"God's advocate" [atheist vs. atheist] Evolution Proves God.

Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
"God's advocate" [atheist vs. atheist] Evolution Proves God.

Preface:

 

Disclaimer:

Above all, the title assertion statement ("evolution proves god&quotEye-wink is untrue, ignorant, and dishonest, and any argument for it is necessarily also qualified by those evaluations.  This debate is intended to be educational- not of the assertion, but of apologetic tactics, and to provide debate practice.  The title premise of the Theist position taken (the assertion) is recognized by both parties to be patently false (and beyond that, idiotic), particularly by the party presenting it (myself)- as such, it is hereby disclaimed (not in copyright, but in principle), and to be known that the presentation herein is presented as neither honest nor rational, but an emulation of apologetics for the purposes stated.


Conditional release:

Both posters, by posting, hereby attest to their respective copyrights to the material posted with the exception of accredited excerpts from other sources (those not belonging to the posters) used within these posts under fair use.

Both posters hereby agree and assert that all such content herein remains copyright the respective posters, and may not be reprinted or redistributed elsewhere under any circumstances, with the exception of express, explicit written permission from the posters, or from RRS (Rational Response Squad) or CFI (Center For Inquiry), to whom the posters hereby grant complete and irrevocable right to print, publish, or otherwise redistribute the dialogue herein provided that use is compatible with their founding purposes and insofar as possible maintains the anonymity of the participants, unless attribution is otherwise requested by the participants prior to publication (in which case they may optionally include it).

 

Topic:

The topical assertion of this particular debate is "Evolution proves god"


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Evolution is the process of

Evolution is the process of advancement- perfection- fine tuned by all of the laws of the universe.  It may be a slow process, but I will ask, as many atheists have in trying to prove evolution itself (which is not in contention):  How can you not walk a mile by taking one step at a time?

How can perfection not be formed through evolution, given enough time?  It can't not be.  Perfection is the inevitable and proven outcome of evolution.  That perfection that evolution forms it god himself.  Evolution, as such, proves the formation and origin of god.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:Evolution is the

Message from Sapient.  This post has been removed due to the fact that this is a one on one debate.  I have no idea why the permissions here are messed up.  I'll look into it.  Please don't post in this thread unless you are Blake or Ratdog.  For moderation ease all other posts will be nuked.  

 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:Evolution is the

Blake wrote:

Evolution is the process of advancement- perfection- fine tuned by all of the laws of the universe.  It may be a slow process, but I will ask, as many atheists have in trying to prove evolution itself (which is not in contention):  How can you not walk a mile by taking one step at a time?

How can perfection not be formed through evolution, given enough time?  It can't not be.  Perfection is the inevitable and proven outcome of evolution.  That perfection that evolution forms it god himself.  Evolution, as such, proves the formation and origin of god.

What you describe isn't evolution at all.  Perfection isn't a scientific concept.  Perfection is a completely subjective value judgment.  What is perfect for one person isn't necessarily perfect for another.  Evolution is a process of gradual changes subject to selection pressures.  Natural forces alter the genetic makeup of living creatures over generations.  These alterations in the DNA of the offspring of living creatures affects how they are able to survive in their environment.  Changes that help a creator survive are more likely to be passed on.  Changes that hurt a creature’s chance for survival die out.  Changes that are neutral can go either way.  None of this leads to perfection.  

If human beings were designed by a a creature that loved us you would think that we would be designed is such a way as to remain healthy all of our lives.  At the very least you would think that people would only become sick by some fault of their own.  This is not the cases.  Many people are born sick, and all of us have frailties in our bodies that could have been avoided if we were in some way designed.   Many people have bad backs because our backs are incredibly vulnerable to different problems.  If there was some kind of designer you would think that some of these frailties could have been avoided.   


Also, evolution cannot be leading to perfection because evolution is not leading anywhere.  Evolution doesn't have a goal.  It is a natural process just like rain, wind, or gravity.  It doesn't have any conscious objective any more then gravity has an objective of pulling things down.  Evolution describes the survival of whatever works.  Whatever genetic traits help a creature survive and produce more children are the genetic traits that stay around.  Those traits aren't necessarily leading to anyplace, because (over generation) those traits change with the environment the animals are living in, and the environment the animals live in is constantly changing.   


Nothing you said describes evolution, or leads to the conclusion that things are becoming 'perfect'.  

