05 Sep 11
Originally posted by shavixmirI guess we will just have to disagree on the definiton of evolution then.
That is evolution.
The creatures which adapt wrongly just don't tend to survive. Meaning the succesful adaptations do.
Considering most changes take a long time, it's hard to pinpoint when one creature sort of becomes another creature.
I did give an example of chromosonic change in the short term.
Bill Hicks once called the human race a virus with shoes on. If that helps.
05 Sep 11
Originally posted by ZahlanziNo need to tiptoe. I can take your abusive words as well as dish it out.
i am fed up with tiptoeing near yecs
here is the bottom line: anyone believing in a young earth is either retarded, ignorant or brain-washed. or a combination of these three.
i don't know how much patience proper knob still has with you, twhite seems to be close to blowing his cap off too (noticed his replies to you have begun to be more acid), bu ...[text shortened]... not change your view on the world even if the reality is smacking you over the head repeatedly.
So go ahead and get all your frustrations out on me. I'm ready for it.
And I will even accept your apology afterwords. So don't worry. Let me
have it.
05 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsYes that is what i'm saying. As for where does it say that, he converted to deism. Read up what deists believe.
So are you saying, He only believed that the very first organism that could
reproduce itself was created by God and then evolution took over and
the remainder of the creatures resulted from random chance and natural
selection? If so, where does it say that?
05 Sep 11
Originally posted by RJHindsTake a flutterby, then.
I guess we will just have to disagree on the definiton of evolution then.
It starts as a worm and ends like a bird (albeit an insecty sort of a bird, but hey, if it can fly it's a bird. Unless it's a flying squirrel then. Or a flying fish. Or a plane, but that's just being silly).
And all that in just a couple of weeks!
Now, let's look at these three creatures:
African elephant:
http://piperbasenji.blogspot.com/2011/07/african-elephants.html
Hyrax:
http://www.wildlifesafari.info/hyrax_rock.html
Sirenia:
http://www.sirenian.org/caryn.html
See the similarity? Nope. Thought not.
They are, however, all closely related.
Both the Sirenian and the Elephant having evolved from an "original" hyrax. DNA supports the relationship.
Now, if that rodent-like creature can mutate into a bloody Loxodonta, I'm pretty sure a virus can mutate into a human with shoes on. Don't you?
05 Sep 11
Originally posted by shavixmirThe DNA only support that they all had a common designer.
Take a flutterby, then.
It starts as a worm and ends like a bird (albeit an insecty sort of a bird, but hey, if it can fly it's a bird. Unless it's a flying squirrel then. Or a flying fish. Or a plane, but that's just being silly).
And all that in just a couple of weeks!
Now, let's look at these three creatures:
African elephant:
http://piperbase ...[text shortened]... ody Loxodonta, I'm pretty sure a virus can mutate into a human with shoes on. Don't you?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Sep 11
I have a question for RJHinds but it would also be interesting to hear the answer from any other theist
who doesn't believe evolution. (I apologise if this has been asked of you before)
If it were proved to you in a satisfactory manner that evolution were true, would you, in all honesty,
cease to believe in god/your religion?
Or would you still believe in god/your religion?
In other words is the validity of evolution a deal breaker for your personal religious beliefs?
I ask because it seems relevant to the topic as stated in the OP.
I for one didn't believe in god, well before I had heard of evolution or could have understood it.
And I know that there are many people who do believe in evolution and Christianity or religion of some
form or another.
As the national religion of my country (in as much as it exists) has no issue with evolution, coupled with
the significant secular proportion of society, the validity of evolution is not a major issue in this country.
Thus it is brought up much less in arguments over faith than appears to be the case in America (or these forums).
This leads me to suggest the following.
My personal view, not knowing the thoughts or motivations of anyone other than me with certainty,
is that atheists tend to promote evolution because the theists they encounter argue that god is required
to form the diversity of life, and/or that the complexity of life and the universe proves the existence of
their god.
The obvious response to which is to point out means by which life in all its complexity could come about
without a god.
Now if this is truly why you believe in god (or part of the reason) then its an argument worth having.
If it isn't the reason you believe, (or even part of the reason) then it isn't.
Other than of course caring about truth and reality. Evolution being verifiably and obviously true it is
hard to stomach people claiming it isn't if one cares about truth in any meaningful sense.
05 Sep 11
15 edits
twhitehead writes:
The first one you posted, at the point you referred me to, did not support your claim in the slightest. It had a guy saying that in a multi verse scenario, the human race is destined to be exterminated in some universes and to live on in others.
It said nothing whatsoever about evolution being considered improbable by the speaker, nor did it suggest in any way that the speaker was considering the multiverse theory in order to explain the existence of improbable events - specifically evolution.
If you continue to claim that it supports your initial claim then please explain how it does so.
Let's go back to this comment I wrote:
But evolution is either intelligently designed or is miraculous, if it is true.
I think some of the modern atheists realize the problem of a low probability of something like evolution having taken place to this degree. (my emphasis)
So the answer for some of them is to encrease the time and space by proposing multiple universes. I mean if ONE universe makes Evolution unlikely to this degree pile on a billion other universes in a "multiverse". "
twhitehead:
I specifically want to see where it leads to the following conclusions that you made:
1. That some scientists believe evolution is highly improbable and that they see that as a 'problem'.
2. That the multiverse theory was developed as a response to this supposed 'problem'.
My claim was as I wrote was that " ... if ONE universe makes Evolution unlikely to THIS DEGREE [my emphasis] pile on other universes in a "multiverse".
