Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 12:57 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 10:37 am Evolution by natural selection is design but natural selection is not intentionally designed by some Authority Who intends, as IC would have it.

I do believe that order(design if you will) becomes absolute, but absolute does not imply deity.
One huge problem with the whole evolutionary hypothesis is its tacit teleology. It's never even actually identified, but the idea of, "natural selection," assumes evolution has some objective--namely survival, but it never identifies survival of what--individual organisms? species? life in general? what?

What makes survival an "objective." All natural merely physical processes are inimical to life and all life must struggle against the physical constantly. I believe life is a perfectly natural attribute of reality, like any of the physical attributes, but everything evolutionists argue as the reason for evolution is based on some superstitious notion that nature favors survival which is as teleological as any absurd creationist theory.

As soon as you think seriously about the so-called natural selection nonsense it becomes obvious its just made up, like any of Rudyard Kipling's Just So stories: Dinosaurs grew wings and became birds and developed flight because flight gave them a survival advantage and were naturally selected over those without flight. So exactly why did natural selection change its mind and decide birds without flight, like penguins, emus, and ostriches had a survival advantage. Sure!

Would you like to know How the Camel Got His Hump? Lots of evolutionary fairy tales there.
Note 'teleology' in general,
Teleology is a reason or explanation for something as a function of its end, purpose, or goal, as opposed to as a function of its cause.[4] A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as the purpose of a fork to hold food, is called extrinsic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology
Your thinking above is too dogmatic, i.e. you cannot detached the term 'teleology' from teleology in the divine sense, i.e. teleology as an absolutely absolute purpose, like that from a God.

The concept of Teleology is now making a comeback in a more practical and rational sense.
This is where the term 'teleology' of "survival" can be effectively attributed to the Theory of Evolution.

There is nothing teleological in the theory of evolution that insist once birds evolved with flights that they cannot lose their ability to fly in another environment.
Birds evolved with flight to increase their chances of survival [teleologically] but if their [for some birds] chances of survival in a different environment is secured without the need to fly, they will eventually shed their ability to fly.

Such an occurrence is very common where birds happened to fly to an island that do not have predators that kill then and there is plenty of food on the ground for their teleological survival, and after some generations, they will lose their ability to fly. e.g. are the kiwi, penguins, dodo, and the likes.
Ultimately this is all about the teleology of 'survival'.

The point with humans is the more they understand is is able to use the principles of teleology within the theory of evolution based on evidence and rational justifications, the greater their chances of survival [teleological] as a human species.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:52 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 12:57 am
Belinda wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 10:37 am Evolution by natural selection is design but natural selection is not intentionally designed by some Authority Who intends, as IC would have it.

I do believe that order(design if you will) becomes absolute, but absolute does not imply deity.
One huge problem with the whole evolutionary hypothesis is its tacit teleology. It's never even actually identified, but the idea of, "natural selection," assumes evolution has some objective--namely survival, but it never identifies survival of what--individual organisms? species? life in general? what?

What makes survival an "objective." All natural merely physical processes are inimical to life and all life must struggle against the physical constantly. I believe life is a perfectly natural attribute of reality, like any of the physical attributes, but everything evolutionists argue as the reason for evolution is based on some superstitious notion that nature favors survival which is as teleological as any absurd creationist theory.

As soon as you think seriously about the so-called natural selection nonsense it becomes obvious its just made up, like any of Rudyard Kipling's Just So stories: Dinosaurs grew wings and became birds and developed flight because flight gave them a survival advantage and were naturally selected over those without flight. So exactly why did natural selection change its mind and decide birds without flight, like penguins, emus, and ostriches had a survival advantage. Sure!

Would you like to know How the Camel Got His Hump? Lots of evolutionary fairy tales there.
Note 'teleology' in general,
Teleology is a reason or explanation for something as a function of its end, purpose, or goal, as opposed to as a function of its cause.[4] A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as the purpose of a fork to hold food, is called extrinsic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology
Your thinking above is too dogmatic, i.e. you cannot detached the term 'teleology' from teleology in the divine sense, i.e. teleology as an absolutely absolute purpose, like that from a God.

The concept of Teleology is now making a comeback in a more practical and rational sense.
This is where the term 'teleology' of "survival" can be effectively attributed to the Theory of Evolution.

There is nothing teleological in the theory of evolution that insist once birds evolved with flights that they cannot lose their ability to fly in another environment.
Birds evolved with flight to increase their chances of survival [teleologically] but if their [for some birds] chances of survival in a different environment is secured without the need to fly, they will eventually shed their ability to fly.

Such an occurrence is very common where birds happened to fly to an island that do not have predators that kill then and there is plenty of food on the ground for their teleological survival, and after some generations, they will lose their ability to fly. e.g. are the kiwi, penguins, dodo, and the likes.
Ultimately this is all about the teleology of 'survival'.

The point with humans is the more they understand is is able to use the principles of teleology within the theory of evolution based on evidence and rational justifications, the greater their chances of survival [teleological] as a human species.
Extract :
One huge problem with the whole evolutionary hypothesis is its tacit teleology. It's never even actually identified, but the idea of, "natural selection," assumes evolution has some objective--namely survival, but it never identifies survival of what--individual organisms? species? life in general? what?
Survival until the organism reproduces itself. Reproduction is a fact and together with two other facts namely struggle for survival and random mutations is the mechanism for natural selection. Each of those three components is free of intention on the part of the individual.

