Fruit giving instant knowledge of right and wrong to those who eat them (and trees bearing them) has a natural explanation

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
put it in your car in case you break down and have to buy an undersized battery, it will do more good there than on your book shelf.

I actually like reading about the things I believe for and against, if you only look
at things that agree with you are not doing yourself a service. It was a good book
to promote his beliefs about life, he did not convert me, but I understood his point
of view, or at least believe I do.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've read some Dawkin's, he starts out basically with the assumption that life is
just a like finding the right combination of a lock, given enough time you will
stumble upon the proper set of numbers and open the lock. This of course is a
huge assumption that basically starts off saying what he thinks is true is, and now
we look at what can be done aft ...[text shortened]... ll
of our books since our move so I'm not sure I could lay my hands on it right away.
Kelly

Not quite Kelly. The analogy with the lock was to show that by using accumulative selection instead of single-step selection, which is how evolution works, complexity can be built up. He demonstrated this with the computer program he made, can't remember what it was called.

Anyhow, like i said, the eye is dealt with in Climbing Mount Improbable, chapter 5. If you really want learn about that subject you now know where to look.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if truth isn't always truth then its not truth is it.

thats a rather simplistic way of looking at what can be complex. the truth can be subjective.

it is true from your way of thinking that god is good.
it is true from my way of thinking that god is bad.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Not quite Kelly. The analogy with the lock was to show that by using accumulative selection instead of single-step selection, which is how evolution works, complexity can be built up. He demonstrated this with the computer program he made, can't remember what it was called.

Anyhow, like i said, the eye is dealt with in Climbing Mount ...[text shortened]... robable, chapter 5. If you really want learn about that subject you now know where to look.

No I am telling you that if it cannot be done the way you want to describe it no
matter if it was attempted in big or little steps than all the odds you give will be
meaningless. You seem to want to say that if we do it very slowly it has to work,
well no that does not HAVE to be true and I don't believe anyone has ever shown
that to be true. If there is not random combination that will work, no matter how
many times you spin the tumblers you will not get there. Assuming it will work is
more a matter of faith than fact, telling how it may have worked is a tale that
could rivial many a fairy tale. 🙂

As far as someone WRITING a computer program to prove you don't need intel
for evolution to work, did the coder use his brain when he wrote it?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No I am telling you that if it cannot be done the way you want to describe it no
matter if it was attempted in big or little steps than all the odds you give will be
meaningless. You seem to want to say that if we do it very slowly it has to work,
well no that does not HAVE to be true and I don't believe anyone has ever shown
that to be true. If there i ...[text shortened]... don't need intel
for evolution to work, did the coder use his brain when he wrote it?
Kelly

No I am telling you that if it cannot be done the way you want to describe it no
matter if it was attempted in big or little steps than all the odds you give will be
meaningless.

Prove it.

Originally posted by sumydid
No offense to you, but this is one of the most misguided things I've ever heard. Truth is not subjective, nor will it ever be.

"Subjective truth" is an idea embraced by many Secular Progressives, and it's baffling to me that so many people embrace such a patently false claim.

Teacher: "Class, who can tell me what 2+2 equals?"

Johnny: "3!"

Teac ...[text shortened]... NO. The answer is 4 and I don't care who you are or from what angle you look at it.

johnny goes into a bakers with the intent of stealing a loaf of bread. he takes the bread and runs, before he gets out of the shop, without realizing he drops the bread. did johnny steal the bread?

man a thinks the death penalty is good for society -
man b thinks the death penalty is bad for society -

both men might could be right at the same time because they prefer the society in which there view is the reality. making it true and false based upon their subjective views.

the only thing misguided was your crappy maths analogy.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]No I am telling you that if it cannot be done the way you want to describe it no
matter if it was attempted in big or little steps than all the odds you give will be
meaningless.

Prove it.[/b]

You are asking me to prove, "if it cannot be done"
Well, I guess you got me! LOL
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are asking me to prove, "if it cannot be done"
Well, I guess you got me! LOL
Kelly

I'm asking you to explain why cumulative selection can't build complexity. That is what you are claiming right?

Originally posted by sumydid
No offense to you, but this is one of the most misguided things I've ever heard. Truth is not subjective, nor will it ever be.

"Subjective truth" is an idea embraced by many Secular Progressives, and it's baffling to me that so many people embrace such a patently false claim.

Teacher: "Class, who can tell me what 2+2 equals?"

Johnny: "3!"

Teac NO. The answer is 4 and I don't care who you are or from what angle you look at it.

Your arithmetical example is not a very challenging one since the truth in this case is a tautology. In a tautology, the mere definition is all we need to know.

There was an idea about that such simple tautologies could be accumulated, so that ultimately we had certainty about a wider and more useful range of truths but it hit a brick wall in many directions.

