Kerblybear,

And to top it all off, he ends the whole shebang with environmental collapse and nuclear war, destroying all of the hard work he had spent so much time engaging in. Seems like an omnipotent, omniscient being could have looked out for a brotha a li'l bit.

You seem to be omniscient yourself in knowing the universe is 4.7 billion years old and that our world will be destroyed by both environmental and nuclear catastrophes. Maybe you're a god!

Might it be that your entire concepts of "chaos" and "order", since they have been determined by what we see on the Earth, are misleading when applied to the very natural system which produced them in your minds? After all, we are forced to see plant and animal life as the height of incomprehensibly complex order, while we are forced to denote things such as hurricanes and viruses as chaotic. Hence, one could imagine a more perfect world wherein no diseases or predatory violence among animals had to take place, and then we would have called THAT sort of system the height of complex order.

Ok, let me rephrase that. Within the realm of our conception of order; why have we seen an increasing amount of order in the universe. And, is this order (as it is understood by myself or others) becoming more pronounced as time passes. In the history of man, other than the evolution of ideas (which I believe is real) have we seen an increasing amount of order (even as I have presented it) in the natural world?

disco suicide wrote: In the history of man, other than the evolution of ideas (which I believe is real) have we seen an increasing amount of order (even as I have presented it) in the natural world?

disco suicide wrote:evolution on a larger scale has no more been evident than the existence of God.

Whoa, doude, sorry. Not gonna listen to anything more from anyone who would make such a claim.

Nice knowin' ya.

Seconded. Those critical of evolution need to realize that denying mountains of scientific evidence demonstrates a sad level of commitment to reason.

Macro evolution is only "debatable" in forums like these.

Disco Suicide, follow Linus's link to talkorigins.org and verse yourself in whatever actual debate still exists. Though I'll warn you, it's no where near as sexy as denying macro-evo outright.

pandasthumb.org is good also. Speaking of pandas thumbs, how cool are THEY?

disco suicide wrote:Steve, I am in no way a "home-schooler" nor am I entirely sure what that means or implies.

It means that you are willfully ignorant of everything learned about geology, chemistry and biology in the last two centuries, and you are immune to any logical challenge to your primitive unerstanding of the world. Just like a home-schooled christian, taught by his parents rather than people who know more than his parents.

And also you are an idiot.

disco suicide wrote:
evolution on a larger scale has no more been evident than the existence of God.


Whoa, doude, sorry. Not gonna listen to anything more from anyone who would make such a claim.

Nice knowin' ya.

Educate me. If what I have stated is so preposterous then show me evidence of macro-evolution. I want to see it now.

I have not ignored science. I have had so much of it crammed down my throat and at one time I subscribed to all the popular viewpoints held by science. What I came to realize through educating myself in matters of religion and science, instead of taking the one-sided approach which I suspect is prevalent amongst proponents of evolutionary theory, is that I would rather choose to believe in a system of human belief that is based on truth and love instead a human belief system based on perception and illusion. It is that simple.

I am open to challenge, otherwise I wouldn't be here. I have followed Linus' link and have read the 5 misconceptions of evolution and found them intriguing. I have not seen any of these things for myself. Have you?

Origin of Life: Constructing the Building Blocks
Before you can assemble the large macro-molecules necessary for life you must have a ready supply of basic organic molecules. Imagine a primitive ocean. You need tons of sugars, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, etc. There are a number of severe obstacles that must be overcome in getting a suitable ocean:

* Quantities - The first problem is overcoming the diluting effect of a vast primordial ocean. For example, a study which assumed use of the entire atmospheric supply of nitrogen for molecular formation indicates insufficient concentrations would result (Gish 1972, 10-11).
* Synthesis vs destruction - For chemical bonds to form there needs to be an external source of energy. Unfortunately, the same energy that creates the bonds is much more likely to destroy them. In the famous Miller experiment (1953) that synthesized amino acids, a cold trap is used to selectively isolate the reaction products. Without this, the would be no products. This poses a challenge to simplistic early earth schemes where lightning simply strikes a primitive ocean. Where is the "trap" in such an ocean? Also, the creation of amino acids by a chemist in a laboratory is still much different from forming self-replicating life.

This point has not escaped the attention of evolutionists. "The physical chemist, guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates [blobs]" (D. E. Hull, Nature, 186, 693 1960)(Gish 1972, 13)
* Incompatibility - Another problem is that different molecules will react with one another. For example, amino acids and sugars combine and destroy each other. In lab experiments the component chemicals are neatly separated from one another. How is this possible in a primitive ocean?