Humans evolve by means of artificial selection. Our evolution is largely controlled by culture not biology.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 6:29 am The organism has to be right to reality to survive.
It doesn't, actually. It doesn't "have to" anything.

"Reality" does not care whether or not a creature survives. Whole species have gone extinct many times, and "reality" has had no objections, obviously. So it might be true that, as a matter of mere fact, things not "right to reality" die out; but since factually, they do that all the time, there's no evidence of any moral dimension to that at all. Animals don't owe-it (that's the root meaning of "ought," by the way) to survive.
The reality of social animals requires moral obligation toward each other to survive,
That's the second complete non-sequitur in a row, I'm afraid.

Animals, social or not, don't even "owe" themselves to survive, and there's zero to suggest that they "owe" each other anything. When the lead gazelle survives, the one at the back of the herd is taken by the lions. And when the great auk becomes extinct, reality passes no moral judgment.

By way of Evolutionism, all that one can say is "Stuff happens." Things live, things die; no morality is involved, and no objective moral value exists.
chimp societies have moral structure; hierarchy, mutual defence, resource sharing, childcare, and so forth.
You forgot rape, canabalism, promiscuity, infanticide, greed, ambition (that is, if we're going to anthropomorphize chimps)...and you forgot that human beings are not descended from chimps. At present, I believe it's the common-ancestor theory that's current in evolutionary theory, that "common ancestor" being basically presumed to have happened back at the level of the primordial soup, or shortly thereafter. Evolutionism changes its story of human evolution frequently, of course.

Since DNA testing, nobody believes in the old chimp theory. Check it out.
...this explains why Nietzsche is wrong. Not only was his understanding of evolution superficial at best, but he was indoctrinated from infancy with religion by his Lutheran upbringing.
:D Well, that's a new theory: Nietzsche was too Lutheran? :shock: I've never heard that one before. Maybe try that out on his admirers, and see what they say.
...a scientific understanding of reality, morality and contentment are possible...
Well, nobody says that even an Atheist, let alone an agnostic, can't just arbitrarily decide to act in a way conventionally regarded as moral. It's just that when he does, he has no legitimation or justification for doing so, since his ideological commitments provide no grounds to show that that decision is "moral" at all. He can just as easily be a Stalin or a Mao, and his worldview has no more or less legitimation for that.

That was Nietzsche's point: all options simply become open and equal. No moral judgment anymore refers to anything real.

In consequence, morality cannot be shown to be necessary on any such worldview. It's not that a person can't arbitrarily choose to live any particular way. Of course they can. They can paint themselves green and dance on a harpsichord if they want. But it doesn't make it better or worse than any other alternative.
Propositional logic. I played with it for a while. It's fun. But it's not apt.

:D That's your second funny line. Logic is "not apt"? Well, it is, if your views are rational, of course. But to say it's "not apt" to your views says it's irrational.

I think that's the point: you don't want to subject your view to the rigors of logic because it just can't survive that. And I think we both know that's true.
...between 'is' and 'ought' there's 5 million years of evolution...
Time doesn't do anything to cure the is-ought division. There can be ten billion and it would still be irrelevant. It's like saying, "The law of gravity didn't apply two weeks ago." The addition of the "two weeks" doesn't help anybody believe it's true. You would need evidence of a completely different kind.

What you need is to show a fact that obligates us to a value. So let's see one.

Fact: _______________________________
Value required by the fact:
___________________________________

Fill in as you wish.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 9:42 am ...the term 'contract' in this case is conceptually and theoretically true based on the evidences.
No, it's really not: at best, it's a distortion, a lame metaphor, an inapt analogy.

But I can't get you to admit that, of course, even though it's true and I've given you good reasons.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Vitruvius »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 1:46 pm
Vitruvius wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 6:29 am The organism has to be right to reality to survive.
It doesn't, actually. It doesn't "have to" anything.

"Reality" does not care whether or not a creature survives. Whole species have gone extinct many times, and "reality" has had no objections, obviously. So it might be true that, as a matter of mere fact, things not "right to reality" die out; but since factually, they do that all the time, there's no evidence of any moral dimension to that at all. Animals don't owe-it (that's the root meaning of "ought," by the way) to survive.
The reality of social animals requires moral obligation toward each other to survive,
That's the second complete non-sequitur in a row, I'm afraid.

Animals, social or not, don't even "owe" themselves to survive, and there's zero to suggest that they "owe" each other anything. When the lead gazelle survives, the one at the back of the herd is taken by the lions. And when the great auk becomes extinct, reality passes no moral judgment.

By way of Evolutionism, all that one can say is "Stuff happens." Things live, things die; no morality is involved, and no objective moral value exists.
chimp societies have moral structure; hierarchy, mutual defence, resource sharing, childcare, and so forth.
You forgot rape, canabalism, promiscuity, infanticide, greed, ambition (that is, if we're going to anthropomorphize chimps)...and you forgot that human beings are not descended from chimps. At present, I believe it's the common-ancestor theory that's current in evolutionary theory, that "common ancestor" being basically presumed to have happened back at the level of the primordial soup, or shortly thereafter. Evolutionism changes its story of human evolution frequently, of course.

