So...Today I will start out by answering my own post. Really the answer was so simple I am surprised nobody here provided it (or that I just didn't think it through more to begin with...but my lack of thinking it through did get things going, which is always fun).
To rj:
While it is true we have those chemicals here, their presence to the exclusion of all the others may mean that life formed from some pathway that includes those chemicals. So it is a clue that points to using those chemicals for experimentation. That is what I got out of the article and, therefore, saw no reason to respond.
rj:
Fair point. I wish I had thought of it before.
Sorry, Min, for being so snarky in my original post in this thread.
To Thumpalumpacus:
No. I was complaining that nobody was answering my original question. I was merely stating what was happening instead of someone answering my question.
Look, I have been called names before. No biggie. If it makes anyone here feel better about themselves to call me names (which seems to be the case with some...such as Brian and Min)...have at it.
No, I don't and I know a lot of others don't either. I was against that sort of thing even before I was a Christian. But that is not the point.
From a naturalistic point of view, where does this come from? Again, is it just from chemical reactions in the brain?
Remember, while we may think it is wrong to do these things, others do not and, therefore, do such things. Is it "wrong" objectively for them to do such things or is it merely "wrong" for them to do it from the point of view of the victim? If it is the former, then we must ask where the objective standard comes from. If it is the latter, then it is just one person's opinion vs. another's regarding right and wrong, in which case either party would be free to ignore the other. Too bad for the victims and good for the perpetrator.
To Brian:
I am well aware of how cops catch criminals but I still think you are mixing things up a bit.
Yes, cops gather the evidence (the facts...for this explanation let's take the assumption that everyone agrees on these...not always the case irl), e.g., the fingerprints, blood, DNA, etc. Then a prosecutor looks at it and comes up with a scenario that is consistent with those facts and if that scenario points to a particular person, they decide to prosecute. Then the defense attorney looks at the same evidence and comes up with an alternate scenario that is consistent with those same facts but points away from the defendant. Both present their cases to the jury which then decides using a probabalistic standard (depending on the crime) whether the prosecutor's scenario meets the standard, e.g., more likely than not, beyond reasonable doubt. Those scenarios are not established as fact.
Likewise, we both agree that DNA exists, there are similarities in the DNA of living organisms, and there are fossils (of course there are a lot more facts that we would agree on). Evolution is a scenario that explains all of this in a naturalistic way. Creation is a scenario that explains all of this in a supernatural way. But even if one chooses to believe the naturalistic explanation, there are choices, different scenarios, e.g., common descent from a single organism, common descent from multiple separately formed organisms, punctuated equilibrium. Which one of them is the "fact" and which is not. Me...I don't think any such scenario, including the creation ones, can be established as scientific fact. For if you take common descent from a single organism as fact, those who argue for common descent from multiple organisms would certainly have something to say about it, and vice versa. And, yes, I would make the same argument regarding the various creation models.
Now, I think presuppositional apologetics or the transcendental argument for the existence of God are better than an evidentiary approach as they are better at accounting for the non-material concepts such as knowledge, morals, and logic. But even looking at an evidentiary approach, I would still conclude that a naturalistic explanation has not even reached the point of more likely than not. A naturalistic explanation of our existence seems to require life coming from non-life. Even taking the simplest replicating single cell creature, this means that all the various proteins, enzymes, DNA, RNA, lipid bilayer for the cell membrane would have to randomly form separately, come together in such a way that the various machinery inside the cell is spontaneously formed, not be destroyed before the bilayer can surround it, and then be in an environment such that it is not destroyed itself before it can replicate. And then one can look at the protein issue and notice that all life is made up of exclusively L-amino acids in the proteins, no D-amino acids. So now we also need a naturalistic mechanism by which only L-amino acids are present to form the proteins needed for replication, and the amino acids need to come together in a certain order to produce the specific functions required for replication. Then there is the DNA and RNA which also has to be in specific orders and given that RNA is volatile (easily destroyed by things such as UV radiation) it has to somehow be protected enough to survive the combination. Then, even given a single cell, the evolution from that to any organism that requires male/female to replicate has enormous issues because a male and female have to evolve separately but be close enough together so as no not die before they mate.
The fact is, I could probably grant you a 13 billion light year radius filled with DNA or L-amino acids and 13 billion years and the probability of all the proteins/DNA needed for the simplest known form of replication to form would not come anywhere close to a more likely than not standard.
Sure, you might argue: Well we have life so the probability is 1. That is not a satisfactory answer unless one only accepts naturalistic explanations. But then you are begging the question regarding the existence of God or merely presupposing that God does not exists. The first, of course, is a logical fallacy. I don't know what you think about the second as I know a lot of you here seem to limit things to scientific evidence (which presupposing does not address) or have not even thought about what you own presuppositions really are.
Anyway, these are some of the reasons why I object to your characterization of evolution as scientific fact.
To rj:
While it is true we have those chemicals here, their presence to the exclusion of all the others may mean that life formed from some pathway that includes those chemicals. So it is a clue that points to using those chemicals for experimentation. That is what I got out of the article and, therefore, saw no reason to respond.
rj:
Fair point. I wish I had thought of it before.
Sorry, Min, for being so snarky in my original post in this thread.
