Help with debunking a creationist claim

[Keith&Co.]

You haven't watched the video on the link above.

I can't watch the video. Is there a transcript anywhere?

 

[Kharakov]

When creating an Ecosystem, one does not simply throw out humongous advantages to one species in the Ecosystem without instilling certain values within the beings, so as not to destroy or imbalance the Ecosystem.

One slowly improves beings within the ecosystem, only introducing dramatic improvements to certain species when the Ecosystem can handle it. Giving a fully developed eye to a species when no other species even has rudimentary light detection apparatus would result in an imbalance and possible starvation of the beings with the advantage as they reproduced and consumed their food supply with ease.

Improvements to beings are released incrementally, so that eventually it sinks into the consciousness of all beings that these advantages would result in abuse by those with them (in a purely "natural" setting) unless the beings that had them did have some sort of higher being curtailing their abuse of these advantages (and restraining them from gaining advantages) until they themselves will not damage others by nature of their lack of understanding in combination with their advantages.

Imagine a predator that had complete advantage over every other species, but because of its rapacious nature (constantly using advantage to gain advantage), would never be able to form peaceful societies that could create great space faring empires, with great stories, ties to other species, roots (Protons), great pageants of the imagination, love, bliss, music, art, philosophy, etc. You'd have to humble the species a bit, take away a few of its advantages, let it ponder its position, so that it could see that the correction by the one known as "no it u love" is not without intent or care, is not motivated by pure greed or avarice, but instead to ultimately lift us up and cause us to work together.

Know I too love, there is no it u love (spacetime, matter, energy are not an "it", but a multitude of beings).

 

[Keith&Co.]

Never mind, i believe i found it on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7E

And, yes, at time 6:20 he agrees with the hostess that the eye could evolve " quickly and easily...over time."

Of course, this is after spending a lot of time NOT saying the entire eye came forth all at one time, but that it was very small increments of change, that provided small benefits, that became fodder for natural selection. Which is the ToE. COMPARED TO the argument-from-complexity complaint about just how very complex the eye is, it would be relatively quick and easy, over time, for these little not-terribly-complex changes to accumulate.

And, yes, the show presented the process as a fact.

No shit.

So, what's wrong? Are there stages of the theoretical development that are not found in nature?
Are there stages of the theoretical development that would not be subject to natural selection?
Are there any scientific problems you can identify with the theoretical development besides 'Nuh-UH!' and 'Needs an engineer...for reasons i can't quite explain.' ??

- - - Updated - - -

When creating an Ecosystem, one does not simply throw out humongous advantages to one species in the Ecosystem without instilling certain values within the beings, so as not to destroy or imbalance the Ecosystem.

Where is this rule written and who enforces it?

Can you give two examples?

 

[Kharakov]

I guess you're right. Technically.

Technically you're not guessing. You know exactly how I phrased what I said, which accurately describes a limit to a certain class of individual's knowledge of the universe.

But let's compare the action of gravity to the actions of known intelligences with purpose.
Gravity affects everything the same way.

Really? Out of the examples you gave, you spoke only of the physical effects of Gravity. You did not speak of the effects of Gravity upon our consciousness, about how it ties us together, how it forces us to work together to accomplish our goals and finally disperse into and unite with the rest of the universe.

If the consciousness behind gravity and nature softened every blow, people would not have a steady leader, people would instead have no firm basis for assessing reality and how we should treat one another. We wouldn't know how to relate to one another. We wouldn't have a similar background for our humor.

I fucked my wife and she got pregnant. Should i then find it safe to conclude that any time i see a pregnant woman, i have fucked her?

Just hope your wife doesn't come to that conclusion.

IF i drop ten marbles on a linoleum floor, the bottoms of the marbles will come to rest PRECISELY upon the surface of the tiles.
Do i attribute this precision to the linoleum or to the marbles?

You should probably give your wife credit for that one. Especially if she sees another pregnant woman.

So basically you have a bunch of very precise actions, and a bunch of clumsy goofballs saying "there is no intent behind these actions" because they (the goofballs) are way too big of clutzes to ever imagine being able to act with such precision consciously. "Ooohohh, because Thad and Grunk no move rock like waterfall, there no higher being moving water, must be mechanical, because Grunk too clumsy and stupid to flow like water, and Grunk smertest cavebeing on ball of dirt.."

