Freedom4me, do you believe in unicorns?

(May 22, 2015 at 7:12 pm)Freedom4me Wrote: What I'm saying (hopefully in a humble way) is that living things show "teleonomy" planning, purpose, and know-how.  Just to provide a quick example, the ability of an organism to reproduce itself is one example of teleonomy.  There are other ways that teleonomy is seen in nature.

How is reproduction an example of teleonomy? No, seriously: how did you determine that there was planning and purpose in reproduction? Because so far, all you've done is assert completely without justification, that reproduction is an example of this, and that seems to be your standard method of arguing your position regarding this too; you simply demand that X, Y, and Z are examples of the thing you're trying to prove, so there. But "because I said so," is not a reason to accept your claims as true, and if we're at the level of argumentation where just saying something counts as a cogent thought, then reproduction is an example of no teleonomy, so there.

Again, we've both provided the same level of evidence; why should your claim be privileged above mine? What is the method by which you determine that something was made with purpose or intent? For that matter, how can a process like reproduction have a maker at all?

The natural laws don't prove a god or no god. They don't imply no god needed. But they do suggest that the claimed traits given to Christians god is at least partly wrong. There is no magic. That's not how the universe works.

purpose? maybe just to make anther universe.

(May 23, 2015 at 12:39 pm)Iroscato Wrote: Freedom4me, do you believe in unicorns?

If you're asking me if I believe that unicorns actually do exist, my answer is no.

---

(May 23, 2015 at 3:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(May 22, 2015 at 7:12 pm)Freedom4me Wrote: What I'm saying (hopefully in a humble way) is that living things show "teleonomy" planning, purpose, and know-how.  Just to provide a quick example, the ability of an organism to reproduce itself is one example of teleonomy.  There are other ways that teleonomy is seen in nature.

How is reproduction an example of teleonomy? No, seriously: how did you determine that there was planning and purpose in reproduction? Because so far, all you've done is assert completely without justification, that reproduction is an example of this, and that seems to be your standard method of arguing your position regarding this too; you simply demand that X, Y, and Z are examples of the thing you're trying to prove, so there. But "because I said so," is not a reason to accept your claims as true, and if we're at the level of argumentation where just saying something counts as a cogent thought, then reproduction is an example of no teleonomy, so there.

Again, we've both provided the same level of evidence; why should your claim be privileged above mine? What is the method by which you determine that something was made with purpose or intent? For that matter, how can a process like reproduction have a maker at all?

Are you serious?  Just so I understand what you're saying, is it your opinion that living things just know how make copies of themselves without any plan, purpose, or reason that directed or instructed them to do so?  

(May 23, 2015 at 9:59 pm)Freedom4me Wrote:

(May 23, 2015 at 12:39 pm)Iroscato Wrote: Freedom4me, do you believe in unicorns?

If you're asking me if I believe that unicorns actually do exist, my answer is no.

---

(May 23, 2015 at 3:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: How is reproduction an example of teleonomy? No, seriously: how did you determine that there was planning and purpose in reproduction? Because so far, all you've done is assert completely without justification, that reproduction is an example of this, and that seems to be your standard method of arguing your position regarding this too; you simply demand that X, Y, and Z are examples of the thing you're trying to prove, so there. But "because I said so," is not a reason to accept your claims as true, and if we're at the level of argumentation where just saying something counts as a cogent thought, then reproduction is an example of no teleonomy, so there.

Again, we've both provided the same level of evidence; why should your claim be privileged above mine? What is the method by which you determine that something was made with purpose or intent? For that matter, how can a process like reproduction have a maker at all?

Are you serious?  Just so I understand what you're saying, is it your opinion that living things just know how make copies of themselves without any plan, purpose, or reason that directed or instructed them to do so?  

OK, now take that non-belief in unicorns, apply it to God or gods, and you have atheism. That is literally all it is.
And no, living beings do not 'know' how to make copies of themselves. Rather, their bodies are equipped with the necessary functions to create copies, whether it be through cell division or intercourse. There is no planning needed, because DNA is able to copy itself as its primary function. Direction or instruction never come into the process.

(May 23, 2015 at 9:59 pm)Freedom4me Wrote: Are you serious?  Just so I understand what you're saying, is it your opinion that living things just know how make copies of themselves without any plan, purpose, or reason that directed or instructed them to do so?  

Living organisms don't know how to make copies of themselves (at a genetic level, obviously they know how they reproduce). However, the replication of genetic material, which is a purely chemical process no more out of the ordinary than any other, is a very well understood field of study: here's a reference source so you can learn all about it, if you want. No design, no plan, just chemicals doing what they do in accordance with the predictable and replicable behaviors of chemistry. No magic required, and that is the entirety of genetic replication and reproduction.

beat me to it...

You're assigning agency to chemicals following the laws of nature. They don't need to "know" anything, any more than a ball needs to "know" to drop to the ground when I release it. It just so happens we see patterns in the results, and the human instinct is often to apply meaning to things even when there isn't any.

I'm not sure what alternative you're suggesting, that a magic man is fucking around with stuff all the time? Putting a blob of plasticine in there? Prodding in those mutations, those genetic defects, sticking arms and legs on? Inflating the baby like a balloon animal? It's a completely unnecessary assumption that there is any outside agency. If some outside force was involved, it would only have been at the abiogenesis stage. That's one of the mysteries that is being worked on, and the answers are getting close. And none of the sensible hypotheses involve Morgan Freeman.

Our living cells are always reproducing themselves, it's just one of the properties of certain arrangements of chemicals that we call "life".

If science isn't making sense to you at the moment, you would benefit greatly from learning more about it.

I wonder what exactly people think "science" gets out of proposing evolution if it was false? It's not like we all pay a Darwin tax. Is it really just the thought that science wants to piss off religion? What a dim, childish science that would be.

It's a conspiracy I tell ya!
I've been to a secret farm where they are storing millions of crocoducks! Here's a picture if you don't believe me!