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote:Evolution has no

Message from Sapient.  This post has been removed due to the fact that this is a one on one debate.  I have no idea why the permissions here are messed up.  I'll look into it.  Please don't post in this thread unless you are Blake or Ratdog.  For moderation ease all other posts will be nuked.  

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:What you

RatDog wrote:

What you describe isn't evolution at all.  Perfection isn't a scientific concept.  Perfection is a completely subjective value judgment.

 

Perfection depends on the circumstance- but it isn't a scientific concept?

If I have a square peg, and a square hole, I can use a tunneling electron microscope to determine that both of these are made of carbon nanofibers, without a molecule out of place, to the exact size needed.  How is this not a perfect fit?

Maybe perfection is rare- so rare that we never really find *true* perfection around us- so it has been relegated to an opinion.  A matter of what degree of perfection is required in order for each person to consider it perfect. 

Sometimes, as you've effectively said, something can be perfect in one way, and imperfect in another- like a white moth in the snow vs. a black moth on soot.

But a colour changing moth would be more perfect in *both* circumstances.

 

Just because you've never seen a colour changing moth- never seen a perfect peg (for any given perfect hole- obviously a round peg for a square hole isn't perfect)- that doesn't mean they don't exist.

In fact, we can demonstrate that these things are possible, and as such, a powerful motive force like evolution- which is the most powerful force in the universe- will inevitably achieve that perfection.

 


Quote:
If human beings were designed by a a creature that loved us you would think that we would be designed is such a way as to remain healthy all of our lives.  At the very least you would think that people would only become sick by some fault of their own.  This is not the cases.  Many people are born sick, and all of us have frailties in our bodies that could have been avoided if we were in some way designed.   Many people have bad backs because our backs are incredibly vulnerable to different problems.  If there was some kind of designer you would think that some of these frailties could have been avoided.

 

These things are the processes by which evolution functions- and I have never denied evolution but have maintained that it proves god.  And in fact, evolution is the most powerful force in the universe- it is the force *of* god.

We can't remain healthy all of our lives, because it is the sickness itself that refines us and drives progress- which perfect us into angels- and eventually, come rapture, into god himself.

Of course god loves us; which is why he gifts us as being part of this process- part of him.  Otherwise, we would just be like ceramic dolls on a shelf- preserved and pointless.  God has given us purpose as a part of himself- that is the greatest love possible.


Quote:
Also, evolution cannot be leading to perfection because evolution is not leading anywhere.  Evolution doesn't have a goal.  It is a natural process just like rain, wind, or gravity.

 

Evolution is a force, and all forces have results.  Gravity pulls things together.  Light exchanges and diffuses energy. etc.  Evolution is a logical result of the nature of the universe itself, like all forces, set into place by god at creation (the big bang).

That *result*, as I have demonstrated, is perfection.  It's inevitable perfection that comes about by satisfying fitness for all situations.  A moth that only lives in snow may be white, the one in the dark may be black- and in a million years, these may be the only distinct environments it will find.  Eventually, though, the moth will encounter an environment in which both may be needed at different times within its life- even different times in the day.  *That* moth will develop a fitness that involves changing colour, for example, and which will be a perfect fitness for all of those situations.

Keep going with that, over not millions, but billions, and trillions of years, and all of that suffering and pain are the tools that chisel away at imperfections, revealing a perfect form.  How, I ask again, can you not walk a mile one step at a time?

If you don't believe in the inevitability of evolutionary forms, look at convergent evolution.  Marsupial wolves and placental wolves- both very similar.  Dolphins and Sharks- even Ichthyosaurs.  These are forms that come about again and again because they approach perfection.

These are the round pegs that fit in the round holes, and the square pegs that fit into square holes.

But what of a peg which can fit into both kinds of holes by changing its nature?  That peg has a perfection in both cases, and is at least as perfect as each peg for each case- more perfect, period.

Call it what you will, though- you don't even have to use the word perfection.  You can use the word "suitability" or something.  The point is that evolution is a force in this direction, and saying it won't reach that point is like saying the moon will never fall.  The moon will fall, and eventually so will the Earth- and perfection, with life being driven to it by a force more powerful than all, must be reached- will be reached- has been reached, in god.

 

Quote:
It doesn't have any conscious objective any more then gravity has an objective of pulling things down.