References:
Gish 1972
Gish 1984T

Continue with: Origin of Life: Constructing the Proteins

disco suicide wrote: I would rather choose to believe in a system of human belief that is based on truth and love instead a human belief system based on perception and illusion. It is that simple.

You might as well go ahead and admit that, since Christianity makes you feel good about yourself and about the world, you'd rather accept it than evolution. The problem is that some of us care more about the truth than about beliefs that make us feel good. You need to read Immanuel Kant's essay "What is Enlightenment?" He urges us to dare to think for ourselves and not blindly follow authority when making up our minds.

Gish's science has been refuted ad nauseam. He is a pseudo-scientist. Please don't make me give you the reams of evidence. There's plenty of it on Wikipedia, for chrissakes:

[edit] Controversy and criticism
Though his critiques of chemical evolution[7] are viewed favorably among fellow creationists,[citation needed] they have not found acceptance within the mainstream scientific community.

Richard Trott wrote an article rebutting many of the arguments Duane Gish made during a presentation at Rutgers University in 1994.[8] Trott wrote that "if Gish is one of the world's leading experts" on creation science then "evolutionary scientists have nothing to fear from [creation] science."

Trott has pointed out that Gish has "stated that there are no fossil precursors to the dinosaur Triceratops... for at least 12 years now," but this "is absolutely untrue." In fact, ceratopsian precursors of Triceratops include, "for example, Monoclonius and Protoceratops."[8] Furthermore, "this lineage appears in proper sequence in the fossil record" and "shows the expected developmental change in body size, size of the bony frill, and number of horns." Trott concludes "unfortunately, it is likely that none of Gish's audience was aware that his statement was completely contrary to fact. Gish promulgated similar falsehoods about the fossil record all night long."[8]

Trott also claimed that Gish "emphasized that there were no 'transitional forms' in the fossil record but he did not explain what characteristics he would accept as 'transitional' (with the exception of a ludicrous gloss on what one would expect to see in the horns of Triceratops)."[8] With bird fossils "Gish has, for example, declared that the reptile-bird transition Archaeopteryx was not a transition because it had feathers and flew and was, therefore, a bird." Trott noted "to make the absurd assertion that Archaeopteryx did not show features of a reptile, Gish must conceal from his audience facts about Archaeopteryx such as that it possessed a pubic peduncle and a long bony tail. These are features found in reptiles that are never found in birds."

Gish also claimed "Lord Solly Zuckerman, writing in 1970 that Australopithecus was probably not an ancestor of Homo sapiens, had more or less all the evidence that we have today."[8] Trott noted that this statement "showed either incredible ignorance or a stunning lack of integrity" because "the field of physical anthropology underwent a revolution in the 1970s due to new discoveries." Indeed, Zuckerman wrote that his conclusions on Australopithecines were made at least three years before Lucy was discovered, and that he "didn't work with any of the original Australopithecine fossils. His conclusions were based on a cast of one half of the pelvis of a single specimen)."[8]

Gish claims "that Neanderthals are now accepted as 'fully human Homo sapiens just like you and me.')."[8] Yet, Trott wrote "Neanderthals were not 'just like you and me,' A Neanderthal had a longer and lower skull, a larger face and larger teeth, no chin or a slight chin, and a massive brow ridge in front of a differently shaped brain, as well as a distinctive skeletal structure."

In 1997 Michael Shermer devoted a partial chapter of his book Why People Believe Weird Things to Gish's arguments. Regarding research Shermer made for a public debate with Gish, Shermer noted that in every debate "Gish delivered the same automated presentation- same opening, same assumptions about his opponent's position, same outdated slides, and even the same jokes." In the debate itself, Shermer opened his argument by explaining at length that he was not an atheist and that he was willing to accept the existence of a divine creator, but Gish's rebuttal concerned itself primarily with proving that Shermer was an atheist and therefore immoral.[9]

In 2002 Massimo Pigliucci, who debated Gish five times, noted Gish ignores evidence that is contrary to Gish's religious beliefs.[10] Moreover, Pigliucci criticized the organizations Gish runs, the personal attacks Gish makes, the pseudoscience Gish teaches, and even Gish's claim that Adam in Genesis 1 had a belly button.[11]

In 2004, Gish appeared on Penn and Teller's Showtime television show Bullshit! on the episode "Creationism." On the show Gish explained that "neither creation nor evolution are scientific theories. Evolution is no more scientific than creation." The scientific proof Gish offered for creationism was that the Grand Canyon was created in one day during the Biblical flood that involved Noah's Ark. As for Gish's claim that there are no fossils to demonstrate evolution, Dr Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education noted "part of the problem is Dr. Gish hasn't kept up with the scientific literature." The host, Penn Jillette, concluded that "Duane doesn't want to find anything that will shake up his world view" and "his God lives only in the margins of science and he wants to keep those margins wide."