To Thumpalumpacus:
Quote:YOu were complaining about being insulted
No. I was complaining that nobody was answering my original question. I was merely stating what was happening instead of someone answering my question.
Look, I have been called names before. No biggie. If it makes anyone here feel better about themselves to call me names (which seems to be the case with some...such as Brian and Min)...have at it.
Quote:Wait, you have to be told that stealing and kicking people in the teeth is wrong? What the fuck?
Me, I reckon they're wrong out of my sense of empathy. I've had that shit done to me, I didn't like it, and I'm deeply uncomfortable doing those things for that reason.
Empathy. Do you really need to be told not to lie, cheat, or steal?
No, I don't and I know a lot of others don't either. I was against that sort of thing even before I was a Christian. But that is not the point.
From a naturalistic point of view, where does this come from? Again, is it just from chemical reactions in the brain?
Remember, while we may think it is wrong to do these things, others do not and, therefore, do such things. Is it "wrong" objectively for them to do such things or is it merely "wrong" for them to do it from the point of view of the victim? If it is the former, then we must ask where the objective standard comes from. If it is the latter, then it is just one person's opinion vs. another's regarding right and wrong, in which case either party would be free to ignore the other. Too bad for the victims and good for the perpetrator.
To Brian:
Quote:First off you moron, you DON'T have to be a witness to the past to figure things out. How the fuck do you think cops catch murderers? It is very rare law enforcement witnesses a crime when it happens. They get called after the fact and find GASP clues you fucking idiot!
Fingerprints, blood, DNA, computer searches, weapons, cell phone records ect ect.
Evolution is proven fact in much the same way because of DNA and fossil findings.
Even out side of evolution, we also know the age of the universe using the same principles a traffic cop uses AFTER they arrive at the scene of a car crash they DID NOT WITNESS, and that principle is FUCKING MATH. They can figure out who was at fault using basic measurement and interviews of those involved, without having seen it live.
I am well aware of how cops catch criminals but I still think you are mixing things up a bit.
Yes, cops gather the evidence (the facts...for this explanation let's take the assumption that everyone agrees on these...not always the case irl), e.g., the fingerprints, blood, DNA, etc. Then a prosecutor looks at it and comes up with a scenario that is consistent with those facts and if that scenario points to a particular person, they decide to prosecute. Then the defense attorney looks at the same evidence and comes up with an alternate scenario that is consistent with those same facts but points away from the defendant. Both present their cases to the jury which then decides using a probabalistic standard (depending on the crime) whether the prosecutor's scenario meets the standard, e.g., more likely than not, beyond reasonable doubt. Those scenarios are not established as fact.
Likewise, we both agree that DNA exists, there are similarities in the DNA of living organisms, and there are fossils (of course there are a lot more facts that we would agree on). Evolution is a scenario that explains all of this in a naturalistic way. Creation is a scenario that explains all of this in a supernatural way. But even if one chooses to believe the naturalistic explanation, there are choices, different scenarios, e.g., common descent from a single organism, common descent from multiple separately formed organisms, punctuated equilibrium. Which one of them is the "fact" and which is not. Me...I don't think any such scenario, including the creation ones, can be established as scientific fact. For if you take common descent from a single organism as fact, those who argue for common descent from multiple organisms would certainly have something to say about it, and vice versa. And, yes, I would make the same argument regarding the various creation models.
Now, I think presuppositional apologetics or the transcendental argument for the existence of God are better than an evidentiary approach as they are better at accounting for the non-material concepts such as knowledge, morals, and logic. But even looking at an evidentiary approach, I would still conclude that a naturalistic explanation has not even reached the point of more likely than not. A naturalistic explanation of our existence seems to require life coming from non-life. Even taking the simplest replicating single cell creature, this means that all the various proteins, enzymes, DNA, RNA, lipid bilayer for the cell membrane would have to randomly form separately, come together in such a way that the various machinery inside the cell is spontaneously formed, not be destroyed before the bilayer can surround it, and then be in an environment such that it is not destroyed itself before it can replicate. And then one can look at the protein issue and notice that all life is made up of exclusively L-amino acids in the proteins, no D-amino acids. So now we also need a naturalistic mechanism by which only L-amino acids are present to form the proteins needed for replication, and the amino acids need to come together in a certain order to produce the specific functions required for replication. Then there is the DNA and RNA which also has to be in specific orders and given that RNA is volatile (easily destroyed by things such as UV radiation) it has to somehow be protected enough to survive the combination. Then, even given a single cell, the evolution from that to any organism that requires male/female to replicate has enormous issues because a male and female have to evolve separately but be close enough together so as no not die before they mate.
The fact is, I could probably grant you a 13 billion light year radius filled with DNA or L-amino acids and 13 billion years and the probability of all the proteins/DNA needed for the simplest known form of replication to form would not come anywhere close to a more likely than not standard.
Sure, you might argue: Well we have life so the probability is 1. That is not a satisfactory answer unless one only accepts naturalistic explanations. But then you are begging the question regarding the existence of God or merely presupposing that God does not exists. The first, of course, is a logical fallacy. I don't know what you think about the second as I know a lot of you here seem to limit things to scientific evidence (which presupposing does not address) or have not even thought about what you own presuppositions really are.
Anyway, these are some of the reasons why I object to your characterization of evolution as scientific fact.