 

They're almost identical in that they are both forces which drive in a direction- in the case of gravity, towards other matter.  In the case of Evolution, towards divine perfection (or suitability to all things, if you want to use that term instead).


liberatedatheist
atheistScience Freak
liberatedatheist's picture
Posts: 137
Joined: 2009-12-08
User is offlineOffline
It appears to me then, that

Message from Sapient.  This post has been removed due to the fact that this is a one on one debate.  I have no idea why the permissions here are messed up.  I'll look into it.  Please don't post in this thread unless you are Blake or Ratdog.  For moderation ease all other posts will be nuked.  

 

I Am My God

The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:RatDog

Blake wrote:

RatDog wrote:

What you describe isn't evolution at all.  Perfection isn't a scientific concept.  Perfection is a completely subjective value judgment.

 
Perfection depends on the circumstance- but it isn't a scientific concept?

Perfection depends on definitions(I suppose everything does).  With the right definitions anything can be perfect.  The word perfect has a number of different definitions, but two of them seem relevant for this conversation.

1) conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.
2) entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect apple; the perfect crime.

I was referring to definition number two when I said perfection was subjective.  It is completely subject to human values and opinions.  If you define everything that exists exactly the way it is right now as being perfect then everything is perfect.    If you believe everything that exists being exactly the way it is as flawed then everything is flawed.  There is nothing scientific about the second definition of perfect. 

Blake wrote:


If I have a square peg, and a square hole, I can use a tunneling electron microscope to determine that both of these are made of carbon nanofibers, without a molecule out of place, to the exact size needed.  How is this not a perfect fit?
Maybe perfection is rare- so rare that we never really find *true* perfection around us- so it has been relegated to an opinion.  A matter of what degree of perfection is required in order for each person to consider it perfect.


Like I said perfect depends on definitions.  According to definition one anything that exactly conforms to a definition is a perfect 'whatever was being defined'.  So if something conforms perfectly to the definition of a square then that thing could be called a perfect square.  If  a 'fit' is defined as having no excess space left over then what you described could be called a perfect fit.  Even if what you say does conform to the first definition of perfect it does not necessarily conforms to definition two. 

Blake wrote:


Sometimes, as you've effectively said, something can be perfect in one way, and imperfect in another- like a white moth in the snow vs. a black moth on soot.
But a color changing moth would be more perfect in *both* circumstances.
 
Just because you've never seen a color changing moth- never seen a perfect peg (for any given perfect hole- obviously a round peg for a square hole isn't perfect)- that doesn't mean they don't exist.
In fact, we can demonstrate that these things are possible, and as such, a powerful motive force like evolution- which is the most powerful force in the universe- will inevitably achieve that perfection.
 


It's funny that you should bring up the example of the Peppered moths(I assume that’s what your talking about here), because they point to the exact opposite of what your saying.  If a perfect moth is defined as a moth who's color exactly conforms to the color of the surface it lands on then evolution isn't likely to ever produce perfect moths.

This is isn't immediately obvious, so I'll explain it.  The peppered moths used to be mostly white colored, because they generally lived on trees that were white colored.  Being the same color as the trees they lived on helped them survive by making it harder for birds to find them. 

Latter when those trees changed color because of soot birds were able to find them much easier.  If all of the moths had been 'perfect' (had their color exactly conform to the surface they landed on) then it is possible all of the moths would have been eaten by birds. 

Not all of the moths were the same color.  Some of the moths were darker then other moths.   When the trees changed color these moths had an advantage over there darker colored brethren.  The darker colored moths were able to reproduce making offspring that were also darker in color.  It was the 'imperfection' of the darker moths which allowed that species of moths to continue surviving when their environment changed.

What you are calling 'imperfection' would better be termed genetic diversity.  Genetic diversity is a good thing(for species) because it allows species to continue surviving when their environment changes.    If there was no genetic diversity we would likely all become extinct during the next large environment shift. 