Since DNA testing, nobody believes in the old chimp theory. Check it out.
...this explains why Nietzsche is wrong. Not only was his understanding of evolution superficial at best, but he was indoctrinated from infancy with religion by his Lutheran upbringing.
:D Well, that's a new theory: Nietzsche was too Lutheran? :shock: I've never heard that one before. Maybe try that out on his admirers, and see what they say.
...a scientific understanding of reality, morality and contentment are possible...
Well, nobody says that even an Atheist, let alone an agnostic, can't just arbitrarily decide to act in a way conventionally regarded as moral. It's just that when he does, he has no legitimation or justification for doing so, since his ideological commitments provide no grounds to show that that decision is "moral" at all. He can just as easily be a Stalin or a Mao, and his worldview has no more or less legitimation for that.

That was Nietzsche's point: all options simply become open and equal. No moral judgment anymore refers to anything real.

In consequence, morality cannot be shown to be necessary on any such worldview. It's not that a person can't arbitrarily choose to live any particular way. Of course they can. They can paint themselves green and dance on a harpsichord if they want. But it doesn't make it better or worse than any other alternative.
Propositional logic. I played with it for a while. It's fun. But it's not apt.

:D That's your second funny line. Logic is "not apt"? Well, it is, if your views are rational, of course. But to say it's "not apt" to your views says it's irrational.

I think that's the point: you don't want to subject your view to the rigors of logic because it just can't survive that. And I think we both know that's true.
...between 'is' and 'ought' there's 5 million years of evolution...
Time doesn't do anything to cure the is-ought division. There can be ten billion and it would still be irrelevant. It's like saying, "The law of gravity didn't apply two weeks ago." The addition of the "two weeks" doesn't help anybody believe it's true. You would need evidence of a completely different kind.

What you need is to show a fact that obligates us to a value. So let's see one.

Fact: _______________________________
Value required by the fact:
___________________________________

Fill in as you wish.
Objective moral value is a canard. I've asked now three times why philosophers have been trying to create a definitive system of objective moral values for thousands of years, and haven't managed to do so. You won't answer that question because you won't abandon the idea that objective moral values are something I should be aspiring to. I'm not. I've told you that. I've told you that again. And now I'm telling you again. It's not possible because morality is a sense - like humour or aesthetics. You may as well try to define funny or pretty. There's no definition, as useful as one may be. Rather, all we can hope is the majority of the audience laugh.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 11:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:52 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 12:57 am
One huge problem with the whole evolutionary hypothesis is its tacit teleology. It's never even actually identified, but the idea of, "natural selection," assumes evolution has some objective--namely survival, but it never identifies survival of what--individual organisms? species? life in general? what?

What makes survival an "objective." All natural merely physical processes are inimical to life and all life must struggle against the physical constantly. I believe life is a perfectly natural attribute of reality, like any of the physical attributes, but everything evolutionists argue as the reason for evolution is based on some superstitious notion that nature favors survival which is as teleological as any absurd creationist theory.

As soon as you think seriously about the so-called natural selection nonsense it becomes obvious its just made up, like any of Rudyard Kipling's Just So stories: Dinosaurs grew wings and became birds and developed flight because flight gave them a survival advantage and were naturally selected over those without flight. So exactly why did natural selection change its mind and decide birds without flight, like penguins, emus, and ostriches had a survival advantage. Sure!

Would you like to know How the Camel Got His Hump? Lots of evolutionary fairy tales there.
Note 'teleology' in general,
Teleology is a reason or explanation for something as a function of its end, purpose, or goal, as opposed to as a function of its cause.[4] A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as the purpose of a fork to hold food, is called extrinsic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology
Your thinking above is too dogmatic, i.e. you cannot detached the term 'teleology' from teleology in the divine sense, i.e. teleology as an absolutely absolute purpose, like that from a God.

The concept of Teleology is now making a comeback in a more practical and rational sense.
This is where the term 'teleology' of "survival" can be effectively attributed to the Theory of Evolution.

There is nothing teleological in the theory of evolution that insist once birds evolved with flights that they cannot lose their ability to fly in another environment.
Birds evolved with flight to increase their chances of survival [teleologically] but if their [for some birds] chances of survival in a different environment is secured without the need to fly, they will eventually shed their ability to fly.

Such an occurrence is very common where birds happened to fly to an island that do not have predators that kill then and there is plenty of food on the ground for their teleological survival, and after some generations, they will lose their ability to fly. e.g. are the kiwi, penguins, dodo, and the likes.
Ultimately this is all about the teleology of 'survival'.

The point with humans is the more they understand is is able to use the principles of teleology within the theory of evolution based on evidence and rational justifications, the greater their chances of survival [teleological] as a human species.
Extract :
One huge problem with the whole evolutionary hypothesis is its tacit teleology. It's never even actually identified, but the idea of, "natural selection," assumes evolution has some objective--namely survival, but it never identifies survival of what--individual organisms? species? life in general? what?
Survival until the organism reproduces itself. Reproduction is a fact and together with two other facts namely struggle for survival and random mutations is the mechanism for natural selection. Each of those three components is free of intention on the part of the individual.

Humans evolve by means of artificial selection. Our evolution is largely controlled by culture not biology.
I have no objection to the evolutionary hypothesis, but I strenuously object to it being called, "science." It is not science, it is plausible conjecture based on a paucity of real evidence, yet it makes claims for concepts that are as baseless as those of creationists and intelligent design, both of which I totally reject.

