What 'objective verifiable evidence can you provide for any other cause?
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Well, I'm arguing for the invalidity of non-reason, a rather different matter, after starting from the validity of reason.


                      I submit that it is incorrect to assume that everything is due to natural processes (such as our thoughts).

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      Lee, I think you are confused about this ''we cannot trust human reason if it doesn't have origin in God'' stuff. I will try to clarify.

                      You are just commiting here a genetic fallacy. Which is the incorrect inference that the value or qualities of something originates from the process that gave it its origin or because of that which preceded it. An example would be concluding astronomy is false because the study of stars was at first driven by supertisions. Or discriminate somebody for having illiterate parents or a criminal grand-grandfather. Indeed, it seems to be one of the main arguments of religions.

                      The answer to this problem is obvious. It's fallacious to conclude that we can't have moral values just because the process which gave us our origin didn't have them, or that we can't be rational just because we weren't created by an intelligent being. These are completely different things. We can be rational indepentendly of the process which gave us our origin. We just have to have that skill (reason), which almost all people do, and actually make use of it (which just a few do, sadly).

                      Therefore it's invalid to conclude our reason can't be trusted just because we came from some type of primate or because God didn't create us. Genetic fallacy, pure and simple.

                      Comment

                      Related Threads

                      Collapse

                      Topics Statistics Last Post
                      Started by TheLurch, 04-13-2021, 02:25 PM
                      7 responses
                      49 views
                      1 like
                      Last Post TheLurch  
                      Started by rogue06, 04-13-2021, 08:52 AM
                      1 response
                      37 views
                      1 like
                      Last Post shunyadragon  
                      Started by shunyadragon, 04-11-2021, 06:59 AM
                      0 responses
                      15 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post shunyadragon  
                      Started by Sparko, 04-09-2021, 07:35 AM
                      4 responses
                      24 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Sparko
                      by Sparko
                       
                      Started by rogue06, 04-05-2021, 08:45 AM
                      9 responses
                      62 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post rogue06
                      by rogue06
                       
                      Working...
                      X