Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So Evolution as you understand it is totally random and aimless?? Things change?
Then how do you account for the obvious replication of life forms? When was the last time a human have birth to an insect? Hardly random.
OMFG LOL
I've heard some ridiculous, unintelligible arguments against evolution, but that might be the most outlandish yet!
Read through this thread. Many of us have explained how randomness factors into evolution. Basically, individuals vary, often widely, and some are well suited to the environment/situation inwhich they emerge while others aren't. The individual variability appears entirely random, but the natural selection that occurs is determined mainly by the environment/situation. That said, specific events in the environment -inclement weather, fires, flooding, etc- also appear entirely random, so yes, the way things transpire appears predominantly random.
Until you can observe tangible evidence of 'god' -that is an agent controling fundamental nature- it's an entirely meaningless and impractical idea.
Humans giving birth to inspects! That's one of the most thoroughly ignorant statements I've ever read! :
So Evolution as you understand it is totally random and aimless?? Things change?
Then how do you account for the obvious replication of life forms? When was the last time a human have birth to an insect? Hardly random.
Evolution is aimless, but not random. Mutations are random. But that is only one part of the process.
Another one is natural selection of those mutations. Natural selection is very non random.
It is very biased to most adaptive and fittest.
As I recall, you came in to the discussion and mentioned the term in your very first post.
Don't misunderstand, I'm happy to have you in the discussion but, again, it's never been my intention here to debate the scientific aspects of evolution except as would be pertaining to the questions in my opening post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Not necessarily. In terms of biological evolution that would be quite accurate, but the definition I gave above itself is independent of the speed of the process. The process I described would work just as well quickly as slowly.
Right. So basically, you are referring to change over time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
There is no reason whatsoever at this time to think Biological Evolution is in any way guided by an intentional thinking agent. But I was giving a general definition of evolution, not just limited to biological evolution, and there is nothing in that definition that precludes design or guides. That is why Natural Selection is distinct from Artificial Selection for example. We have engaged in Artificial selection in the farming world for example. While the evolution of language for example would be a mix of artificial and natural selections.
I appreciate your honesty here. That's essentially my only point in this thread - those asserting classic Darwinism cannot preclude the possibility of design and/or guidance. As well, being that we are talking about an observable process, there is no possibility of addressing the issue of origins or first cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
I said more than that, but that is certainly one of the messages you can take away from what I wrote, sure. No one has shown me a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning which lends even a modicum of an iota of credence to the claims there is a god or after life. Least of all you.
I suspect that you've been presented with plenty of arguments, evidence, data and reasoning - you've simply chosen to reject it.
As I said, persuasion is a whole different ball game. No one can force anyone to accept anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
My entire posting history on this site deals with those things, you could take the time to read some of them if you like. You risk derailing your own thread here. However if there is something specific you want me to deal with just ask, or find/start a thread on the subject and post on it and invite me to it.
It appears that you're perhaps venturing to flatter yourself.
I would personally never dare to suggest that someone go back and read my dated posts in other threads - how boring would that be?
Be that as it may, we certainly don't have to derail the thread here. I'm quite happy to move this part of the discussion to a different venue.
Are you up for it? Again, I would be expecting a two-way conversation where you would be willing to defend your worldview as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
It _may_ be sure. But it is not. I am quite well versed in the subject of NDE and have read with close interest the many studies on the subject, from Sam Parnia all the way down. I repeat.... not one thing has come out of any of those studies that supports the claims many people make about NDE. There certainly has been interesting results of course, just none that support an after life theory. At all. We are certainly in full agreement when you say "the work is quite fascinating and compelling" though. There is a lot there to learn about the workings of the human brain.
Very few things like this happen under any kind of controlled study however. Such anecdotes predominantly seem to come from the least controlled and least verifiable cases. As soon as any kind of controls are put in however, suddenly we drop to zero positive results. Take for example Parnias studies of OBE. His controls were quite flawless.... and then suddenly the number of positive results: Zero.
I don't believe I mentioned any specific studies. You seem to want to parse the 'study' term in a way that is favorable to your argument.
My only point has been that there apparently exists some fascinating and compelling work in that regard. Again, just my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Which is why it is useful to not just throw out evidence, but explain exactly why it IS evidence to your mind. Then the listener can evaluate not just the evidence, but your reasoning. Actually I shy away from using the word "proof" in theistic conversations. I ask for "Any argument, evidence, data or reasoning that lends any credibility to the claim there is a god" and so far no one has given me that either, much less your good self.
For me evidence is a process not a thing, and the process is exceedingly simple:
1) State clearly what you are claiming
2) State clearly the things you think support the claim in 1)
3) Explain clearly how the things listed in 2 support the claim in 1.
I can't help wondering whether or not you would be willing to submit yourself and your own worldview to this same criteria.
So things change but not randomly, but kind of randomly, just enough so that things turn out as they are. And because they survived, they must be the fittest! Right? Evolution explains a lot. Things change because it turns out like it is! What a nice fairy tale story. As good as anything in the bible! I love scientists and their own brand of religion!