"Natural selection," is nonsense, even when correctly understood, (as you do) only the observation of the fact that things that are better at surviving will also be better at perpetuating their species. What is called, "natural selection," is nothing more than an observation of what supposedly happened, not some kind of principal of nature.

"Natural selection," is just wrong. Before there can be any kind of selection, there must first be something to select from. The fundamental question is not why some species are selected for survival over others, the fundamental question is where do new species come from to be selected?

The big question of evolution is where do new species come from, how did any of the so-called "survival-advantages" of species come to be. There is only one supposed explanation offered by evolutionists (which you noted), mutation. All the actual mutations ever actually observed that actually affect a species or significnt physiological change are all detrimental (or neutral, providing neither survival advantage or disadvantage). No mutation has ever been observed that results in a new specie or anything that can be called a "survival advantage." This is the crux of the evolutionary hypothesis. If evolution is going to claim to be a science, it must be able to provide observable evidence of its fundamental tenet? So far, it cannot. Similarities in DNA are not that evidence. Similarities in DNA are only evidence of those similarities, not how they got that way. To use those similarities as evidence is nothing more than guesswork, or argument from ignorance—"we can't imagine any other possible explanation."

Survival is also not a fundamental principle, not even for the sake of reproduction. Not all organisms reproduce. Turritopsis dohrnii, a small jellyfish found in the Mediterranean and in the waters of Japan is genetically immortal, that is, it changes its form to survive changing conditions but returns to its normal genetically identical form and can do this perpetually. Prokaryotic cell division means all prokaryotes are also genetically immortal. If mere survival were the objective, evolution should have stopped with the procaryotes.

The following is from a paper I wrote long ago. It addresses this question of survival and evolution:
The evolutionary hypothesis assumes that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes since all advanced organisms are comprised of eukaryotes, but since all advanced organisms do not survive as well as prokaryotes, survival cannot be the reason for the existence of eukaryotes.

Forms of life in stasis, such as seeds and spores, compared to other forms of life can exist almost indefinitely. Endospores are dormant forms of certain bacteria of the firmicute phylum, that can remain viable for millions of years. A seed from a previously extinct Judean date palm was sprouted after nearly 2,000 years. A silene stenophylla was grown from fruit that was around 32,000 years old.

Clonal plants live thousands of years, like the Pando, (Quaking Aspen), found in Bryce Canyon National Park which is estimated to be 80,000 years old.

Most large perennial plants outlive conscious animals both as individuals and as species; for example: the Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (5063 years old), the Llangernyw Yew, (4000 years old), and Fortingall Yew, (between 2000 and 5000 years old).

Many aquatic animals are longer living than man. Orange roughy, (deep sea perch), live as long as 149 or 156 years. Bowhead Whales have lived at least to 211 years. The freshwater pearl mussell (margaritifera) can live 210 to 250 years.

Among land animals, the tortoises are the longest living. For example these from various zoos around the world: Adwaita, an Aldabra Giant Tortoise died at an estimated age of 250; Tu'i Malila, a Radiated tortoise, died at an age of 188; Harriet, a Galápagos tortoise, died at the age of 175, and Timothy, a Greek Tortoise, died at an age of 160.

It is obvious, organisms with very simple natures that can exist in a large variety of environments and have very few requirements are much more likely to survive than very complex creatures with nature's requiring very strict environmental limits and having many varied requirements. Even if evolution is the explanation of the origin of life and the species, survival cannot be a major factor, and therefore, neither can natural selection. If those were the principles, why would nature keep producing ever more complex organism with less likelihood of surviving?
I have no objection to people believing evolution is the explanation for both how life came to be (if they believe it did) or the explanation of speciation. I do object to using such unscientific conjecture to explain human nature and as the basis for psychological, social, and political ideologies and agendas.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by jayjacobus »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:15 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 11:11 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 5:52 am
Note 'teleology' in general,



Your thinking above is too dogmatic, i.e. you cannot detached the term 'teleology' from teleology in the divine sense, i.e. teleology as an absolutely absolute purpose, like that from a God.

The concept of Teleology is now making a comeback in a more practical and rational sense.
This is where the term 'teleology' of "survival" can be effectively attributed to the Theory of Evolution.

There is nothing teleological in the theory of evolution that insist once birds evolved with flights that they cannot lose their ability to fly in another environment.
Birds evolved with flight to increase their chances of survival [teleologically] but if their [for some birds] chances of survival in a different environment is secured without the need to fly, they will eventually shed their ability to fly.

Such an occurrence is very common where birds happened to fly to an island that do not have predators that kill then and there is plenty of food on the ground for their teleological survival, and after some generations, they will lose their ability to fly. e.g. are the kiwi, penguins, dodo, and the likes.
Ultimately this is all about the teleology of 'survival'.

The point with humans is the more they understand is is able to use the principles of teleology within the theory of evolution based on evidence and rational justifications, the greater their chances of survival [teleological] as a human species.
Extract :
One huge problem with the whole evolutionary hypothesis is its tacit teleology. It's never even actually identified, but the idea of, "natural selection," assumes evolution has some objective--namely survival, but it never identifies survival of what--individual organisms? species? life in general? what?
Survival until the organism reproduces itself. Reproduction is a fact and together with two other facts namely struggle for survival and random mutations is the mechanism for natural selection. Each of those three components is free of intention on the part of the individual.

