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.
It is unplanned, but not an accident in that it is a random happening. There are reasons why it happened and mechanisms directing how it happened. At least that is evolution - theory, and the "Random Chance" argument is simply a long since debunked one.
Yes, Dawkins "debunked" the random chance argument. How did he debunk it? But saying a lot of confusing nonsense in a confident way.
The current mainstream ToE says the changes that lead to evolution are RANDOM ACCIDENTS. Yes, that is what it says, it insists there is nothing intelligent about DNA.
Then natural selection selects from those accidents, leading to the incredible complex machinery of life.
James Shapiro has shown that cells purposely modify their own DNA. There is no question that intelligent activities go on within cells.
But atheists are so smart, they can even explain that -- the intelligence of cells evolved because of random accidents and natural selection! Natural selection is GOD.
Like a flood of hormones causes childhood extinction?
It doesn't matter if it was "us" or not. So long as it was/is something.
Like seeding. The individual outcome is irrelevant, to a degree that is. It's the balance between your milli-mentalist-think and their funda-mentalist think where the truth lies.
whats your measurement for determining that the system we are in is not life? I'll take any.
I really have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Life is (to me) replication. If it doesn't replicate, it isn't alive. What's your standard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
The fossils show evidence for EVOLUTION. As I keep saying. They do NOT show evolution caused by natural selection! That is just a guess as to what caused evolution.
Why should you listen to my opinion instead of the majority of experts? Don't believe things because I said them, or because experts said them!!
Believe things because they make sense, doubt things that don't make sense!!
Red is for Mods. Just a warning. Good. The fossils show evidence of evolution actually happenning. Then we don't seem to be greatly in disagreement.
The evolutionary mechanism of natural selection is - as I said - demonstrated and accepted even by Creationism. There was been some evidential demonstration of speciation and Creationism has to a certain extent accepted Ring species which is as near speciation as you can get.
Thus, since the method and the effect is demonstrated and the fossil evidence of what looks like that effect are apparently accepted, I'd say that we are perfectly justified in saying that natural selection through genetic mutation is the best explanation for the fossil evidence of an evolutionary process.
What in fact are your reasons for rejecting that as the best explanation? Please present the mechanism and evidence for an alternative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
It doesn't matter if I mention origin of life or not (I didn't). The origin of life is obviously related to the evolution of all the living species.
If you mention origin of life to atheists they will say "That's not fair, we were talking about evolution, not the origin of life! We figured out evolution, but we did not yet figure out the origin of life! We will soon though!"
Just a lot of nonsense. They did not figure out the origin of life or the evolution of life.
In fact the origin of life really isn't relevant to the evolutionary argument. What is relevant is whether life - once it had got to the stage of a cell (which is the first and earliest fossils we find) evolved and what was the mechanism.
That's the only real question that is relevant.
But, if you must talk of the origins of life, there are some plausible mechanisms for abiogenesis and while there is no proof and may never be, it is incorrect to say it isn't possible. That being so, even if nobody was there to see it and it can't be proven, that as much as evolution is the best hypothesis on the table at the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
Yes, Dawkins "debunked" the random chance argument. How did he debunk it? But saying a lot of confusing nonsense in a confident way.
The current mainstream ToE says the changes that lead to evolution are RANDOM ACCIDENTS. Yes, that is what it says, it insists there is nothing intelligent about DNA.
Then natural selection selects from those accidents, leading to the incredible complex machinery of life.
James Shapiro has shown that cells purposely modify their own DNA. There is no question that intelligent activities go on within cells.
But atheists are so smart, they can even explain that -- the intelligence of cells evolved because of random accidents and natural selection! Natural selection is GOD.
I think you have misinterpreted Shapiro and he himself would deny that he is claiming that cells decided through their own volition to do this or that evolutionary process.
In fact since natural selection is demonstrated, that is the more plausible explanation.
And random chance is debunked simply by explaining the mechanics of natural selection. I would expect that every single biologists and a great many non -biologists would be quite familiar with the idea of a biological mechanism that was nothing to do with random chance and would not need Ddawkins or anyone one else to tell them what to think.
You may find it incredible that the amazing complexity of life and indeed physics came about without some kind of intelligence directing it, but an understanding of the evidence of evolution from the relatively simple cell and earlier than that the still very complex biochemical and further back even than that the still very complex atoms of matter can explain quite clearly how this present level of complexity came to be, and not only without the need for anything other than unplanned natural forces, but the lack of any decent evidence for any planning and -as I said re- extinctions - a lack of forward planning but some accidental effects, should remove any appeal to incredulity.
By the way, just out of interest can you find an evolutionary sours (not please a Creationists source claiming to be about evolution) tthat you can quote as saying it is random Accidents, as you say? I think those words are yours.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-08-2017 at 05:40 PM..
...
In my opinion (and many others' opinions), the cause of evolution is unknown. I believe the universe is alive and intelligent, and we would expect life to evolve within a living universe.
It did not happen by a long series of impossible accidents!
Let's entertain the idea that the universe is alive. What makes you believe so?
I think there is a God but we have made up a lot of others because our minds matter. I don't think we have found the true nature of God yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
Let's entertain the idea that the universe is alive. What makes you believe so?
Yes. This is something atheists need to be aware of. The "Universe is God" (alive or at least intelligent, as a "Living" cosmic consciousness that is eternal seems a bit of a misnomer. It wouldn't be organic, even, let alone biological) is something we are getting to hear more of, and is, I suppose, the "Agnostic -god" belief, which doesn't have to have any support for organized religion or the Bible and is therefore not at the top of our hit -list (1) and if they are aware of the damage organized religion is doing and the absurdity of the over-reverence given to the "Book of Tosh", then they are truly on Our Side.
