The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2026 9:30 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2026 2:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2026 1:50 pm...triadic symbiosis and irreducible complexity still represent significant problems for the Evolutionist's narrative.

No they don't. Irreducible complexity is a philosophical belief that does not exist outside of creationism.

Snail parasites don't exist?

They certainly do. Clearly you have forgotten the trouble I went to suggesting how the relation between flatworm, snail and bird might have evolved.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2026 9:30 pmYou're trying WAAAY too hard to escape this one.

Mr Can, you mad old sausage, that's projection. We both know it is you trying to escape this:

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2026 7:33 pmSo are snail parasites part of your God's design, or a product of the fall of man?

Can't say I blame you; there is no answer to that which is not ridiculous.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 3:02 pm Evolutionary biologists are not in the business of predicting what ecological niches will exist in the future, and for that reason tend not to make predictions about the future development of organisms.

Yes, this is what I was suggesting: it's not a fair task to ask of the Evolutionist. He doesn't pretend to know where a blind process is aiming; how could he, when his supposition is that it has no particular aim.

I have already mentioned Darwin's Hawk Moth

But this is an old error: the using of micro-evolution to argue for macro-evolution...in other words, the pointing out that a species may be modified within its own species (as, for example, we have modified dogs by interbreeding), and then the arguing based on that, that dogs can become cats. For is is the latter sort of transformation -- inter-species morphing -- that Evolutionism needs us to believe in, not the "micro" adjustments of genetics within a particular species, which is well-established.

archaeopteryx and tiktaalik are examples.

Those are exactly the kinds of cases Evolutionism would need...some evidence of one species actually becoming another.

Unfortunately for the case, archaeopteryx, even if authentic, would be it's own creature, and the idea that it evolved would have to be taken as assumed before it constituted any evidence for evolution. And like the other fossils, it simply lacks the transitional forms to fill in the necessary gaps, as well as the vast numbers of transitional forms we should expect. I believe there are presently 7 fossils presented as archaeopteryx...nowhere near enough for a supposedly vast process of morphing.

As for tiktaalik, it is a modern creature, and would require us to believe in Evolutionism already to accept as evidence for Evolutionism (which is obviously circular, since tiktaalik could as easily be said to have been created "as is," and there's no way to arbitrate the question).

So this is also junk science...not because the fossils and tiktaalik don't exist, but because the deductions Evolutionists insist we make from their existence are circular and presumptive, and not based on sufficient evidence. There may be nothing wrong with the data, but there's everything logically wrong with the conclusions Evolutionists draw from the data. The two just don't match.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 3:51 pm

So are snail parasites part of your God's design, or a product of the fall of man?

Can't say I blame you; there is no answer to that which is not ridiculous.

I'm not avoiding it. I'm avoiding being side-tracked at the moment. I've promised to address it, when we've cleared the hurdle of how Evolution can deal with things like triadic symbiosis and other irreducible complexities in nature.

Not ironically enough proof of creationism still does very little for the theologist. Why so. Because he can't know what to do with this knowledge. He can't point to his favorite religion and say, 'therefore this one is true' with the intentions of positing that religion as an authority now over what to do and know in life. For all he knows, creationism is true, and the Aztec's gods are the creators (if you don't count the Jewish god as bad enough... can't imagine how you wouldn't unless you had special needs).

You can not go from proof of creationism to a 'the nature of god is x' argument. Why, then, is creationism still such a hot topic? Are evolutionists THAT bored today? Do they need something important to talk about... 'cause i can help them out. This shit was relevant in the 19th century when the most important thing society could do was check (or destroy) any authority of any church... and to do so meant to discredit its theories.

All that shit is over with, and the world is none the wiser. Today, religion merely shifts its own goal posts and incorporates evolution into their favorite religion. Twenty years ago it became cool with god to be gay. You just had to mess with scriptural interpretation a bit and maybe new-age it out a little.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 4:49 pm Not ironically enough proof of creationism still does very little for the theologist.

Actually, it does exactly what it should do, and no more. Which is perfect for the purpose.