No, that's not basically it.
It's kind of a stupid caricature, and a strawman of anything like the thought process that rejects higher beings based on such simplistic and illogical appeals to ignorance.

I'm pretty sure, to quote you directly, "the thought process that rejects higher beings based on such simplistic and illogical appeals to ignorance" is exactly the point. You don't even need a strawman for that one.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Really? Out of the examples you gave, you spoke only of the physical effects of Gravity. You did not speak of the effects of Gravity upon our consciousness, about how it ties us together, how it forces us to work together to accomplish our goals and finally disperse into and unite with the rest of the universe.

Bwahahahahaha!
Right. Brilliant. Things fall down, therefore we need team-work skills.
Good one.
And you call your critics goofballs.
Funny.

If the consciousness behind gravity and nature softened every blow, people would not have a steady leader, people would instead have no firm basis for assessing reality and how we should treat one another. We wouldn't know how to relate to one another. We wouldn't have a similar background for our humor.

Reaching kinda far, isn't it? The way we react to our environment says things about us, yes. it says nothing about how the environment was designed.

I fucked my wife and she got pregnant. Should i then find it safe to conclude that any time i see a pregnant woman, i have fucked her?

Just hope your wife doesn't come to that conclusion.

Yeah, that's not likely.
But that's essentially what you were doing.
Observe something people do and apply that trait to our environment.

 

[Kharakov]

When creating an Ecosystem, one does not simply throw out humongous advantages to one species in the Ecosystem without instilling certain values within the beings, so as not to destroy or imbalance the Ecosystem.

Where is this rule written and who enforces it?

Can you give two examples?

I can read a book that I hold up to a mirror (no problem). I also recognize that it is held up to the mirror. However I think I read something a few months ago without realizing it was a mirror image- I think I wasn't supposed to be able to read it easily, and the people might have thought it was funny that I didn't notice it was a mirror image- but the point being that because there was no mirror involved, I did not realize I was looking at a mirror image until they told me I was (I did notice that it was written backwards.

So the 2 examples are evolution and its mirror image.

Anyway, the point being that I was describing a mirror image of evolution. In the naturalistic case, from an animalistic perspective, it is survival of the fittest. Each takes as much as one can with no regards for anything other than its own advantage (evolution). Nature selection provides pressure that regulates the spread of these advantages, and if too many advantages are gained by a species without the gain of wisdom, the species will destroy the ecosystem in which it thrives (also causing harm to many other species). It is not about stewardship or caring for the system and beings with which we live, it is about being as cutthroat as one can get away with, and doing what one can to gain more advantage.

We all have seen children that press and press, not even aware or caring of the consequences of their actions to others. Imagine a child that has great physical or mental superiority to members of the society in which they grow up, and they have such a great advantage they simply take what they want from the society, rip it apart, leave it in shambles when they are dead, and use it all for their own pleasure.

So, the mirror image of evolution is no it u love: we are raised in a world in which species simply compete to teach us that we must work together and use our advantages for one another rather than to take from one another. We are shown this because ultimately we have the choice to serve those around us, or to serve our own purposes with no regards to those around us. Unless caring about others and the fates they have is ingrained within our being, we too would rise up, use our advantages for selfish purposes, and throw others under the bus.

Ultimately, every conferred advantage of one over another has many consequences. Some people become greedy, some dissolute, some saddened, some angry, etc. Evolution will be what you see until you decide to commit to all, then you will know the restraint of a higher being that knows the consequence of conferring great advantage without causing wisdom first.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Evolution will be what you see until you decide to commit to all, then you will know the restraint of a higher being that knows the consequence of conferring great advantage without causing wisdom first.

Finding moral lessons in nature reveals traits of the finder's brain. It says nothing about whether or not nature was intended as a teaching tool.

 

[Jokodo]

When creating an Ecosystem, one does not simply throw out humongous advantages to one species in the Ecosystem without instilling certain values within the beings, so as not to destroy or imbalance the Ecosystem.

Where is this rule written and who enforces it?

Can you give two examples?

I can read a book that I hold up to a mirror (no problem). I also recognize that it is held up to the mirror. However I think I read something a few months ago without realizing it was a mirror image- I think I wasn't supposed to be able to read it easily, and the people might have thought it was funny that I didn't notice it was a mirror image- but the point being that because there was no mirror involved, I did not realize I was looking at a mirror image until they told me I was (I did notice that it was written backwards.

So the 2 examples are evolution and its mirror image.