A moth that can change it's color is not inevitable.   If the moths environment changes color often then changing color might be to the moths advantage; but if the moths environment doesn't change color or only changes color occasionally(over the span of many years) then it might be in the moth's best interest to lack the color changing ability.   Abilities are not free, being able to do things takes energy, and other resources that would otherwise be used for other things.  If moths do not need to change colors it would doubtlessly be better for them to lack the ability.  If it is in the moths advantage to lack the ability then moths that don't have the ability will be selected over moths that do have the ability, and eventually color changing moths will die out

Blake wrote:


That *result*, as I have demonstrated, is perfection.  It's inevitable perfection that comes about by satisfying fitness for all situations.  A moth that only lives in snow may be white, the one in the dark may be black- and in a million years, these may be the only distinct environments it will find.  Eventually, though, the moth will encounter an environment in which both may be needed at different times within its life- even different times in the day.  *That* moth will develop a fitness that involves changing color, for example, and which will be a perfect fitness for all of those situations.
Keep going with that, over not millions, but billions, and trillions of years, and all of that suffering and pain are the tools that chisel away at imperfections, revealing a perfect form.  How, I ask again, can you not walk a mile one step at a time?


As I've already said, possessing every ability possible isn't necessary in a species best interest.  For creatures with stable environment specialization can be a big advantage. 

 I am curious who this great perfection you are talking about will be for.  If perfection for a moth is always being able to avoid being eaten by birds then what is perfection for moths is imperfection for birds.  If perfection for birds is always being able to find and eat moths then perfection for birds is imperfection for moths.  Based on that idea of perfection there doesn't seem to be any way for things to be perfect for everyone. 

Blake wrote:


If you don't believe in the inevitability of evolutionary forms, look at convergent evolution.  Marsupial wolves and placental wolves- both very similar.  Dolphins and Sharks- even Ichthyosaurs.  These are forms that come about again and again because they approach perfection.



Certain forms of animals appear again and again because animals are shaped by their environment.  Certain environments tend to shape animals in the same way.  This has nothing to do with perfection as you have described it.

Blake wrote:


These are the round pegs that fit in the round holes, and the square pegs that fit into square holes.
But what of a peg which can fit into both kinds of holes by changing its nature?  That peg has a perfection in both cases, and is at least as perfect as each peg for each case- more perfect, period.

No it is not 'more perfect period'.  Everything in life comes with advantages and disadvantages(As far as I know).  Every advantage a creature gains will come with a disadvantage for either that creature or for other creatures. 

Blake wrote:


Call it what you will, though- you don't even have to use the word perfection.  You can use the word "suitability" or something.  The point is that evolution is a force in this direction, and saying it won't reach that point is like saying the moon will never fall.  The moon will fall, and eventually so will the Earth- and perfection, with life being driven to it by a force more powerful than all, must be reached- will be reached- has been reached, in god.


The moon isn't going to fall.  It's probably going to escape from orbit. 

 
Blake wrote:

Quote:
It doesn't have any conscious objective any more then gravity has an objective of pulling things down.

 
They're almost identical in that they are both forces which drive in a direction- in the case of gravity, towards other matter.  In the case of Evolution, towards divine perfection (or suitability to all things, if you want to use that term instead).

Evolution isn't a driving force.  Evolution is something that is driven by a specie's environment both living and nonliving. 

(For outside the debate:  Sorry I was so late getting back with this reply.  I accidently deleted my first reply which took me over an hour, and I was feeling kind of frustrated.)
 

edit: changed a few mistakes. 


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:   1)

RatDog wrote:

 

1) conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.

 

2) entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect apple; the perfect crime.

 

I was referring to definition number two when I said perfection was subjective.  It is completely subject to human values and opinions.

 

The human perception of perfection is imperfect, because humans are imperfect- we are incomplete, evolutionarily/divinely speaking.

 

Yes, every human has a different idea of what's perfect, but that's because of those imperfections.

 

Evolution isn't based on the human idea of perfection- it's based on suitability to environment- that kind of perfection can be measured.

 

In a soot covered environment, the black moth is more perfect than the white one.

 

Ultimately, it is possible for one creature to become most ideal for every environment, and evolution will eventually yield this- although it may take a very long time to happen.

 

For evolution, and for the divine, the conception of perfect is the first definition- so lets just talk about that.

 

Quote:
Even if what you say does conform to the first definition of perfect it does not necessarily conforms to definition two.

 

Precisely why no creature you have yet witnessed is perfect by all evolutionary measures- no creature yet is perfect for all environments.

 

But a creature could evolve that can fit perfectly in both, by changing itself.  That is why god is so amorphic- he can become anything to suit a purpose, and evolution has granted this.