One was the confidence that Euclid's geometry was an example of truth. It had lasted some 2000 years (maybe a bit less) and remained a standard and unchallenged text. Kant referred to Euclid as a model and shared with other Rationalists the illusion that one could build up knowledge by means of logic and unchallenged fundamental truths.

Sadly, Euclid was toppled. There are many alternative geometries because as soon as we operate in curved space (as on the surface of a globe like the Earth) then True statements become false. Lines of Longitude, for example, can be demonstrated to be parallel lines (they all meet lines of latitude at right angles) yet they meet at the poles and parallel lines in Euclid only meet at infinity, which is not at either of the poles I assure you.

What is false in Euclid is not the logic, which is superb, but the axioms, one of which has to be altered in order to permit geometry to be done in the real world instead of the abstract one he described.

So when you assert that there is such a thing as a certain Truth, or objective truth, you are not going to be able to sustain that confidence under proper scrutiny. At best, as with Euclid, you can only sustain any truth on the basis of some prior assumptions or axioms whose relevance is therefore restricted to a very small part of the universe. In other words, the only truth is a subjective one since the truth applies only within the confines of your stated assumptions (at best).

Now you may still take the position Plato did and say that while we mortals may never identify a certain truth, yet there is an ideal concept of Truth which is intelligible and for which we can state the conditions, including the condition that it is always and inevitably true. This Truth concept is the ideal standard against which we evaluate our attempts at truth. What you cannot do - it has been tried many times - is establish a connection between that fantasy conceptual Truth and any possible true statement.

In Maths the search was brought to its nearest state of perfection by Russell and Whitehead and brought to a shuddering a halt by Godel.

Since Plato it has become fashionable to identify ideal Truth with God. Here we enter the ontological argument for God - another discussion perhaps. What matters is that it is another example of confusion between a fantasy and a reality.

Having said all that, Mathematics does successfully say many things within the parameters of its axioms. Indeed, Penrose has pondered that sometime we discover stuff about the universe in pure mathematics before we discover that this has accurate and correct applications to describe features of the universe. It is as though the maths comes before the reality which is spooky. Since you show by your example that you certainly place a lot of weight upon the evidence afforded through mathematics, then you will be delighted to note that most of the real scientific work in cosmology is done by mathematicians, with practical observation lagging behind. Jocelyn Bell found Pulsars by examining the data from observations, for which insight her supervisor got a Nobel Prize which was not shared with her, but Black Holes were predicted mathematically before they were identified by observation. You should therefore find this compelling, maybe not in preference to the words of the Old Testament but certainly alongside them and perhaps permitting some room for an open mind.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm asking you to explain why cumulative selection can't build complexity. That is what you are claiming right?

How is the selecting being done? Is there intelligence behind it? Is it random?

Originally posted by RJHinds
How is the selecting being done? Is there intelligence behind it? Is it random?

Selection is not random.

Random differences are easily demonstrated to exist - eg we all differ in height and weight and so forth and our differences are random, but within a range. Those differences become important when they affect our chances of reproducing successfully.

The selecting is done by the environment, especially because this is changing significantly over time. It operates selectively because some variants do better, and some less well, as the environment changes. Again the environmental changes are effectively random, always within the range of what is physically possible, but their selective effect is not random. It is very direct. Some individuals fail to reproduce. Others succeed.

Intelligence does not enter into this at any point.

Originally posted by finnegan
Selection is not random.

Random differences are easily demonstrated to exist - eg we all differ in height and weight and so forth and our differences are random, but within a range. Those differences become important when they affect our chances of reproducing successfully.

The selecting is done by the environment, especially because this is changi ...[text shortened]... duals fail to reproduce. Others succeed.

Intelligence does not enter into this at any point.

you likely meant to say intelligent design doesn't enter into this at any point. whatever the case, it's likely not an accurate statement.

Originally posted by finnegan
Selection is not random.

Random differences are easily demonstrated to exist - eg we all differ in height and weight and so forth and our differences are random, but within a range. Those differences become important when they affect our chances of reproducing successfully.

The selecting is done by the environment, especially because this is changi ...[text shortened]... duals fail to reproduce. Others succeed.

Intelligence does not enter into this at any point.

How did the physical laws come into being. Were they guided by intelligence or randomness?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm asking you to explain why cumulative selection can't build complexity. That is what you are claiming right?

If life cannot be started due to the specific nature of what is required, if you move
in little or large steps it is meaningless. You start off suggesting it can be done and
apply odds as if you know it to be true. I'm all for building complexity in small
steps, every program/script I've ever wrote was done that way.
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
How did the physical laws come into being. Were they guided by intelligence or randomness?

how do you think they came into being?