02 Apr 09
3 edits
Originally posted by PsychoPawn================================
You should because those supposed "Darwinists" you speak of don't know much about the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution doesn't claim that blind luck produced the human digestive system.
You should because those supposed "Darwinists" you speak of don't know much about the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution doesn't claim that blind luck produced the human digestive system.
===================================
Altogether now, everybody ... "You just don't UNDERSTAND Evolution !"
Evolution has no "purpose" and no "plan." Thus I rightly discribe it as "blind".
The "fortunate accidents" (benefitial mutations) amount to luck. That is the fortunate benefitial mutation. Thus I say "blind luck".
What's wrong with questioning it and wanting to hear another plausible explanation ? Has your theory made curiosity obsolete?
Suppose you take your concept too far? Suppose we concede some variation within species but are skeptical that the idea could be carried so far as to turn an ameoba into a man given enough time?
Altogether now ... "You don't UNDERSTAND Evolution!"
Yea. I don't UNDERSTAND it. I doubt you do either.
02 Apr 09
Originally posted by jaywillYou don't understand evolution because you are unwilling to believe it, because your shortsighted Christian values prevent you from seeing anything other than what Martin Luther's ghost tells you. There is currently no proposed alternative to evolution that is accepted by anyone other than Bible-thumpers.
[b]================================
You should because those supposed "Darwinists" you speak of don't know much about the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution doesn't claim that blind luck produced the human digestive system.
===================================
Altogether now, everybody ... "You just don't UNDERSTAND Evolutio ...[text shortened]... ND Evolution!"
Yea. I don't UNDERSTAND it. I doubt you do either.[/b]
02 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead===============================
You laughed out of ignorance. The fact is that the mathematics and processes surrounding evolution are relatively easy to prove. That the human digestive system could arise through evolution should not be doubted by anyone who knows enough about the science involved. Whether it did or didn't is another matter, but you are essentially claiming that it coul sible, and in fact highly likely. But you like many creationists probably do not want to know.
You laughed out of ignorance. The fact is that the mathematics and processes surrounding evolution are relatively easy to prove. That the human digestive system could arise through evolution should not be doubted by anyone who knows enough about the science involved. Whether it did or didn't is another matter, but you are essentially claiming that it couldn't.
Presumably you think that you have a good head for statistics and you understand roughly what the chances are for certain events etc and you have concluded that something as complex as the human digestive system could not arise via evolution. But if you actually looked into it in detail you would find that it is perfectly possible, and in fact highly likely. But you like many creationists probably do not want to know.
==========================================
I regard your idea as idealistic and wishful thinking.
The statistics of it are not convincing to me at all. I especially don't see enough statistical probability to make "know how" of intelligence not necessary to produce the digestive system - even given 15 billion years of energy and matter interacting with each other in planless and goaless and purposeless "blind luck."
02 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill[/b]You speak of the human body like it's perfect, and therefore must require intelligent design.
[b]===============================
You laughed out of ignorance. The fact is that the mathematics and processes surrounding evolution are relatively easy to prove. That the human digestive system could arise through evolution should not be doubted by anyone who knows enough about the science involved. Whether it did or didn't is another matter, but y matter interacting with each other in planless and goaless and purposeless "blind luck."
EDIT: got rid of boldface text in my post
02 Apr 09
5 edits
Originally posted by scherzo===============================
You don't understand evolution because you are unwilling to believe it, because your shortsighted Christian values prevent you from seeing anything other than what Martin Luther's ghost tells you. There is currently no proposed alternative to evolution that is accepted by anyone other than Bible-thumpers.
You don't understand evolution because you are unwilling to believe it, because your shortsighted Christian values prevent you from seeing anything other than what Martin Luther's ghost tells you. There is currently no proposed alternative to evolution that is accepted by anyone other than Bible-thumpers.
==================================
It is not that I am unwilling to consider Evolution. I am interested to hear other views. I do not like that other views are suppressed by the media campaign to portray all other views as moronic.
I think there is somthing to modification within a certain limit. I am not willing to jump on the band wagon and assume that there is no limit to what Darwinian gradualism can accomplish.
I don't know what you mean by Luther's ghost. I do know that your media propoganda is desperately trying to brain wash the public that no one non-religious would ever question your theory. The campaign they embark on to keep everyone thinking only Medieval mindset would question Darwin's theory is shameful.
And it is not going to work. Mark my words. Your propoganda campaign is not going to stop thinking people from questioning Darwin's ideas.
At this time I do have a thought that a salvageable portion of macroevolution may be (may be) in something like "punctuated equilibrium." I think you sincere Evos should look more in the direction of something suddenly happening to modify embryonic gamuts.
I think Evolutionists should look in the direction of sudden motification caused perhaps by some environment wide cataclysmic events. For Darwin enthusiasts, I would like to see less religious devotion to gradualism and more consideration of sudden alteration possbilities. That would more reflect the fossil record.
02 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by scherzo================================
You speak of the human body like it's perfect, and therefore must require intelligent design.
EDIT: got rid of boldface text in my post[/b]
You speak of the human body like it's perfect, and therefore must require intelligent design.
==================================
I do not "Joke". Scherzo means "joke" (at least in musical terms).
I speak of the human body as if perhaps there are functions of it that we as of yet do not fully understand.
It dies doesn't it ?? So if perfection means it cannot run down and die, then obviosly I do not regard the design as perfect in that regard.
02 Apr 09
Originally posted by jaywillYou are welcome to your opinion, but as long as it is nothing more than a guess in the dark, all it is is opinion. It is telling that not one single creationist has ever produced a peer reviewed article explaining how the statistical probability just doesn't add up.