 

Quote:

 

If a perfect moth is defined as a moth who's color exactly conforms to the color of the surface it lands on then evolution isn't likely to ever produce perfect moths.

 

Then you deny the existence of chameleons?  Octopi?  Many creatures have obtained this perfection- and some insects can also change colour.

 

Quote:
If all of the moths had been 'perfect' (had their color exactly conform to the surface they landed on) then it is possible all of the moths would have been eaten by birds.

 

If they had been perfect in that way, they would have been able to change colour, to the colour they needed to be- that would be black in the second case.  But, of course, they could also have been invisible, like many shrimp and other organisms.

 

Perfection is to suit a need.

 

Quote:
What you are calling 'imperfection' would better be termed genetic diversity.

 

Yes, and this is one of the factors that drives evolution- until it reaches the end, ultimate perfection, in which case it is no longer needed.

 

Quote:
Genetic diversity is a good thing(for species) because it allows species to continue surviving when their environment changes.    If there was no genetic diversity we would likely all become extinct during the next large environment shift.

 

Genetic diversity, in the best cases, allows a species to accomplish adaptability to both environments, when they change frequently.  Look at fish that can breathe air.

 

Within a single lifetime, many species can change environments- this is just a step closer to perfection.

 

Quote:
As I've already said, possessing every ability possible isn't necessary in a species best interest.  For creatures with stable environment specialization can be a big advantage.

 

Environments always change; it is an inevitability.  Dying is a big advantage?


Quote:
I am curious who this great perfection you are talking about will be for...  Based on that idea of perfection there doesn't seem to be any way for things to be perfect for everyone.

 

Obviously perfection is god himself- if there were more than one competing god, he couldn't very well be perfect.  That's why there's only one god, and can be only one god.

 

All you have done is proved monotheism.

 

Quote:
Certain environments tend to shape animals in the same way.  This has nothing to do with perfection as you have described it.

 

It does; it demonstrates that more perfect forms exist and just need to be found.  There are also perfect forms, which exceed all of them, that are combinations of those forms- a being that can run and swim and fly with the ability of all of those- it's a form that is ultimately sought by evolution's force in the same way those forms are.  It just takes longer to come by.

 

Quote:
Everything in life comes with advantages and disadvantages(As far as I know).  Every advantage a creature gains will come with a disadvantage for either that creature or for other creatures.

 

Yes, for other creatures.  Obviously it is not to the devil's advantage that god is perfect!


Quote:
The moon isn't going to fall.  It's probably going to escape from orbit.

 

This isn't the point- whether big crunch or infinite expansion- the point is that forces have inevitable consequences.  It can just take a while to get there.

 

 

 

Quote:
Evolution isn't a driving force.  Evolution is something that is driven by a specie's environment both living and nonliving.

 

And you can say gravity is "driven" by mass.  All of these things are relative to the environment.  Evolution is a statistical force just as real as it gravity- and just as inevitable to reach its conclusion.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
[out of character: this post

[out of character: this post is not part of the argument]

RatDog, is everything alright?

I was looking forward to you finishing my crazy argument off with a death-blow so I can start another one Smiling

If you aren't available, would you mind if somebody else stepped in and finished this one off?


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:[out of

Blake wrote:

[out of character: this post is not part of the argument]

RatDog, is everything alright?

I was looking forward to you finishing my crazy argument off with a death-blow so I can start another one Smiling

If you aren't available, would you mind if somebody else stepped in and finished this one off?

[also out of character]

I'm sorry, I have two midterms this week, both of which are on Tuesday.  I can probably start writing again come Wednesday, but if you would like to start right away it's alright if someone else takes my place. 


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Blake

RatDog wrote:

Blake wrote:

[out of character: this post is not part of the argument]

RatDog, is everything alright?

I was looking forward to you finishing my crazy argument off with a death-blow so I can start another one Smiling

If you aren't available, would you mind if somebody else stepped in and finished this one off?

[also out of character]

I'm sorry, I have two midterms this week, both of which are on Tuesday.  I can probably start writing again come Wednesday, but if you would like to start right away it's alright if someone else takes my place. 

 

[out of character]

But you were in character!  I was the one pretending to be a theist in this debate :P  haha.

Anyway- no problem, Wednesday is fine; I just wanted to make sure.

Good luck on your midterms!