All arguments have a scope. They ought never to be taken to exceed the scope at which they aim: the right question is, "Did they achieve their target," not "Did they achieve targets for which the argument was never designed in the first place?

First Cause arguments aim at proving some necessary First Cause had to exist. They neither purport to do more, nor can be damned for failing to prove more. Similarly, intelligent design arguments are intended to show the necessity of recognizing design in nature. No more. They aren't targetted at proving which God exists, or what His nature is, or which religion you should follow, or whether or not abortion is moral, or what the favoured hat size is at UN tea parties. Those things require new arguments.

So different arguments pertain to the posing of different questions. All these arguments do enough for the stage of thought at which they're aimed. You can't fault them for not doing what they never attempted to do.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 3:02 pm Evolutionary biologists are not in the business of predicting what ecological niches will exist in the future, and for that reason tend not to make predictions about the future development of organisms.

Well, they would actually need to in order to bolster the theory. There must be someone who has speculated in this area.

Where is the equivalent of the archerfish that only spits on its bib, if you catch my drift. But no, there is a full fledged, completely expert, finished-product archerfish that can even control the wallop of water as it hits based on the distance away.

AJ: ...then the Christian definition of God simply stated does not jibe with The World as it is.

IC: That's not obvious. You'll have to make that case. What makes you think that?

In my view it is literally obvious. I wonder why it is less than obvious to you. Consider the Jungle (as in the Amazon). It is a biological “entity” where all that is alive feeds off of other life forms in a strange and even ”terrifying” eternal struggle. Extreme, grasping life succumbs to moldering death, and even in dying the life-enzymes are at work, recycling organic beings continually.

If that is God’s creation, what reason stands behind it? It is brutal, unforgiving, even monstrous when it is examined carefully. If you do there and cut yourself, in a few hours decompositional bacteria will infect you, and you will become feverish and likely die, and immediately insects and strange creatures will begin the recycling process and drag all your nutrients into the ecological system. You might cry out but no matter, no effect: you are to be consumed.

Now, what sort of a god is the author of such worlds, of such a Reality. I do not think you can answer. You will resolve not to consider it, and deflect it.

It is obvious that the ‘mind’ behind Nature is really rather demonic, if you’ll permit the reference. What is “good” in the jungle? The qualifier has no relevance. It is simply: immense process.

Where is “Jesus” in Nature?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 4:01 pmUnfortunately for the case, archaeopteryx, even if authentic, would be it's own creature, and the idea that it evolved would have to be taken as assumed before it constituted any evidence for evolution.

There are roughly 250 000 named species in the fossil record of which there are no living examples. Do you think any might be 'authentic'?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 4:01 pmAs for tiktaalik, it is a modern creature...

It's been extinct for over 350 million years; my guess is you are confusing tiktaalik with axolotl.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 6:22 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 3:02 pm Evolutionary biologists are not in the business of predicting what ecological niches will exist in the future, and for that reason tend not to make predictions about the future development of organisms.

Well, they would actually need to in order to bolster the theory.

Don't be absurd. Creationism is teleological, which means it has a direction and implies that everything moves towards a design. Evolution isn't teleological, so it doesn't predict that future events will shape out in any particular way, it just tells you where they came from.

On top of that, how do you expect to be around for 5 million years to test the prediction that yet another life form will evolve into the shape of a crab in that timeframe?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 4:04 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 3:51 pm

So are snail parasites part of your God's design, or a product of the fall of man?

Can't say I blame you; there is no answer to that which is not ridiculous.

I'm not avoiding it. I'm avoiding being side-tracked at the moment. I've promised to address it, when we've cleared the hurdle of how Evolution can deal with things like triadic symbiosis and other irreducible complexities in nature.

I'm happy to proceed on the belief that it can't. So are snail parasites part of your God's design, or a product of the fall of man?

AJ:Therefore, the only option that I see is to propose, to theorize, and to believe in a Divinity that is actually not represented by The World (Nature) but is entirely metaphysical to our ‘plane of reality’.