Humans evolve by means of artificial selection. Our evolution is largely controlled by culture not biology.
I have no objection to the evolutionary hypothesis, but I strenuously object to it being called, "science." It is not science, it is plausible conjecture based on a paucity of real evidence, yet it makes claims for concepts that are as baseless as those of creationists and intelligent design, both of which I totally reject.

"Natural selection," is nonsense, even when correctly understood, (as you do) only the observation of the fact that things that are better at surviving will also be better at perpetuating their species. What is called, "natural selection," is nothing more than an observation of what supposedly happened, not some kind of principal of nature.

"Natural selection," is just wrong. Before there can be any kind of selection, there must first be something to select from. The fundamental question is not why some species are selected for survival over others, the fundamental question is where do new species come from to be selected?

The big question of evolution is where do new species come from, how did any of the so-called "survival-advantages" of species come to be. There is only one supposed explanation offered by evolutionists (which you noted), mutation. All the actual mutations ever actually observed that actually affect a species or significnt physiological change are all detrimental (or neutral, providing neither survival advantage or disadvantage). No mutation has ever been observed that results in a new specie or anything that can be called a "survival advantage." This is the crux of the evolutionary hypothesis. If evolution is going to claim to be a science, it must be able to provide observable evidence of its fundamental tenet? So far, it cannot. Similarities in DNA are not that evidence. Similarities in DNA are only evidence of those similarities, not how they got that way. To use those similarities as evidence is nothing more than guesswork, or argument from ignorance—"we can't imagine any other possible explanation."

Survival is also not a fundamental principle, not even for the sake of reproduction. Not all organisms reproduce. Turritopsis dohrnii, a small jellyfish found in the Mediterranean and in the waters of Japan is genetically immortal, that is, it changes its form to survive changing conditions but returns to its normal genetically identical form and can do this perpetually. Prokaryotic cell division means all prokaryotes are also genetically immortal. If mere survival were the objective, evolution should have stopped with the procaryotes.

The following is from a paper I wrote long ago. It addresses this question of survival and evolution:
The evolutionary hypothesis assumes that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes since all advanced organisms are comprised of eukaryotes, but since all advanced organisms do not survive as well as prokaryotes, survival cannot be the reason for the existence of eukaryotes.

Forms of life in stasis, such as seeds and spores, compared to other forms of life can exist almost indefinitely. Endospores are dormant forms of certain bacteria of the firmicute phylum, that can remain viable for millions of years. A seed from a previously extinct Judean date palm was sprouted after nearly 2,000 years. A silene stenophylla was grown from fruit that was around 32,000 years old.

Clonal plants live thousands of years, like the Pando, (Quaking Aspen), found in Bryce Canyon National Park which is estimated to be 80,000 years old.

Most large perennial plants outlive conscious animals both as individuals and as species; for example: the Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (5063 years old), the Llangernyw Yew, (4000 years old), and Fortingall Yew, (between 2000 and 5000 years old).

Many aquatic animals are longer living than man. Orange roughy, (deep sea perch), live as long as 149 or 156 years. Bowhead Whales have lived at least to 211 years. The freshwater pearl mussell (margaritifera) can live 210 to 250 years.

Among land animals, the tortoises are the longest living. For example these from various zoos around the world: Adwaita, an Aldabra Giant Tortoise died at an estimated age of 250; Tu'i Malila, a Radiated tortoise, died at an age of 188; Harriet, a Galápagos tortoise, died at the age of 175, and Timothy, a Greek Tortoise, died at an age of 160.

It is obvious, organisms with very simple natures that can exist in a large variety of environments and have very few requirements are much more likely to survive than very complex creatures with nature's requiring very strict environmental limits and having many varied requirements. Even if evolution is the explanation of the origin of life and the species, survival cannot be a major factor, and therefore, neither can natural selection. If those were the principles, why would nature keep producing ever more complex organism with less likelihood of surviving?
I have no objection to people believing evolution is the explanation for both how life came to be (if they believe it did) or the explanation of speciation. I do object to using such unscientific conjecture to explain human nature and as the basis for psychological, social, and political ideologies and agendas.
Evolution does not explain how life came to exist. Life is extremely complex even on the most basic cellular level. Evolution does not explanation what simple cells evolved from.

I also object to unscientific conjecture.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Vitruvius »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:15 pmI have no objection to the evolutionary hypothesis, but I strenuously object to it being called, "science." It is not science, it is plausible conjecture based on a paucity of real evidence, yet it makes claims for concepts that are as baseless as those of creationists and intelligent design, both of which I totally reject.
That's ignorance. Deliberate or otherwise I don't know, but wrong nonetheless. It's not for an ignoramus to object or not; that's not how science works. The question is not what seems plausible to you, but rather - what actually happened. Evolution happened, of that there is no doubt. I don't know how you've managed to wind back your intellectual clock to the mid 1800's - but I consider people like you an example of the problem that brings humankind to the brink of extinction. You know no truth; consider what you will accept a reasonable measure of what's true. Meanwhile using technology based on scientific principles you don't understand, you spread ignorance and/or lies.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by RCSaunders »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:06 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:15 pmMeanwhile using technology based on scientific principles you don't understand, you spread ignorance and/or lies.
What technology would that be that I don't understand? I've spent my life in science and technology and am always eager to learn about any new technological developments.