 


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
The environment is

The environment is constantly changing.  The rate of change in the environment varies, but all environments change.   Environmental changes are caused by many different things including the animals that live in them.  Everything living and non living thing is part of the environment. 

Some organisms are more generalized, and some organisms are more specialized.  Organisms that are more generalized are able to survive in a lager variety of environment, and they do better in an environment with a high rate of change.  Organisms that are more specialized are only able to survive in very specific environments and they do better in an environment with a slow rate of change.

Also, animals specialize for other reason like saving resources, and because they have no choice.  Abilities are not free; being able to do things takes energy, and other resources that would otherwise be used for other things.  Also not all things are necessarily even possible (at least not with huge disadvantages).   It may not even be physically possible for an animal to be perfectly suited to every single environment, and if it isn’t physically possible it isn’t going to happen no matter how long you wait.
 
What you are describing as the perfection that will be brought on by evolution seems to be the ultimate generalist specie that can survive in every possible environment.  Yet, Evolution doesn’t have any foresight, and it doesn’t care about every possible environment.  It doesn’t adjust its self to help animals survive in every possible future.  Things evolve to live in the environment they are in.  If they are in an environment were color changing is a significant advantage then they may eventually develop color changing.  If the environment changes and color changing goes from being an advantage to being a disadvantage; then color changing will eventually disappear even if it might, in some unknown future, become useful again.
  
The bottom line is that, I find it unlikely that there will ever be any kind of ultimate generalist species.  It is certainly not inevitable.  Species gain or lose abilities based on their current environment, and not every environment that can be or will be.   The future of the environment is uncertain, so the future path of evolution is also uncertain.  The inevitable perfection you are describing is not supported by any evidence, and runs contrary to the theory of evolution. 
 

Blake wrote:

RatDog wrote:

 

1) conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.

 

2) entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect apple; the perfect crime.

 

I was referring to definition number two when I said perfection was subjective.  It is completely subject to human values and opinions.

 

The human perception of perfection is imperfect, because humans are imperfect- we are incomplete, evolutionarily/divinely speaking.

 

Yes, every human has a different idea of what's perfect, but that's because of those imperfections.

Limitation in human ability to understand reality can't be used in support of any argument because they harms all arguments equally.

Blake wrote:

Ultimately, it is possible for one creature to become most ideal for every environment, and evolution will eventually yield this- although it may take a very long time to happen.

It is unlikely to be possible because of physical limitations.  You're argument fails to show that it is possible. 

Blake wrote:
 

Precisely why no creature you have yet witnessed is perfect by all evolutionary measures- no creature yet is perfect for all environments.

But a creature could evolve that can fit perfectly in both, by changing itself.  That is why god is so amorphic- he can become anything to suit a purpose, and evolution has granted this.

You seem to be describing shape changing creatures.  Such ability is unlikely to evolve because it is not necessary, and it would doubtlessly require a huge amount of energy.  Animals can't afford to waste energy on abilities that don't have a strong evolutionary advantage. 

Blake wrote:
 

Then you deny the existence of chameleons?  Octopi?  Many creatures have obtained this perfection- and some insects can also change colour.

Those animals have those abilities because it is an advantage to have them in their environment.  Those abilities are not necessary needed by all animals in all environments.

Quote:

If they had been perfect in that way, they would have been able to change colour, to the colour they needed to be- that would be black in the second case.  But, of course, they could also have been invisible, like many shrimp and other organisms.

 

Perfection is to suit a need.

Before the moths environment changed they didn't need the ability to change color which is why the didn't have it.  Animals evolve towards meting their current needs, and not what they might need in the future. 

Quote:

Quote:
What you are calling 'imperfection' would better be termed genetic diversity.

Yes, and this is one of the factors that drives evolution- until it reaches the end, ultimate perfection, in which case it is no longer needed.

So long as the environment keeps changing genetic diversity will be needed. 

Quote:

Quote:
As I've already said, possessing every ability possible isn't necessary in a species best interest.  For creatures with stable environment specialization can be a big advantage.

 

Environments always change; it is an inevitability.  Dying is a big advantage?

As you said, environments always change which is why genetic diversity is so important.  Sometime environments change slowly which is why specialization isn't likely to ever go away.  Specialization is an advantage in environments that change slowly. 

Quote:

Quote:
I am curious who this great perfection you are talking about will be for...  Based on that idea of perfection there doesn't seem to be any way for things to be perfect for everyone.