IC:But that will prove useless in two ways: one, that we will have no data to guide our "theorizing," and two, that the god so conceived is merely "transcendent," meaning "having nothing to do with this reality," and so is purely speculative...and irrelevant to our situation.

Oh not at all. In fact it is an entirely necessary intellectual manoeuvre. Very much of “logos”.

This world, i.e. Nature, the world as it is, will never become the ‘polished sphere’ of absolute perfection. The world will continue being The World just as the oceans of today will lap the shores of continents for millions, even perhaps billions of years from now. The only real perfection in Christian idealism is in a world that is not this world!

I know, IC, that these paths of imagining and speculation are none that you can tread intellectually. But in this sense you are locked-in to a conceptual model that forces you to adamantly defend those “pillars” of the belief system.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑53 us[/i]er_id=22096]

AJ: ...then the Christian definition of God simply stated does not jibe with The World as it is.

IC: That's not obvious. You'll have to make that case. What makes you think that?

In my view it is literally obvious. I wonder why it is less than obvious to you. Consider the Jungle (as in the Amazon). It is a biological “entity” where all that is alive feeds off of other life forms in a strange and even ”terrifying” eternal struggle. Extreme, grasping life succumbs to moldering death, and even in dying the life-enzymes are at work, recycling organic beings continually.

And..how does that differ from that Torah says the world is like?

It isn't, at all. The world looks as if it is a combination of beauty and bestiality, of joy and suffering, of good and bad. Jungles are pretty, and they're deadly. Human beings do great good, and great evil. We were created "in the image of God," as Genesis says, but also are clearly "fallen" and alienated from the Good.

Torah says, that God told man that in the day in which he rebelled, that would be the first day in which he would not only know what evil was, but would experience death...decay...depredation...disaster...all the stuff you're pointing out.

It looks like Torah has the picture quite right, to me.

Now, what sort of a god is the author of such worlds, of such a Reality. I do not think you can answer.

As I say, Torah does that for me. I'm actually waiting for the bit that seems remotely challenging to that.

I think you're taking an extremely simplistic view of the situation. Not only do you omit all the good things the world has, which you have to admit is a little one-sided, surely, but you also assume that this world must today exactly replicate the nature of its Creator. Torah says we are alienated from Him, in rebellion, and subject to everything that naturally comes to those who sever themselves from the very Author of Life. And this world, instead of reflecting the Creator's nature, now reflects the mixed nature of mankind...truly, a place suited to his identity, rather than to the nature of Hashem.

But is there a better argument? If you have one, let me know.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 6:44 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 4:01 pmUnfortunately for the case, archaeopteryx, even if authentic, would be it's own creature, and the idea that it evolved would have to be taken as assumed before it constituted any evidence for evolution.

There are roughly 250 000 named species in the fossil record of which there are no living examples. Do you think any might be 'authentic'?

What they show is extinction. What they don't show is the sort and prevalence of transitions we should anticipate if Evolutionism were true.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 4:01 pmAs for tiktaalik, it is a modern creature...

...my guess is you are confusing tiktaalik with axolotl.

Perhaps.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 6:47 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 4:04 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 3:51 pmCan't say I blame you; there is no answer to that which is not ridiculous.

I'm not avoiding it. I'm avoiding being side-tracked at the moment. I've promised to address it, when we've cleared the hurdle of how Evolution can deal with things like triadic symbiosis and other irreducible complexities in nature.

I'm happy to proceed on the belief that it can't.

But you 're still fighting that. So I don't think you believe it at all.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2026 6:45 pm Creationism is teleological, which means it has a direction and implies that everything moves towards a design. Evolution isn't teleological, so it doesn't predict that future events will shape out in any particular way, it just tells you where they came from.

Then man is anatural since he is right on the verge of reengineering himself, himself as biological entity. And when he does so he proves himself teleological. How is it that nature has produced this creature that turns against the natural order?! It really makes me angry the more I think about it!

This is the basis of my definition if man as a metaphysical creature. He draws from a model ‘not of this world’.