Anyway, the point being that I was describing a mirror image of evolution. In the naturalistic case, from an animalistic perspective, it is survival of the fittest. Each takes as much as one can with no regards for anything other than its own advantage (evolution). Nature selection provides pressure that regulates the spread of these advantages, and if too many advantages are gained by a species without the gain of wisdom, the species will destroy the ecosystem in which it thrives (also causing harm to many other species). It is not about stewardship or caring for the system and beings with which we live, it is about being as cutthroat as one can get away with, and doing what one can to gain more advantage.

We all have seen children that press and press, not even aware or caring of the consequences of their actions to others. Imagine a child that has great physical or mental superiority to members of the society in which they grow up, and they have such a great advantage they simply take what they want from the society, rip it apart, leave it in shambles when they are dead, and use it all for their own pleasure.

So, the mirror image of evolution is no it u love: we are raised in a world in which species simply compete to teach us that we must work together and use our advantages for one another rather than to take from one another. We are shown this because ultimately we have the choice to serve those around us, or to serve our own purposes with no regards to those around us. Unless caring about others and the fates they have is ingrained within our being, we too would rise up, use our advantages for selfish purposes, and throw others under the bus.

Ultimately, every conferred advantage of one over another has many consequences. Some people become greedy, some dissolute, some saddened, some angry, etc. Evolution will be what you see until you decide to commit to all, then you will know the restraint of a higher being that knows the consequence of conferring great advantage without causing wisdom first.

How is any of this an argument that gravity is consciously guided - which was your entry point into this thread?

 

[Kharakov]

Evolution will be what you see until you decide to commit to all, then you will know the restraint of a higher being that knows the consequence of conferring great advantage without causing wisdom first.

Finding moral lessons in nature reveals traits of the finder's brain. It says nothing about whether or not nature was intended as a teaching tool.

Just because someone learns from something doesn't mean it was only intended as a teaching tool, although that could be the case.

 

[Underseer]

Evolution will be what you see until you decide to commit to all, then you will know the restraint of a higher being that knows the consequence of conferring great advantage without causing wisdom first.

Finding moral lessons in nature reveals traits of the finder's brain. It says nothing about whether or not nature was intended as a teaching tool.

Just because someone learns from something doesn't mean it was only intended as a teaching tool, although that could be the case.

It could also be the case that the thing in question is part of an elaborate practical joke by technologically advanced aliens, but without any evidence you cannot claim to understand the purpose of such a thing.

 

[Kharakov]

How is any of this an argument that gravity is consciously guided - which was your entry point into this thread?

It isn't. It's to address the reason for the slow adding of advantages to beings in the ecosystem (you know that whole "eye" thing that people keep babbling about), and the ultimate knowledge that we must serve the conscious beings around us by treating them as best as we can (ultimately we will not need advantages over others, but instead simply serve them to our best ability, even if they are douchebags who do not do so for us).

- - - Updated - - -

Evolution will be what you see until you decide to commit to all, then you will know the restraint of a higher being that knows the consequence of conferring great advantage without causing wisdom first.

Finding moral lessons in nature reveals traits of the finder's brain. It says nothing about whether or not nature was intended as a teaching tool.

Just because someone learns from something doesn't mean it was only intended as a teaching tool, although that could be the case.

It could also be the case that the thing in question is part of an elaborate practical joke by technologically advanced aliens, but without any evidence you cannot claim to understand the purpose of such a thing.

I'm not saying it's aliens, but it's aliens!

 

[Eric H]

Keith&Co.;

And, yes, at time 6:20 he agrees with the hostess that the eye could evolve " quickly and easily...over time."

Darwin, Dawkins and the hostess describe the eye as incredibly complex, yet the conclusion is the eye could evolve quickly and easily, somethings not right here.

Of course, this is after spending a lot of time NOT saying the entire eye came forth all at one time, but that it was very small increments of change, that provided small benefits, that became fodder for natural selection. Which is the ToE.

ok, I understand the process of how this works.

COMPARED TO the argument-from-complexity complaint about just how very complex the eye is, it would be relatively quick and easy, over time, for these little not-terribly-complex changes to accumulate.

This is the problem as I see it, Dawkins compares the eye to a bit of rolled up photo sensitive card, and a bag of water, this is not highly complex. A minor quibble would be, even the rolled up card is the wrong shape, it should be a ball shape, not a tube. He was taking a massive short cut with this minor detail.