As you can see the question that you ask is not exactly the issue I raised. What I wrote was about Evolution "to this degree" had odds against it. That's is the first subtle difference in what you ask from what I wrote.
In the phrase "to this degree" I am applying the degree needed for the human race to survive into the 22nd century and beyond. That is specifically the issue raised in the video.
But on principle his concept applies to the most favorable outcome of evolution, the very existence of human beings is understood.
The second subtle twisted difference is in what you are asking is that you portray that I said "the multiunivese was developed as a response to this supposed 'problem'."
I did not write that the multiuniverse was specifically "developed" to solve this problem. I would say that the theory, for whatever reason it was developed initially, is utilized by some atheists to address the problem of low probability of a certain favorable outcome of evolution, ie. "to this degree". I mean to some favorable degree - ie. human existence to begin with or survival into next century.
So you have two strawman questions. Now I will respond to what would have been more representative questions which fairly reflected what I wrote in this paragraph:
With my emphasis:
I think some of the modern atheists realize the problem of a low probability of something like evolution having taken place to this degree.
So the answer for some of them is to encrease the time and space by proposing multiple universes. I mean if ONE universe makes Evolution unlikely to this degree pile on a billion other universes in a "multiverse".
[/b]
Notice, I said "some modern atheists". Some of course does not mean all.
Notice I said the a problem of a low probability of ... evolution having taken place to this degree.
It is not a statment that Evolution could have never taken place. Rather it I made a statement about the realization that the degree involved as we see today has some probability problems.
1. That some scientists believe evolution [to a certain degree, THIS DEGREE] is highly improbable and that they see that as a 'problem'.
The speaker spoke of us knowing how SLIM the chances were of human survival into the 22nd century and beyond.
The phrase "slim the chances" inform us that a low probability of evolution out developing the adverse expectations of the 22nd century are a concern. Before we evolve things like global warming or nuclear proliferation or some other problem will have discontinued our survival.
This concept is conveyed at around 4:46 minutes into the video.
But there is good news. The speakers says that it is inevitable that we humans will survive. Why? Well, basically because of an infinite number of alternative universes at least one of which survival of the fittest via evolution will work out the most favorable outcome.
" .... in one universe it is inevitable that we will survive " says the speaker.
The multiuniverses concept ensures that the number of other universes makes it more probable that Evo will equip humanity with the fittest characteristic to survive the problems of the 22nd century.
The video didn't use either term "lucky" or "fittest".
Once again, the TITLE someone gave to the video reflects their clarity as to how the concept of Multiuniverses is being USED, if not why it was invented.
2. That the multiverse theory was developed as a response to this supposed 'problem'.
I never said Quantum Mechanics invented the Multuniverse theory for the express purpose of arguing about Evolution. So twhite can forget that strawman argument.
"We will survive ... and we will evolve." says the speaker. The WE refers to humanity even though that humanity may exist in who knows how many parellel alternative universes he imagines.
The speaker's hope that in ONE of these parellel universes Evolutiom will reach its "full potential". And this to the degree that even if the universe of those human recipients of the process, should dissolve, it will be no problem. Why? Because we will have been lucky to the degree that we can leap or change to another universe.
It would be another discussion. But the manifestations of the sons of God in the Bible is also a divine plan for creation to become totally hospitable to God's people. But that is another issue.
The purpose of this post is to examine what FAIR questions relevant to what I wrote would be and where in the video my statements were supported.
Then in another place I wrote this bottom line:
Bottom line = Some Evos appeal to the MULTIVERSE to overcome improbability issues confronting the most favorable evolutionary development.
I stand by the statement.
I don't know for sure if that this particular speaker was an Atheist.
Without a doubt the speaker talking about Evolution was an Evolutionist.
So you can't answer my questions?
You are being dishonest. You know perfectly well that the video in question does not support your claim on the key points I have mentioned.
I answered the questions which fairly represented what I wrote. I don't have to answer twhitehead's strawman argument questions.
And again -
I said let the forum participants decide for themselves.
06 Sep 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeI first started posting on this board at the time that there was a court case in the US regarding the teaching of ID in schools. I felt that it was important that only science is taught in the science classroom and I made some comments in debates and was told to bring it here.
My personal view, not knowing the thoughts or motivations of anyone other than me with certainty,
is that atheists tend to promote evolution because the theists they encounter argue that god is required
to form the diversity of life, and/or that the complexity of life and the universe proves the existence of
their god.
I still feel that defence of evolution is defence of science and the scientific methodology. It is not about converting people to atheism, its about convincing them that they should not be promoting lies for the sake of their religion because they see the truth as a threat.
06 Sep 11
5 edits
Originally posted by jaywillOriginally posted by jaywill
Let's go back to this comment I wrote:
But evolution is either intelligently designed or is miraculous, if it is true.
I think some of the modern atheists realize the problem of a low probability of something like evolution having taken place to this degree. (my emphasis)
So the answer for some of them is to encrease the time and space by proposing multiple universes. I mean if ONE universe makes Evolution unlikely to this degree pile on a billion other universes in a "multiverse". "
Originally posted by jaywill
I never said Quantum Mechanics invented the Multuniverse theory for the express purpose of arguing about Evolution. So twhite can forget that strawman argument.
We are clearly speaking different languages.
In the English I know, the quote of yourself that you give quite clearly states that you believe that the Multuniverse theory was invented for the express purpose of arguing about Evolution.
You quite clearly state:
1. 'modern atheists' believe evolution has a low probability.
2. That in answer to this, they propose the multiple universe theory.
I am not making a strawman argument. At worst, I simply don't understand whatever language it is you are speaking.