Scott also noted Gish has done no professional research in his field since his work at Upjohn, instead producing only creationism-related work for a popular audience.

Gish is also one of the creationists most responsible for propragating the false assertion that evolution by natural selection is rendered impossible by the second law of thermodynamics. In addition to the usual scientists' criticisms, this has also received criticism from the comedian Dave Gorman, who personally met Gish during 2003 (see also Trivia below).

DISCO, you want to be educated about macro evolution in the EA forum by recordists and musicians? There are literally thousands of books on the topic, information all over the web, etc. You aren't really asking what it seems like you are asking, are you?

You are saying that the evidence for macro evolution fails to persuade you? This is an argument from incredulity, and therefore a personal problem (i.e. not an actual argument). If the mountains of evidence collected by ACTUAL SCIENTISTS won't persuade you, I doubt Steve Albini will either. Or anyone else.

End of discussion, no?

Steve wrote:Matthew, you say existence either is, or is not, and it is.

Existence is, I concur.

You present it as a two-option question. I believe this is a linguistic quirk and not indicative of an absolute truth.

This is because you reduce “truth” to “that which I can empirically sense and logically prove”. But truth must BE before it is grasped by the senses and then the mind. The only other alternative is to propose “I AM TRUTH (=”IS”) ITSELF” really, which is absurd because this statement is not true in that both you, and I, can make propositions which are not true. In any event, you cannot logically prove existence or sense it aside from material things which happen to exist. You can only BE, and thus say contra Descartes and Augustine: “Sum ergo cogito” ( perhaps Descartes is now saying “Si cogitissem intellexerim Sum” somewhere). To say otherwise is a contradiction and another absurdity.

Existence is a state of being, like absence or transience…

Existence means “IS”. “IS” in the sense which includes only particular actually existent things can be absent because “IS” AS anything other than itself need not exist and thus has limited “IS”, but “IS” in the sense of a universal reality which includes all existent things is unlimited by particularities and thus can never be absent because absence suggests mutability, and “IS” is immutable by virtue of its self-evident factuality throughout all immediately accessible things which exist. It is likely that this entire paragraph is at once elucidating and obscuring “IS”, but “IS” nonetheless “IS” because clarity of perception, and indeed perception itself, is contingent upon that “IS”-IN-SOME-THING which is perceiving another “IS”-IN-SOME-THING. Reality is independent of perception because without reality, nothing is perceived.

By the same token, existence in the sense which includes only particular actually existent things can be transient because existence AS anything other than itself need not exist and thus has limited existence, but existence in the sense of a universal reality which includes all existent things is unlimited by particularities and thus can never be transient because transience suggests mutability, and existence is immutable by virtue of its self-evident factuality throughout all immediately accessible things which exist…..”nothing”, “non-being”, “not-be”, “IS-NOT”, etc……..these all are mere negative propositions and do not stand for anything either conceptually or in reality. Thus, existence could never be something other than existence. It is likely that this entire paragraph is at once elucidating and obscuring BE, but BE nonetheless IS because clarity of perception, and indeed perception itself, is contingent upon that which perceiving a reality. Reality (as either a particular thing or universal reality)thus is independent of perception because without reality, nothing is perceived.

Existence is thus simultaneously a particular and universal, but nevertheless unified, reality, indeed the highest and MOST universal reality. Look at the matter at hand through this example (and I exemplify with what I presume is extreme cogency given both your profession and your post here): to say that “Sometimes I’m at Electrical Audio and other times I’m absent from Electrical Audio” is utterly different from saying “Sometimes I exist and other times I do not exist”.

…or omnipresence or impossibility.

It is impossible for existence AS a thing to be all things at once, but existence IS, and thus not susceptible to a highly contingent, relative concepts like "presence". "Impossibility" is a negation, and thus nothing more than a proposition.

It has no existence of its own except as a linguistic tool to describe the state of something else.

In case you think I'm just bloviating, read Gilson's "Being and Some Philosophers", as well as some other works of his which I can personally recommend. Sure, "such a blithe answer to such a technical question. what bull!", you think? I know.....send me a PM for more information if you like, because the other alternative is to clog up your forum with some extremely technical philosophical reasoning (as if we aren't doing that already!).

To its absolute nature, what do you say about the virtual particle/antiparticle pairs popping into existence from nothing? This seems to be a case of conditional existence.