I'm sorry you think my expressing my view is, "spreading ignorance and lies." I haven't asked anyone to agree with my views. I'm only pointing out the questions evolutionists refuse to answer and I think need to be answered before I'll swallow their hypothesis. I never said they were wrong. I will say they are always very thin-skinned, much like religionists when their doctrines are questioned.

I certainly don't understand what you are worried about. Nobody is going to agree with me. Your evolutionary religion is safe.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by RCSaunders »

jayjacobus wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 4:25 pm Evolution does not explain how life came to exist. Life is extremely complex even on the most basic cellular level. Evolution does not explanation what simple cells evolved from.

I also object to unscientific conjecture.
Our conclusions are similar but I think our reasons are different. I do not think anything can (or is required) to explain the origin of life, because I do not think life is a thing or substance, but a perfectly natural attribute of some physical entities, just as mass and temperature are.

I really do not object to conjecture or hypotheses regarding things which are uncertain, especially if they are plausible. What I object to is their being regarded as scientific theories, as if there were real observable evidence for those contentions. The specific problem with evolution being put over as science is the same as all conjectures about origins, like cosmology and much geology. There is no way to actually observe what happened in the past, and real science only pertains to what can actually be observed by anyone. Anyone can perform the experiments by which the properties if chemical elements are identified, for example, but no one can observe abiogenesis or the actual change of one specie into another by mutation. Until it can be observed it is conjecture. If and when it is observed, it can be called science.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:06 pm Meanwhile using technology based on scientific principles you don't understand, you spread ignorance and/or lies.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:25 pmWhat technology would that be that I don't understand? I've spent my life in science and technology and am always eager to learn about any new technological developments.
As you are so keen on new developments, one innovation you might be want to be aware of is genetics. The theory of evolution is only half the story; the whole story is the neo Darwinian synthesis. Genetics prove evolution, and if you disagree then you are necessarily ignorant. Or dishonest!
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 3:15 pmI'm sorry you think my expressing my view is, "spreading ignorance and lies." I haven't asked anyone to agree with my views. I'm only pointing out the questions evolutionists refuse to answer and I think need to be answered before I'll swallow their hypothesis. I never said they were wrong. I will say they are always very thin-skinned, much like religionists when their doctrines are questioned. I certainly don't understand what you are worried about. Nobody is going to agree with me. Your evolutionary religion is safe.
It follows from evolution that we must necessarily be "right" to survive. For us that means intellectually correct to reality. For lesser organisms it means behaviourally and physiologically correct to reality. Everything is for me, about the continued existence of the human species. Your wrongness; should I let it pass unchallenged, lessens our prospects of survival.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 2:00 pm Objective moral value is a canard.
Hmmm... :? I'm not sure what you mean by a "canard." You'd maybe want to check the definition on that.

But I think maybe you mean "objective moral value is an illusion." If that were so, it would most certainly be a confession that Evolution grounds no moral values, and I think the discussion would have reached its conclusion in agreement -- because that's what I've been saying is true of Evolutionism all along.
I've asked now three times why philosophers have been trying to create a definitive system of objective moral values for thousands of years
I asked you to explain what you meant by "definitive system of objective moral values," and you wouldn't. It's hard to answer when you won't be clear. But I'll try. Don't get irate if it's not what you meant -- I also asked two times.

If you mean "why has there never been a system of moral values that all persons believe," then the question seems rather ridiculously easy. There has been no such system because a) all people are not in good moral condition, and b) the various value frameworks they have proposed in the place of the objective moral values are designed according to their own various goals and cultural preferences, and thus only partly or badly reflect the objetive moral truth, when they compare to it at all.

So, for example, that Western Humanists want women to be equal with men, while Islamic fundamentalists insist no woman is worth more than half a man is and that, in keeping with the Koran, women can legitimately be beaten into submission, does not count against the existence of objective morals. The Western Humanist might, arguably have the objectively right moral position; or the Islamists might, if things were different. Or neither might. But we can be quite sure that both do not have the moral status of women objectively right, so one or the other is wrong.

It also shows that a culture having the objectively wrong values is more than merely possible; it's empirically demonstrable that it is so.
You won't answer that question
I just did. You were wrong in your assumption I was being evasive. I was trying to get you to tell me what you wanted, because you'd been (accidentally?) ambiguous in your wording. But you now have at least AN answer to your question, unless you now want to explain how your ambigous wording has been misinterpreted.
morality is a sense - like humour or aesthetics.
That won't work. A "sense" may be justified, or it may be unjustified. A child has a "sense" that there's a monster on the floor under his bed, so he's afraid to get up in the night. That "sense" can be very strong. But it's totally irrational and unjustified.

If "the moral sense" is not justifiable, then it's just something people should get over. It has no real meaning, but that they are too timid, perhaps, to be as bad or evil as they need to be to get what they need or want. That's all.

But again:

What whas the Evolutionary 'fact" that justifies a value? You didn't say... 🤔

Now, I don't have to impugn your character or slander your motives to tell you why you didn't. I can just point out that you cannot do it, even if, in good faith, you try to. And that's exactly why you've had to dismiss the whole idea of objective morality as a...well, you said "canard." Since Evolutionism justifies none, you have to say none exist.