Now if it took half a million years for this simplistic child like toy to evolve, how long would a complete eye take to evolve, would Darwin accept this explanation, he seemed like a man who paid a great attention to detail.

And, yes, the show presented the process as a fact.

The process might be a fact, but the attention to detail in that process; does not sound like a fact or science to me.

No shit.

Hmmmm!

 

[Jokodo]

It isn't. It's to address the reason for the slow adding of advantages to beings in the ecosystem (you know that whole "eye" thing that people keep babbling about),

You might have addressed "the reason for the slow adding of advantages to beings" assuming your premise of conscious guidance (although not very good ones). That's premature without having established that your premise is valid.

and the ultimate knowledge that we must serve the conscious beings around us by treating them as best as we can (ultimately we will not need advantages over others, but instead simply serve them to our best ability, even if they are douchebags who do not do so for us).

Whatever that means. But it doesn't even seem to follow from your premises, which, once again, you have not given us any reason to accept.

 

[Jokodo]

Evolution will be what you see until you decide to commit to all, then you will know the restraint of a higher being that knows the consequence of conferring great advantage without causing wisdom first.

Finding moral lessons in nature reveals traits of the finder's brain. It says nothing about whether or not nature was intended as a teaching tool.

Just because someone learns from something doesn't mean it was only intended as a teaching tool, although that could be the case.

And just because a meteor lands in the Arctis doesn't mean it was really an alien missile and part of an ongoing attempt by aliens to selectively eradicate the Earth's reindeer which they, for some reason of their own, consider to be the only species posing a threat to their plans to conquer our planet; although that could be the case.

 

[Jokodo]

A minor quibble would be, even the rolled up card is the wrong shape, it should be a ball shape, not a tube. He was taking a massive short cut with this minor detail.

No, just no. We are not talking about the same "sheet" or flat photosensitive region being rolled up within an individuals lifetime, we're talking about subsequent generations' photosensitive regions being slightly differently shaped than their predecessors. He's not actually talking about bending one an the same physical object. For this to be a "massive short cut", you'll need to show that a point-shaped indentation is a larger change than a line-shaped one. From a developmental perspective, if anything the opposite is true: All it takes to get a point-shaped indendetation (i.e, a move towards a ball shape) is for the tissue backing up one point of the photosensitive region to grow slower than the surrounding tissue, while for a line shaped indentation (leadign to a tube shape), the tissue along an entire line needs to grow slower by the same degree.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Darwin, Dawkins and the hostess describe the eye as incredibly complex, yet the conclusion is the eye could evolve quickly and easily, somethings not right here.

Yep. They're saying quick and easy within the context of evolutionary time.
You're reading other claims into the statement. Or taking the comment out of the context in which it was made.
In other words, you're quote mining. As i have said....

Of course, this is after spending a lot of time NOT saying the entire eye came forth all at one time, but that it was very small increments of change, that provided small benefits, that became fodder for natural selection. Which is the ToE.

ok, I understand the process of how this works.

No, i don't think you do.

COMPARED TO the argument-from-complexity complaint about just how very complex the eye is, it would be relatively quick and easy, over time, for these little not-terribly-complex changes to accumulate.

This is the problem as I see it, Dawkins compares the eye to a bit of rolled up photo sensitive card, and a bag of water, this is not highly complex.

Jumping Jehoshaphat, Eric, this is not a problem. He compares some very rough, early evolution eyes, to explain the concept of small changes that give small advantages, so people can understand the concept of a cup eye versus a light sensitive spot.
Once again, you're demanding high detail from a popularization meant to convey something different than a historical record of the development of the entire eye.
You apparently do not WANT to understand the difference between the science, the summary of the science, and the use of analogies in quick introductions to complicated concepts.

A minor quibble would be, even the rolled up card is the wrong shape, it should be a ball shape, not a tube.

Yes, that is a minor quibble. It's pretty worthless as a quibble.

He was taking a massive short cut with this minor detail.

Yes. Of course, he only had four minutes and a piece of cardboard to convey how tiny increments of improvements might have (probably did) make the eye over time.

Now if it took half a million years for this simplistic child like toy to evolve, how long would a complete eye take to evolve, would Darwin accept this explanation, he seemed like a man who paid a great attention to detail.

How long? That's what Nilsen Pilgar were trying to establish and you don't like their work, either. They answered just one question, and you hold them responsible for the entire theory of evolution.
And who gives a shit if Darwin would have accepted it or not?
His work was 150 years ago. We've moved on since then.