But it's also something that atheists constantly forget - they don't have the burden of proof. They don't have to prove that some sorta God AkA nature with a "To Do" list (2) but remain unconvinced until the believers make a compelling case.
They or we do have the burden of proof of making evolution a better and evidence -supported alternative to Genesis as indeed we have the burden of proof of debunking any of the bible -Daniel, resurrection and Acts.
But our new pal is indeed good4something. I hadn't realized it, but I'd been missing a good Evilooshun wrangle.
(1) though it is On It as sooner or later science is going to suss that the God -in -the head is the individual mind - indeed in every sense of the word, the "Ego" applied to Everything, and is therefore thought to Be, Everything, Including an Over -Use Of Capital Letters. The "Proof" -and it damn near is Proof - is that the God in the head that communicated not only feelings, emotions and instincts to them,but True Information and not only never says "Sorry, you have that wrong" even when they clearly do, but also tells different stuff to the different heads it is within - if they are putting the mystical earphones on.
I think you have misinterpreted Shapiro and he himself would deny that he is claiming that cells decided through their own volition to do this or that evolutionary process.
When did I say "decided through their own volition" ???
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
In fact since natural selection is demonstrated, that is the more plausible explanation.
Yes, natural selection is demonstrated. Not only is it demonstrated, IT HAS TO BE TRUE.
But we have NO REASON to think natural selection causes the evolution of new species.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
And random chance is debunked simply by explaining the mechanics of natural selection. I would expect that every single biologists and a great many non -biologists would be quite familiar with the idea of a biological mechanism that was nothing to do with random chance and would not need Ddawkins or anyone one else to tell them what to think.
The theory promoted by Dawkins says that changes to DNA are RANDOM ACCIDENTS, they are ERRORS. How can you say "random chance is debunked" ??
Then Dawkins (and all the others like him) promote natural selection to a godlike status, and call it the organizer of the complexity of life. That is just confusing BS. And it has succeeded in confusing lots of biologists and atheists.
Shapiro showed that cells modify their own DNA. They fix copying errors in DNA, they modify their DNA for various reasons. So how can you continue to insist that genetic mutations leading to evolution are always ACCIDENTS ???
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
You may find it incredible that the amazing complexity of life and indeed physics came about without some kind of intelligence directing it, but an understanding of the evidence of evolution from the relatively simple cell and earlier than that the still very complex biochemical and further back even than that the still very complex atoms of matter can explain quite clearly how this present level of complexity came to be, and not only without the need for anything other than unplanned natural forces, but the lack of any decent evidence for any planning and -as I said re- extinctions - a lack of forward planning but some accidental effects, should remove any appeal to incredulity.
Nonsense. There is evidence for evolution, plenty of it. But there is NO EVIDENCE that it was caused by random genetic errors and natural selection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
By the way, just out of interest can you find an evolutionary sours (not please a Creationists source claiming to be about evolution) tthat you can quote as saying it is random Accidents, as you say? I think those words are yours.
Every biologist who believes the materialist creation myth says that the genetic mutations leading to evolution are ERRORS.
Atheists tend to adopt the questionable Composition Fallacy position with regard to any such claims.
Now I'll have to go and look that one up. In relation to applying a different approach to Bible -based theism and irreligious theism.
As I suspected it has nothing to do with the point. It is the fallacy that part of the whole. Of course, your were ignoring my point and simply trying a clumsy attempt to derail the threat into discussing your beliefs again.
In fact the fallacy of composition is what i used to debunk your hypothesis as it was until you modified it.
Example #2: Hydrogen is not wet. Oxygen is not wet. Therefore, water (H2O) is not wet.
You may recall I argued that it is the fallacy of composition to deny the opposite that a property may emerge from a combination that does not have that property.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-09-2017 at 07:05 AM..
When did I say "decided through their own volition" ???
No, I did. You said 'intelligence' as I recall. I felt that might be debatable as to how much intelligence a bacteria has, so I took what at least made your suggestion less that ridiculous. But if you meant anything else, please explain.
Quote:
Yes, natural selection is demonstrated. Not only is it demonstrated, IT HAS TO BE TRUE.
But we have NO REASON to think natural selection causes the evolution of new species.
The theory promoted by Dawkins says that changes to DNA are RANDOM ACCIDENTS, they are ERRORS. How can you say "random chance is debunked" ??
Then Dawkins (and all the others like him) promote natural selection to a godlike status, and call it the organizer of the complexity of life. That is just confusing BS. And it has succeeded in confusing lots of biologists and atheists.
Shapiro showed that cells modify their own DNA. They fix copying errors in DNA, they modify their DNA for various reasons. So how can you continue to insist that genetic mutations leading to evolution are always ACCIDENTS ???
Nonsense. There is evidence for evolution, plenty of it. But there is NO EVIDENCE that it was caused by random genetic errors and natural selection.
Every biologist who believes the materialist creation myth says that the genetic mutations leading to evolution are ERRORS.
Yes, true. Mutation is through random strikes of cosmic particles. so the theory goes. The changes are unplanned - random, you might say. But, from then on it isn't random It is driven or selected by environmental conditions. It is a known mechanism and process. That is not random. So your point that present complexity is impossible through random chance fails.
I already explained why natural selection and genetic mutation and the long process of change over time is the best explanation. If you have a better one, let's have it.
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.
In relation to applying a different approach to Bible -based theism and irreligious theism.