But if none exist, then I was right about Evolutionism all along: it requires the non-existence of any objective morality. And in trying to avoid that conclusion, you've now called all human moral reflection merely a "sense" -- but, ironically, one that "senses" nothing real at all. :shock:
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 2:00 pm Objective moral value is a canard.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:34 pmHmmm... :? I'm not sure what you mean by a "canard." You'd maybe want to check the definition on that.
I know what it means. Perhaps you might want to check the definition.
But I think maybe you mean "objective moral value is an illusion." If that were so, it would most certainly be a confession that Evolution grounds no moral values, and I think the discussion would have reached its conclusion in agreement -- because that's what I've been saying is true of Evolutionism all along.
Evolution grounds no particular moral value. Demanding it should is the canard. In fact, nothing does. It's a false flag! It's a leftover from religion claiming objectivity of moral values handed down by God. It makes them inarguable. Why should I? Because God says so. It's politically useful, and socially beneficial if everyone behaves as if that were the case, but it's not true.
I've asked now three times why philosophers have been trying to create a definitive system of objective moral values for thousands of years
I asked you to explain what you meant by "definitive system of objective moral values," and you wouldn't. It's hard to answer when you won't be clear. But I'll try. Don't get irate if it's not what you meant -- I also asked two times. If you mean "why has there never been a system of moral values that all persons believe," then the question seems rather ridiculously easy. There has been no such system because a) all people are not in good moral condition, and b) the various value frameworks they have proposed in the place of the objective moral values are designed according to their own various goals and cultural preferences, and thus only partly or badly reflect the objetive moral truth, when they compare to it at all. So, for example, that Western Humanists want women to be equal with men, while Islamic fundamentalists insist no woman is worth more than half a man is and that, in keeping with the Koran, women can legitimately be beaten into submission, does not count against the existence of objective morals. The Western Humanist might, arguably have the objectively right moral position; or the Islamists might, if things were different. Or neither might. But we can be quite sure that both do not have the moral status of women objectively right, so one or the other is wrong. It also shows that a culture having the objectively wrong values is more than merely possible; it's empirically demonstrable that it is so.
So you think objective moral values are possible? Please explain. We await your teachings, o' wise one!
You won't answer that question
I just did. You were wrong in your assumption I was being evasive. I was trying to get you to tell me what you wanted, because you'd been (accidentally?) ambiguous in your wording. But you now have at least AN answer to your question, unless you now want to explain how your ambigous wording has been misinterpreted.
meh
morality is a sense - like humour or aesthetics.
That won't work. A "sense" may be justified, or it may be unjustified. A child has a "sense" that there's a monster on the floor under his bed, so he's afraid to get up in the night. That "sense" can be very strong. But it's totally irrational and unjustified.
That's what we are working with! Unless of course you've been keeping your secret recipe for objective moral values under your hat all this time?
If "the moral sense" is not justifiable, then it's just something people should get over. It has no real meaning, but that they are too timid, perhaps, to be as bad or evil as they need to be to get what they need or want. That's all.
Robinson Crusoe cannot sin. Alone on a desert island, nothing he might possibly do would be immoral - because morality is an intersubjective sense, stemming from the mutual obligations of hunter gatherer tribes. The first obstacle for social animals is 'me versus us' that the individual has to sacrifice some individual liberty to the group. The hunter brings his kill back to camp and shares the food. He might eat it all himself; but if he does so, he'll die out. He won't pass on his genetic material. So those that shared, survived. That is the origin of morality.
But again: What whas the Evolutionary 'fact" that justifies a value? You didn't say...
Now, I don't have to impugn your character or slander your motives to tell you why you didn't. I can just point out that you cannot do it, even if, in good faith, you try to. And that's exactly why you've had to dismiss the whole idea of objective morality as a...well, you said "canard." Since Evolutionism justifies none, you have to say none exist. But if none exist, then I was right about Evolutionism all along: it requires the non-existence of any objective morality. And in trying to avoid that conclusion, you've now called all human moral reflection merely a "sense" -- but, ironically, one that "senses" nothing real at all.
If you think objective morality is something evolution should aspire to, else fail - you must suppose that objective morality exists. So please, explain how objective morality might be achieved. Tell me why I should seek to leap through this hoop - you keep insisting I jump through if there's no such thing? Right from the beginning, I've described morality as a sense, and rejected objective morality. How are you not getting this?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 2:00 pm
Objective moral value is a canard.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 10:34 pmHmmm... :? I'm not sure what you mean by a "canard." You'd maybe want to check the definition on that.
I know what it means. Perhaps you might want to check the definition.
Well, ordinarily it implies some sort of slander or insult, something which indicts the personality of somebody or denigrates something. And I can't see that mentioning "objective value" insults anybody.
Evolution grounds no particular moral value.
Now we agree. Evolutionism implies that reality is amoral, and people's moral sense is misleading. There are no such properties as it imagines in the universe, then.
Demanding it should is the canard.
I didn't "demand that it should." That would be unreasonable, since, as I've said, it simply cannot.

I just pointed that fact out.
Vitruvius wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 11:50 pm So you think objective moral values are possible? Please explain.
Definitely.

