Here’s a proposal from a friend of mine for Darwinalia, Inc. With some additional work, it may have commercial possibilities.
Comments
Blatant contradictions:
...since I see no evidence for the existence of a supernatural realm that’s beyond my senses (with unembodied designers as inhabitants). Such a realm may indeed exist, but since I have no way of experiencing it, it is not rational to assume it does.
AND...
In terms of how life emerged, I haven’t got the faintest idea and nobody else does either. I don’t even know that life emerged from non-life  perhaps living particles have always existed. Who knows? But the fact that we don’t know doesn’t mean that we have to assume that life is not a natural process.nostrowski
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
In terms of how life emerged, I haven’t got the faintest idea and nobody else does either. I don’t even know that life emerged from non-life  perhaps living particles have always existed. Who knows? But the fact that we don’t know doesn’t mean that we have to assume that life is not a natural process.
How convenient:
1) That we don't know how life began is NO reason to assume it was not a natural process.
2) That we don't know if there was a designer is THE reason to assume it was not designed.nostrowski
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
Bombadill, I'm quite familiar with the cosmological argument for the existence of God, as articulated by Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and others. It is an argument that I didn't find particularly impressive when I first encountered it -- in high school. It's been debunked repeatedly over the last few centuries, and, honestly, it's really not a very sophisticated syllogism. To debunk it, one only has to reject it's first premise, that "All things are caused," and the syllogism collapses.
As I explained above, there's absolutely no reason to assume that all things have to have a first cause because in our experience things tend to do so. Our brains are unfortunately ill equipped to conceptually grasp infinity, but that does not mean infinity does not exist.
The ancient Greeks loved paying around with the concept of infinity (see Zeno), because of its counterintuitive properties. But I'd like to think that we've intellectually matured somewhat in the last 2,500 years.Aris
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
....since I see no evidence for the existence of a supernatural realm that’s beyond my senses (with unembodied designers as inhabitants). Such a realm may indeed exist, but since I have no way of experiencing it, it is not rational to assume it does.
Is the beginning of life within your senses? Can you experience it? Can you see it, touch it, taste it, feel it? No? Then how is it rational to assume it had natural causes?nostrowski
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Mario: "Aris, only finite corporeal objects require a first cause, not unembodied designers."
You're presupposing, a priori, the existence of an unembodied designer. I do not, since I see no evidence for the existence of a supernatural realm that's beyond my senses (with unembodied designers as inhabitants). Such a realm may indeed exist, but since I have no way of experiencing it, it is not rational to assume it does.
As to first causes, I see no reason to assume that because everything in our measly existence has a beginning and an end then everything has to have a beginning and an end. We may not be able to intuitively grasp infinity, but there's no reason to assume that the universe is not the product of an infinite process.Aris
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
Mario: "Aris, knots are made by intelligent agents (intentionally or not)."
That's simply not true. Have you really never tried to untangle cables, wires, reeds, ropes, etc? Have never noticed that cables, wires, reeds, ropes, etc. tend to tie themselves in knots without any assistance from any intelligent agent? Sure, knots are usually made by intelligent agents but they are also the product of chance -- as I explained above.
There are many things in the universe that may seem intelligently designed, but they are demonstrably shown not to be. Knots in tangled wires is one them, a simple illustration of chance over intelligence producing design, that even those without any familiarity with the sciences should be able to grasp.Aris
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Aris, one only ends in an infinite regression of causes (really an infinite regression of effects) when one posits that there's only a naturalistic explanation. So, the finger of logic is pointed at you. Only when we introduce the notion of an "Uncaused First Cause" can we avoid this dilemna. Some call this the Kalaam argument. Only that which has a beginning requires a cause. All matter has been shown to have a beginning. Therefore is required a cause outside of itself. A supernatural being who has existed eternally, would not require a cause because he (it) is without beginning. Hence, the "Uncaused First Cause". Additionally, nature clearly displays design in biological systems. Design which necessitates a cognizant engineer. And we know that at the core of molecular life is information, with a single strand of DNA possessing more data than an entire library of books. Naturalistic processes cannot, and never has, produced information like this.
Sidenote: It amazes me the lengths that naturalists will go to avoid the Theistic inference.Bombadill
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
"Bombadill: “Nothing applied nothingness and created something.â€Â
I don’t see how this has anything to do with evolution or science or anything I’ve written here, but I’ll indulge you: Those of us who look from natural explanations to the questions of life, the universe and everything, are not arguing that we’ve sprung from nothing. My atoms have been around since the beginning of the unverse (I have no idea what existed before). I’m something-from-something."
..And something from something...and something from something...(yawn)..and... (ad nauseum)
"The something-from-nothing conundrum is problematic only to supernatural explanations of the questions of life, the universe and everything. Just look at Genesis: There’s nothing, and them “poof,†and there’s everything. Now, if you tell me that God was the original “something†then we get into an infinite regression of whether he was something from nothing, or if not, whether the previous something came from nothing, and so on and so on (it’s turtles all the way down, if you get what I mean)."
Aris, only finite corporeal objects require a first cause, not unembodied designers.