“Conditional existence”, I think you and I can agree, refers to existence-AS-this-or-that-existent-thing-OF-which-we-can-conceive. We know through science that both matter and anti-matter exist, though the exact nature of even the most fundamental units of either such as these, or even the very existence of such units or their components, is a big quandary in modern physics because of the widespread rejection of metaphysics. All this aside, it is worth noting that matter and antimatter are not true opposites except in equivocal proposition in that both particle and anti-particle exist but merely ARE charged oppositely and become energy upon contact, and the energy obviously exists. It is also known that vacuum fluctuations are the cause for such particles, thus these particles have a cause and furthermore both the
particles AND the cause exist. Now…………..if it is indeed the case that these particles are not caused by energy fluctuations in a "vacuum" and are indeed popping into existence ex nihilo, then only an infinitely powerful cause could bring them into existence because there is an infinite gulf between ACTUAL EXISTENCE ITSELF and its negation, and negation is little more than words. I plead ignorance as to the exact origin and nature of these pairs in that I am not a physicist, but I suspect that they are probably not popping into existence ex nihilo. I’d prefer to look for a natural cause rather than blithely leap into a God-of-the-gaps situation. When in doubt, always presume natural causality first, but not to the exclusion supernatural causality per se.

It isn't the case that these particles do or don't exist, but that they have a definite probability or being there or not…

Probability is existentially neutral. It can only be predicated of larger concepts and thus is only part of the mind, which bases its concepts upon sensory data of actually existing things apart from itself. See how reality is, from the lowest reality to the highest:

1. Language

2. Concepts

3. Existence AS a thing

4. Existence as Existence

...and that probability (rather than an absolute existence-or-not) is what the universe has to take into account, and can be measured.

Measurement and mathematics are also is existentially neutral, though mathematics touches upon the laws of logic and non-contradiction much more intimately than merely measuring matter……but these both are only mechanisms and concepts of the mind in the end and not actual existent things. Thus both measurement and mathematics can only be, again, predicates of larger concept and thus only part of the mind. Saying “I will win the lottery upon the 4,327th time I play it, based upon my mathematical analysis of the game” is different from actually winning it upon the 4,327th time you actually play it. Proposing the Pythagorean Theorem or the Golden Ratio does not bring a triangular plot of sod or a snail’s shell into existence. A bottle of Sam Adams holds twelve fluid ounces before you take the time to measure it (I hope you don’t intend to do such), but it could also hold, say, 4,327 units of your own devising should you devise a measuring system which would incidentially allow for said number of units of beer to be contained in said bottle.

Measurement of matter is arbitrary in the end. Mathematics is not arbitrary, but it is nevertheless just the human mind abstracting from reality in light of the law of non-contradiction……not a THING-WHICH-IS.

A universe with virtual particle-antiparticle pairs (like the one I'm in now) has no absolute state of existence. Does that mean there is no god?

You are correct when you say that this universe has no absolute existence, because only EXISTENCE exists absolutely. The choice then presents itself yet again, and this isn’t some sort of game I’m playing either. I’m deadly serious in my persistent mentioning of it:

EXISTENCE=IS-NOT

or,

EXISTENCE=IS.

There are some cultures that have different words for different kinds of existence. A certain Native American people (forgive me, I forget which people I refer to -- college was many years ago) have one word for physical existence, another for existence in the spirit world accessed by dreams and hallucinations and another for the transcendent existence of the person (conciousness) that visits the other two realms. They regard all these realms as equally real. I think the logic of this division (given their perception of reality) is obvious and their language reflects it. Is there no god for them?

What I have said thus in this post ought to suffice as an answer to this example of the relation between reality and consciousness. This a sublime attempt to divert the discussion into some nebulous discussion about "dreams and visions" and thus religion.......or perhaps you would like to talk about dreams. I hesitantly indulge this...

Dreams are nothing more than the imagination run amok during sleep. The brain is the central sensory processing hub in the human body...it's basically an ultra-computer made of organic material and utilizing electrical energy. I have wondered in the past sometimes what a "Fantastic Voyage" inside the human brain would be like......I think it would be akin to being in a corporate jetplane flying through a supercell thunderstorm shearing and colliding with a super hurricane while an intense solar storm bombards the solar system, and meanwhile you're on a collision course with a 747 and you're losing control and going into a stall: great chaos but yet great order.

Anyway...

It is obviously from what is known scientifically that the brain processes and transmits sensory data to the intellect, but it also seems to store the data also and regurgitate it as dreams and memory.

So what the issue then? The existence of existence or the existence of consciousness? Perhaps both? Where are we going with this? Hike the ball.