I regard your idea as idealistic and wishful thinking.
The statistics of it are not convincing to me at all. I especially don't see enough statistical probability to make "know how" of intelligence not necessary to produce the digestive system - even given 15 billion years of energy and matter interacting with each other in planless and goaless and purposeless "blind luck."
The real problem is that you what you don't realize is that although the exact odds in question are currently impossible to calculate it is relatively trivial to show that it is far from straight forward to even remotely support your claim.
We do not know how many possible viable genes there are nor how many viable combinations exist nor how many workable body designs exist, but considering that nearly every individual living entity on the planet has a unique gene combination and is nevertheless still alive we can conclude that the possible workable solutions are extremely numerous.
Evolution has the effect of causing complexity to arise. This again is trivial to show via a simple computer program.
You should consider reading a book on the subject.
02 Apr 09
Originally posted by jaywillYou are a broken record. You display your ignorance of the theory and then balk when people call you on it.
[b]================================
You should because those supposed "Darwinists" you speak of don't know much about the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution doesn't claim that blind luck produced the human digestive system.
===================================
Altogether now, everybody ... "You just don't UNDERSTAND Evolutio ...[text shortened]... ND Evolution!"
Yea. I don't UNDERSTAND it. I doubt you do either.[/b]
What's wrong with questioning it and wanting to hear another plausible explanation ? Has your theory made curiosity obsolete?
Strawman argument. I never have argued that anything was wrong with questioning it or wanting to hear another plausible explanation.
Evolution isn't "My" theory and it hasn't made curiosity obsolete.
Suppose you take your concept too far?
Which concept are you talking about and what would be "too far" ?
Suppose we concede some variation within species but are skeptical that the idea could be carried so far as to turn an ameoba into a man given enough time?
You have the right to be skeptical of anything you want to be. Noone is saying you don't.
You doubt I understand it? Ok.. Go ahead, doubt all you want. You haven't actually made an argument about how somehow I don't, but you can doubt it if you wish.
02 Apr 09
Originally posted by jaywill1. I'm not atheist, and atheists don't have a propaganda campaign.
[b]===============================
You don't understand evolution because you are unwilling to believe it, because your shortsighted Christian values prevent you from seeing anything other than what Martin Luther's ghost tells you. There is currently no proposed alternative to evolution that is accepted by anyone other than Bible-thumpers.
======== ...[text shortened]... sideration of sudden alteration possbilities. That would more reflect the fossil record.
2. I think you qualify as Creationist, whatever you say to the contrary.
02 Apr 09
Originally posted by whodey….But we can observe suns being born and dying, therefore, we have the scientific ability to OBSERVE these phenomenon. Life being generated from nonlife, however, is quite another matter.
But we can observe suns being born and dying, therefore, we have the scientific ability to OBSERVE these phenomenon. Life being generated from nonlife, however, is quite another matter. All we know is what building blocks we are derived from and the fact that we are here. If you ask me, that is a theory that is wanting to say the least.
As far as how Go ...[text shortened]... rd and what science tells me. The rest is for our imaginations and intellect to peice together.
..…
If we assume life had a beginning then LOGIC determines that life must have come from non-life because if it hadn’t then that first life would have come from life (and NOT non-life) thus, by DEFINITION of the word “beginning”, it wouldn’t have been the “beginning” of life because there would have had to been some life come before it to create it and therefore it wouldn’t have been the first life -do you deny this LOGIC? -if so, explain to us how the first life could have NOT come from non-life given the fact that that means that that “first” life came from some other life and therefore wasn’t the “first” life? -surely that would be a logical contradiction -yes?
The above LOGIC demonstrates that we don’t necessarily need to OBSERVE a particular phenomenon to know it must have existed because we sometimes can use LOGIC to determine what occurred even if we were not their to observe it. And there isn’t anything logical about concluding that something supernatural caused something to happen. Suppose it just happens that absolutely nobody ever actually observed an avalanche get started but they did observed an avalanche -would you conclude from that unknown of what started it that avalanches don’t get started?
Or would you think that avalanches are started but doubt from that unknown that avalanches are started by an yet unobserved natural process?
Or would you conclude from that unknown that avalanches are started by something supernatural such as a ‘god’ ? -if not, why treat the issue of how life got started any different from how avalanches get started?
In other words; why shouldn’t we use LOGIC to calculate the probable cause of life getting started just as we should use LOGIC to calculate the probable cause of how avalanches get started?
02 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill….even given 15 billion years of energy and matter interacting with each other in planless and goalless and purposeless "blind LUCK."
[b]===============================
You laughed out of ignorance. The fact is that the mathematics and processes surrounding evolution are relatively easy to prove. That the human digestive system could arise through evolution should not be doubted by anyone who knows enough about the science involved. Whether it did or didn't is another matter, but y matter interacting with each other in planless and goaless and purposeless "blind luck."
..…[/b] (my emphasis)
The natural selection part of evolution is not "blind LUCK" but rather just “blind” -how can it be “LUCK” when it is a non-random process? This clearly demonstrates you don’t understand evolution thus you don’t know what you are talking about.
02 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe rest of us reached that conclusion some time ago, Mr. Hamilton.
….even given 15 billion years of energy and matter interacting with each other in planless and goalless and purposeless "blind LUCK."
..… (my emphasis)
The natural selection part of evolution is not "blind LUCK" but rather just “blind” -how can it be “LUCK” when it is a non-random process? This clearly demonstrates you don’t understand evolution thus you don’t know what you are talking about.[/b]