 

Obviously perfection is god himself- if there were more than one competing god, he couldn't very well be perfect.  That's why there's only one god, and can be only one god.

 

All you have done is proved monotheism.

God seems to be what ever you want him to be at the time.  You said yourself that "god is amorphic".  How can you worship something that doesn't have a form?

Quote:

Quote:
Everything in life comes with advantages and disadvantages(As far as I know).  Every advantage a creature gains will come with a disadvantage for either that creature or for other creatures.

 

Yes, for other creatures.  Obviously it is not to the devil's advantage that god is perfect!

So you are telling me that God is perfect because he conforms completely to his definition, and he is defined as being amorphic (without defined shape or form).  I think that if god and the devil existed it would be in the devil's advantage for god to be perfect as you have described it. 

Quote:

Quote:
The moon isn't going to fall.  It's probably going to escape from orbit.

 

This isn't the point- whether big crunch or infinite expansion- the point is that forces have inevitable consequences.  It can just take a while to get there.

If that was the point then why did you bring the moon up in the first place?  It seems that I caught you being wrong, and now you are trying change the subject. 

 

 


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Also, animals

RatDog wrote:

Also, animals specialize for other reason like saving resources, and because they have no choice.  Abilities are not free; being able to do things takes energy, and other resources that would otherwise be used for other things.

 

This is not relevant for god, since he can freely change matter into energy, and back.

 

Quote:
It may not even be physically possible for an animal to be perfectly suited to every single environment, and if it isn’t physically possible it isn’t going to happen no matter how long you wait.

 

Your not knowing if it's possible is very different from it being impossible.  It is certainly very complex and hard to understand- but that's the nature of god.  There are many things humans can't fully comprehend.


Quote:
What you are describing as the perfection that will be brought on by evolution seems to be the ultimate generalist specie that can survive in every possible environment.

 

Yes, it is a super being.

 

Quote:
Yet, Evolution doesn’t have any foresight, and it doesn’t care about every possible environment.

 

If the species becomes very long lived, and has to tolerate all environments, it does.  And who is to say evolution doesn't have foresight?  When creatures become intelligent, they begin guiding their own evolutions.

 

Quote:

The bottom line is that, I find it unlikely that there will ever be any kind of ultimate generalist species.  It is certainly not inevitable.

 

It is unlikely in a short time-span, but possible in a long one.  With a long lived universe, it is inevitable, as all possibilities of evolution must come to pass.

 

Quote:
Limitation in human ability to understand reality can't be used in support of any argument because they harms all arguments equally.

Only for things so complex people guess them to be improbable- because they remain possible.  Proving something impossible or possible can be done without having to appeal to human understanding if done right.

 

Quote:

Such ability is unlikely to evolve because it is not necessary, and it would doubtlessly require a huge amount of energy.  Animals can't afford to waste energy on abilities that don't have a strong evolutionary advantage.

God, and the few near-god creatures that occur prior to the emergence of the one true god, don't have to worry about this.

 

Quote:
Those abilities are not necessary needed by all animals in all environments.

 

But without cost, they are always useful/never harmful.

 

Quote:

Before the moths environment changed they didn't need the ability to change color which is why the didn't have it.  Animals evolve towards meting their current needs, and not what they might need in the future. 

 

But when environment changes quickly, that *is* a current need.  For creatures for whom environments change between all things at a great speed, this is an absolute necessity.

 

Quote:

Sometime environments change slowly which is why specialization isn't likely to ever go away.  Specialization is an advantage in environments that change slowly. 

 

Only relative to the creature's lifespan.  When the creatures are nearly immortal- and then finally immortal, the pace is infinitely fast compared to lifespan.

 

Quote:
God seems to be what ever you want him to be at the time.  You said yourself that "god is amorphic".  How can you worship something that doesn't have a form?

 

God has all forms- every form needed- including the forms he needs to relate to us.  For example, the father, the son, the holy ghost.

 

Quote:
So you are telling me that God is perfect because he conforms completely to his definition, and he is defined as being amorphic (without defined shape or form).  I think that if god and the devil existed it would be in the devil's advantage for god to be perfect as you have described it. 

 

God is perfect in more than just shape- he is the ultimate being.

 

Quote:
If that was the point then why did you bring the moon up in the first place?

 

As a conceptual example- an analogy.