"It’s more reasonable to accept that a natural something has always existed, from which all the other somethigns have come, including us, instead of postulating that there was always a supernatural something that’s beyond our comprehension."
Okay, let us take the assumption that what you are saying is true. Perhaps you are of the Big Bang persuasion, with a ball of matter and energy having been present eternally. Can you please explain the sudden explosion without dismissing the law of inertia (that which is at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force)?Mario A. Lopez
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
"I’ll be happy to enlighten you.
First, as Mario noted, the concept of “chance†may indeed be too complex for some people. Sure, the simple definition  the one creationists seem capable of appreciating and like forcing on evolutionists  is a random and undirected impetus. But scientists invariably understand chance to mean the possibility of a particular outcome in a process that is indeed undirected but not random.
Let me give you a simple example to illustrate how “chance†can be properly understood within evolutionary theory: I think we can all agree that most knots are the products of directed processes. However, if you get behind your computer or home theater system and try to untangle the gaggle of cables and wires that reside there, you’ll always find some that have tied themselves in often elaborate ways. You didn’t tie the knots, and unless you think that knot-tying gremlins visit houses at night to mess with people’s cables (i.e. ID), the cables tied themselves by chance. But chance here is not just a random process without any natural propensities. Depending on how the cables where piled when you last dropped them, depending on the characteristics of particular cables (thickness, elasticity, etc.) some cables are more prone than others to tie themselves into knots. Of course cables do not procreate, but if they did and there was an environmental advantage to knotted cables (let’s say knotted cables did not rot away as fast) then descendants of the surviving cables would inherit the knot-tying tendencies of their parents. And though naturally occurring variations (one cable is a little thicker, another a little stiffer, etc.) these accumulated knot-tying traits would end up in more sophisticated knots."
Aris, knots are made by intelligent agents (intentionally or not), but I still don't see how natural selection (mainly a conserving mechanism) can produce novel genetic information from soup to flight.
In terms of how life emerged, I haven’t got the faintest idea and nobody else does either. I don’t even know that life emerged from non-life  perhaps living particles have always existed. Who knows? But the fact that we don’t know doesn’t mean that we have to assume that life is not a natural process.
Ahhhhhh...I see, life emerged from life. Brilliant!Mario A. Lopez
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
Bombadill: "Nothing applied nothingness and created something."
I don't see how this has anything to do with evolution or science or anything I've written here, but I'll indulge you: Those of us who look from natural explanations to the questions of life, the universe and everything, are not arguing that we've sprung from nothing. My atoms have been around since the beginning of the unverse (I have no idea what existed before). I'm something-from-something.
The something-from-nothing conundrum is problematic only to supernatural explanations of the questions of life, the universe and everything. Just look at Genesis: There's nothing, and them "poof," and there's everything. Now, if you tell me that God was the original "something" then we get into an infinite regression of whether he was something from nothing, or if not, whether the previous something came from nothing, and so on and so on (it's turtles all the way down, if you get what I mean).
It's more reasonable to accept that a natural something has always existed, from which all the other somethigns have come, including us, instead of postulating that there was always a supernatural something that's beyond our comprehension.Aris
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
I'll be happy to enlighten you.
First, as Mario noted, the concept of "chance" may indeed be too complex for some people. Sure, the simple definition -- the one creationists seem capable of appreciating and like forcing on evolutionists -- is a random and undirected impetus. But scientists invariably understand chance to mean the possibility of a particular outcome in a process that is indeed undirected but not random.
Let me give you a simple example to illustrate how "chance" can be properly understood within evolutionary theory: I think we can all agree that most knots are the products of directed processes. However, if you get behind your computer or home theater system and try to untangle the gaggle of cables and wires that reside there, you'll always find some that have tied themselves in often elaborate ways. You didn't tie the knots, and unless you think that knot-tying gremlins visit houses at night to mess with people's cables (i.e. ID), the cables tied themselves by chance. But chance here is not just a random process without any natural propensities. Depending on how the cables where piled when you last dropped them, depending on the characteristics of particular cables (thickness, elasticity, etc.) some cables are more prone than others to tie themselves into knots. Of course cables do not procreate, but if they did and there was an environmental advantage to knotted cables (let's say knotted cables did not rot away as fast) then descendants of the surviving cables would inherit the knot-tying tendencies of their parents. And though naturally occurring variations (one cable is a little thicker, another a little stiffer, etc.) these accumulated knot-tying traits would end up in more sophisticated knots.
In terms of how life emerged, I haven't got the faintest idea and nobody else does either. I don't even know that life emerged from non-life -- perhaps living particles have always existed. Who knows? But the fact that we don't know doesn't mean that we have to assume that life is not a natural process.Aris
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
Nothing applied nothingness and created something.
Brilliant!Bombadill
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
"“No, we do not. Nobody who actually understands evolution would maintain that evolution is some sort of random, spontaneous process that just happens as long as you have a bunch of raw ingredients lying about."
Really? What is the complex process? A lightning bolt hitting the right spot at the right time in just the right atmospheric conditions? Not random or spontaneous at all!