I believe that the moral sense, as fallible as it is, does not refer to nothing. But as I said before, the fact that people have that sense doesn't even remotely imply that we can decide that sense is accurate. They could be completely mistaken, of course, merely imagining ogres under the bed, so to speak, or trying to shake off the historical shackles of their mental confusion. So we can rest nothing much on such an observation.

What we can rest on is this: IF (and I offer this at the moment only as a hypothetical; I'm asking you only to consider the implications IF it's true, not to agree THAT it's true, okay?), IF it's true that there's a God, then this world was not created without purpose and direction. The Supreme Being had an intention in creating what He created. Some things were created for one purpose, and some for another. And if a creature actualizes the function and purpose for which it was created, or if a creature is helped to do so, then that is moral. IF, on the other hand, a creature is suffered to depart from its intended function, or if it is used in a way not intended by the Creator for it, then that is immoral.

But human beings are the only creatures on the earth endowed not merely with an intuition about good and bad, but with the self-awareness necessary to recognize that they are moral agents, to reflect and theorize about their moral standing, to consider the consequences and ramifications of their actions in light of the moral, and to be responsible to the Creator for what they do or fail to do. Lower animals, from the complex to the single-celled, or trees or the environment itself have no such self-awareness, no such reflective moral capacity. They have reactions, instincts, and some even have emotions...but the awareness of themselves as moral entieties, they do not have. They simply run according to program, so to speak.

And there is a further way in which ethics are unique to human beings. God does not speak to dolphins and chimps -- or if He does, they're remarkably reticent about it. But we have the hypothesis that God speaks to man, revealing what HIs specific purposes and intentions in Creation are. Now, you might say, "I don't believe that God has done that." Fine and dandy: but I should say again that we are speaking only in hypotheticals right now, only in IFs. And IF God exists, there seems no reason at all why the Creator IF He should choose to do so, couldn't reveal His will and intentions to people. We humans communicate all the time -- including sharing our moral views. There is no prima facie reason to suppose God should be incapable of the same, surely.
morality is a sense - like humour or aesthetics...That's what we are working with! Unless of course you've been keeping your secret recipe for objective moral values under your hat all this time?
If that's what we're working with, then we have nothing. The child's fear of monsters is irrational. The sooner he grows out of it, the better for him. If morality is the same, then Nietzsche was right.
Robinson Crusoe cannot sin. Alone on a desert island, nothing he might possibly do would be immoral - because morality is an intersubjective sense,
Well, he couldn't if He were alone, as you say. But have you read that book? I have.

Robinson Crusoe discovers, in his isolation from other human beings, that he is still responsible to God. All alone, no longer with civilization's excuses and distractions, he realizes he has been living without acknowledging his moral duties before God. He experiences a conversion, and becomes a Christian.

But you're onto something. IF (speaking hypothetically again) IF there were no God, and you or I was the only entity in the universe, then we would have no moral duties at all. Whatever you wanted to do or be, you could. To whom could you owe anything?

However, the situation isn't made better if there were two of us, or three or a billion, if there's no God. For the existence of these other creatures is purely accidental. You still owe them nothing, if God does not exist. And if they claim you owe them something, they're just trying to fool you. You needn't care. If you have the power and the will, as Nietzsche said, you are the one who can do what you want to whomever you want, and compunctions be damned...they're all an illusion anyway.
He won't pass on his genetic material.
Are you suggesting creatures have some kind of moral duty to "pass on their genetic material"? From whence comes any such duty?

Evolutionism means nobody has a duty to anything. The human Race is a race of cosmic orphans: they have no "father," no purpose for existing, and no teleological direction. They happened to explode into existence with the Big Bang. They were an accident of what followed...chance, time and unguided processes -- without purpose, without reasons, without value. Human beings are neither more nor less significant than a tree or a rock...and like all animals, they are plausibly doomed to exinction...if not now, when they wipe themselves out by environmental destruction or plagues...and if not then, the they are doomed when the Sun decays or when the universe itself settles into eternal Heat Death. But it's inevitable...and devoid of any moral implications...IF there is no God.

That's the reality. And if the secularist is unwiling to face it, that unwillingness will protect him from nothing. He's a dying animal, spinning out of control on a dying planet. And that's the end of it.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by jayjacobus »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:46 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Sun Sep 26, 2021 4:25 pm Evolution does not explain how life came to exist. Life is extremely complex even on the most basic cellular level. Evolution does not explanation what simple cells evolved from.

I also object to unscientific conjecture.
Our conclusions are similar but I think our reasons are different. I do not think anything can (or is required) to explain the origin of life, because I do not think life is a thing or substance, but a perfectly natural attribute of some physical entities, just as mass and temperature are.

I really do not object to conjecture or hypotheses regarding things which are uncertain, especially if they are plausible. What I object to is their being regarded as scientific theories, as if there were real observable evidence for those contentions. The specific problem with evolution being put over as science is the same as all conjectures about origins, like cosmology and much geology. There is no way to actually observe what happened in the past, and real science only pertains to what can actually be observed by anyone. Anyone can perform the experiments by which the properties if chemical elements are identified, for example, but no one can observe abiogenesis or the actual change of one specie into another by mutation. Until it can be observed it is conjecture. If and when it is observed, it can be called science.
In light of your explanation why I don't agree with you, I rescind my agreement.
Post Reply