And then you get the so-called scientist pontificating about the tremendous "science" that is behind this laughable fairy tale. Does one laugh or does one cry?
So things change but not randomly, but kind of randomly, just enough so that things turn out as they are. What a nice fairy tale story. As good as anything in the bible! I love scientists and their own brand of religion!
Saying things turn out as they are is meaningless and redundant. Things turned out as they did, but it wasn't predetermined, and had a couple random events been different, it's quite possible things would be very different.
For instance, there's compelling evidence that about 65 mya an asteroid impact, combined with increased volcanic activity, wiped out about 75% of all life, most notably the dinosaurs who were the most dominant life form at the time. There's no evidence the asteroid was preordained by 'god' (or pick your deity/deities); it just happened.
If there had been no asteroid impact it's very unlikely we'd be here, and life on earth would probably be very different. Or consider how things would be if an asteroid 5x as large impact earth: It's quite possible the explosion would have been so powerful, not only would the sun have been blocked out, but earth's orbit might have shifted in a way that made it entirely uninhabitable for all or virtually all life.
It's so obvious how ignorant you are, I know I'm probably wasting my time. I explained to you how crucial randomness is in determining how things transpire, and you just repeat the same discredited statement, 'science is another brand of religion'. We established it's not since it's based on rational analysis of physical, observable evidence. Unless you can demonstrate how science is actually like religion, you're statements are untrue and worthless.
Saying things turn out as they are is meaningless and redundant. Things turned out as they did, but it wasn't predetermined, and had a couple random events been different, it's quite possible things would be very different.
OK. First thing is that you have just said that Evolution rules out Determinism. Cool. I never thought of that in this way. Can we now use Evolution as a scientific argument against Scientific Determinism?
Quote:
For instance, there's compelling evidence that about 65 mya an asteroid impact, combined with increased volcanic activity, wiped out about 75% of all life, most notably the dinosaurs who were the most dominant life form at the time. There's no evidence the asteroid was preordained by 'god' (or pick your deity/deities); it just happened.
Nice story, but has nothing to do with Evolution. I might add that no one knows what happened to the dinosaurs but it doesn't stop scientists from concocting stories. Helps to raise funds for more "research". After all we all have to live. Survival of the fittest and all that.
Quote:
If there had been no asteroid impact it's very unlikely we'd be here, and life on earth would probably be very different. Or consider how things would be if an asteroid 5x as large impact earth: It's quite possible the explosion would have been so powerful, not only would the sun have been blocked out, but earth's orbit might have shifted in a way that made it entirely uninhabitable for all or virtually all life.
I think I get it. Things happen so that everything ends up the way it is. Nice theory. Explains everything except it explains nothing.
Quote:
It's so obvious how ignorant you are, I know I'm probably wasting my time. I explained to you how crucial randomness is in determining how things transpire, and you just repeat the same discredited statement, 'science is another brand of religion'. We established it's not since it's based on rational analysis of physical, observable evidence. Unless you can demonstrate how science is actually like religion, you're statements are untrue and worthless.
Thanks for the lesson in tautology. You must have received an A+ in science class. You regurgatate nonsense perfectly.
So things change but not randomly, but kind of randomly, just enough so that things turn out as they are. And because they survived, they must be the fittest! Right?
Wrong! Because they are fitter, they survive much more often than those who are weaker.
Things don't change randomly. Change has a huge bias for better fitness.
Looking forward to see how you will try to straw-man this simple truth yet again so I can expose your fallacies again and make you feel and look silly.
Wrong! Because they are fitter, they survive much more often than those who are weaker.
Things don't change randomly. Change has a huge bias for better fitness.
Looking forward to see how you will try to straw-man this simple truth yet again so I can expose your fallacies again and make you feel and look silly.
Fitter than who out what?
And how the heck do we know that they are "fitter"?? Answer: Because they survived dummy!
Scientists are a hoot. Everything always fits because it does by definition.
Let's sum up Evolution:
Things change and end up exactly as they are per theory. ☺Next problem please.
No, I didn't ask.
That's essentially my only point in this thread - those asserting classic Darwinism cannot preclude the possibility of design and/or guidance.
If that is your point then your point is pointless, b/c no one is precluding anything.
Those asserting design and/or guidance must prove their assertion.
Quote:
I'm quite happy to move this part of the discussion to a different venue.
Are you up for it? Again, I would be expecting a two-way conversation where you would be willing to defend your worldview as well.
Why are you looking for privacy in a open public forum?
Why would you care against whom your are defending your position?
I would love to be part of this exchange.
BTW, I asked you and did not get an answer, so I will ask you again.
To which classic argument for an existence of God would you like to hear a response first?
And how the heck do we know that they are "fitter"?? Answer: Because they survived dummy!
That would be a conclusion of a dummy.
Rest of us know who is fitter b/c we observe never ending struggle for survival and record outcomes.
After observing and recording we calculate percentages and see perfectly clear, that those who are stronger (fitter) survive to the point of passing their genes overwhelmingly more often than those who are weaker.
Since dummy would not go that far (as far as observing, recording and calculating), dummy would not know
who is who and what is what. Dummy would know very little in deed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