And yeah, like Mario, I'd like to know how else, besides either evolution or creation, that life emerged from non-life?dodgingcars
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
"No, we do not. Nobody who actually understands evolution would maintain that evolution is some sort of random, spontaneous process that just happens as long as you have a bunch of raw ingredients lying about. Evolution is far more complex than that  which neatly explains why creationists like to misrepresent it, since they seem congenitally incapable of analyzing anything that’s inherently complex. Indeed, the inability to tackle complexity is at the heart of creationism, which is really just another way of saying, “The process by which life developed on Earth is too complex for me to understand, so someone much, much more intelligent than me must have created it, and so there’s no point for me to continue to tax my brain by trying to understand something created by brainpower beyond my own.â€Â
Here’s a thought for you all: Even if evolution was proved to be total and unadulterated bunk tomorrow, that would still not make creationism a viable alternative. As long as creationism proposes no mechanism, it is merely the throwing up of arms in stupefied awe while asserting, “This is too complex for me! This is too complex for me!†That’s not science but an infantile reaction to the rigors of thinking."
Would you care to explain what other way "life" [i]can[/i] emerge from a premordial soup ,if not by "chance" through chemical evolution?
This is too complex for me...Thank youMario A. Lopez
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
David: "Like it or not, this is essentially how opponents of ID explain how we got here."
No, we do not. Nobody who actually understands evolution would maintain that evolution is some sort of random, spontaneous process that just happens as long as you have a bunch of raw ingredients lying about. Evolution is far more complex than that -- which neatly explains why creationists like to misrepresent it, since they seem congenitally incapable of analyzing anything that's inherently complex. Indeed, the inability to tackle complexity is at the heart of creationism, which is really just another way of saying, "The process by which life developed on Earth is too complex for me to understand, so someone much, much more intelligent than me must have created it, and so there's no point for me to continue to tax my brain by trying to understand something created by brainpower beyond my own."
Here's a thought for you all: Even if evolution was proved to be total and unadulterated bunk tomorrow, that would still not make creationism a viable alternative. As long as creationism proposes no mechanism, it is merely the throwing up of arms in stupefied awe while asserting, "This is too complex for me! This is too complex for me!" That's not science but an infantile reaction to the rigors of thinking.Aris
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
jrockoford234: "Is this what passes as wit among creationist circles? Even the graphics are amateurish  or should I say unintelligently designed?"
Like it or not, this is essentially how opponents of ID explain how we got here. I'm sorry if the truth hurts.
Davidcrandaddy
September 20, 2005
September
09
Sep
20
20
2005
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PDT
Make sure the dirt is sterile-can't have any head starts. It also can't have anything more complex than an RNA molecule. While you're at it, leave out the stirring step; that might just constitute intelligent design :).
Davidcrandaddy
September 20, 2005
September
09
Sep
20
20
2005
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT
Is this what passes as wit among creationist circles? Even the graphics are amateurish -- or should I say unintelligently designed?jrockoford234
September 20, 2005
September
09
Sep
20
20
2005
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
mario- i loved you in saved by the bell.jboze3131
September 20, 2005
September
09
Sep
20
20
2005
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
Just out of curiosity, is "Evolution in a Box" anything like the Cracker Jack box? I left one open long ago, and it grew mold really fast. I didn't have to wait for 3 billion years, and it came with a free tattoo. Anyway, I won't buy it if I am going to get the same results.Mario A. Lopez
September 20, 2005
September
09
Sep
20
20
2005
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
I have the same time constraints that others have mentioned, but don't want to introduce the microwave into the process because the design implications make me uncomfortable. If I started with pond water instead, could I get, say, a mouse, a gekko or maybe a douglass fir in half the time? What would I get? Is there any kind of money back guarantee if I end up with something poisonous or carniverous?SteveB
September 20, 2005
September
09
Sep
20
20
2005
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
mmm, nuke me a batch.Charlie
September 20, 2005
September
09
Sep
20
20
2005
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
Charlie:
Use Avida. Even using "microwave settings" (50% radiation mutation rate chance per codon) you will still get living programs at the end. See:
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000532.html#000003johnnyb
September 20, 2005
September
09
Sep
20
20
2005
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
For the soccer mom there is a condense version “Punk Eek in a Box†Gouldish Evolution.teleologist
September 20, 2005
September
09
Sep
20
20
2005
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT
Shouldn't Darwin's box be black?russ
September 19, 2005
September
09
Sep
19
19
2005
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
Where did the dirt come from?DonaldM
September 19, 2005
September
09
Sep
19
19
2005
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
"I agree with CHarlie. Can I order the “Cambrian Explosion†version that is pre-cooked to right before the tree of life grows new offshoots?"
I think you have purchase the "design" add-on kit, that costs extra and you can't buy it from them because they deny such a kit exists.jasonng
September 19, 2005
September
09
Sep
19
19
2005
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
I agree with CHarlie. Can I order the "Cambrian Explosion" version that is pre-cooked to right before the tree of life grows new offshoots?EdH
September 19, 2005
September
09
Sep
19
19
2005
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
I'm a busy man-on-the-go and can't wait 3BY for my person. Is there a microwave version yet?Charlie