And, yes, the show presented the process as a fact.

The process might be a fact, but the attention to detail in that process; does not sound like a fact or science to me.

It would be unweildy to teach every single aspect in the entirety of a science, every single time, including an introduction TO that science, or to some of the basic concepts.
If you were teaching a 5th grade unit on the history of the United States, would you cover every single event in every year?
Because according to you, skipping a year, or skipping the name of Taft's appointment of Johann Thomas as Secretary of War, then that would not be history, it would lack detail.

If you'll notice, Eric, this film is not the whole of Dawkins' knowledge of evolutionary theory, it's PART of a lesson introducing students to the concepts of evolutionary theory. You've drille down to one sentence in one clip of one thing that the whole of the lesson is meant to talk about and bitching that it's incomplete.

Yes, it's incomplete. That doesn't make it wrong for what it's intended to present. No more than skipping the contents of the 3rd law Grover Cleveland vetoed makes a lesson bad history.

 

[Kharakov]

You might have addressed "the reason for the slow adding of advantages to beings" assuming your premise of conscious guidance (although not very good ones). That's premature without having established that your premise is valid.

Proponents of non-conscious action have yet to prove or at least provide a bit of evidence that any action in the universe is not caused by consciousness. Many actions are not caused by OUR consciousnesses (including the various biological activities in our brain), but assuming actions are caused by something that is not conscious without any evidence that actions are done by something that is not conscious is a pretty big leap, and not justified in the slightest.

One could say that the mathematical addition of 1 to 1 to make 2 isn't conscious, but this does not mean that a consciousness did not do the actions.


The premise of a non-conscious actor in the universe needs to be justified, and there is absolutely no justification. This is the premise that many have assumed fallaciously, and then gone on to attack the simple truth of a consciousness behind actions with various made up non-conscious actors. It's like assuming you act without consciousness simply because I cannot directly detect your consciousness.

 

[Kharakov]

Evolution will be what you see until you decide to commit to all, then you will know the restraint of a higher being that knows the consequence of conferring great advantage without causing wisdom first.

Finding moral lessons in nature reveals traits of the finder's brain. It says nothing about whether or not nature was intended as a teaching tool.

Just because someone learns from something doesn't mean it was only intended as a teaching tool, although that could be the case.

And just because a meteor lands in the Arctis doesn't mean it was really an alien missile and part of an ongoing attempt by aliens to selectively eradicate the Earth's reindeer which they, for some reason of their own, consider to be the only species posing a threat to their plans to conquer our planet; although that could be the case.

Yeah. In this case, I was saying that I don't know whether nature was only intended as a teaching tool or not. In your post, you're saying something that you know is nonsense to illuminate the looseness of the qualifier I used at the end of my post, which has nothing to do with the point of my post.

 

[Jokodo]

Evolution will be what you see until you decide to commit to all, then you will know the restraint of a higher being that knows the consequence of conferring great advantage without causing wisdom first.

Finding moral lessons in nature reveals traits of the finder's brain. It says nothing about whether or not nature was intended as a teaching tool.

Just because someone learns from something doesn't mean it was only intended as a teaching tool, although that could be the case.

And just because a meteor lands in the Arctis doesn't mean it was really an alien missile and part of an ongoing attempt by aliens to selectively eradicate the Earth's reindeer which they, for some reason of their own, consider to be the only species posing a threat to their plans to conquer our planet; although that could be the case.

Yeah. In this case, I was saying that I don't know whether nature was only intended as a teaching tool or not. In your post, you're saying something that you know is nonsense to illuminate the looseness of the qualifier I used at the end of my post, which has nothing to do with the point of my post.

Not "to illuminate the looseness of the qualifier" - rather to illuminate the total lack of evidence for your claim as demonstrated by the fact that the best you can do to back it up is saying "although that could be the case".

 

[Jokodo]

You might have addressed "the reason for the slow adding of advantages to beings" assuming your premise of conscious guidance (although not very good ones). That's premature without having established that your premise is valid.

Proponents of non-conscious action have yet to prove or at least provide a bit of evidence that any action in the universe is not caused by consciousness. <snip>

You can't prove a negative. If you want your claims to be seriously considered as a likely explanation of reality, it's up to you to give positive evidence for them. If the best you can do is say "you can't prove it's not so", you right out there with aliens on a campaign to eliminate reindeer.