Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The assumption that human life was meant to be the end result is the best assumption. The assumption that human life was a result of random chance despite the astronomical and near impossible odds is completely nonsensical. You are guilty of the very thing you accuse me of. I also notice that you offer nothing. You just sit there and cherry pick whatever part of my assertions you feel is easiest for you to address and disregard the rest.
 
Kei said:
40.png
Freddy:
The chances of dealing any sequence of cards from a full pack is 1. But if you select a sequence in advance and then deal the cards, then the chances of hitting that sequence is around 1 in 10 to the power 68.
Click to expand...
Intelligent life able to ponder the question would seem to me inherently more valuable compared to non-intelligent life or non-intelligent non-life…
Click to expand...
More valuable to whom? To us? We are here because it’s more valuable to us for us to be here? That’s a bootstrap argument if I’ve ever heard one.
 
Last edited:
Duke12VonFalkenburg said:
The assumption that human life was meant to be the end result is the best assumption.
Click to expand...
It’s the assumption that can only be made if the system was designed to that end. So you’d need God to design it thus (unless there’s another option?). So you have to assume God’s existence in order to use your proposal to prove God’s existence.

I’m not knocking your beliefs. I’m not even saying you are wrong. I’m simply pointing out that you are commiting a fallacy in the way you present your argument.
 
Last edited:
Duke12VonFalkenburg said:
The assumption that human life was a result of random chance despite the astronomical and near impossible odds is completely nonsensical.
Click to expand...
The universe does not run on random chance. It is not random chance that there is a lot more H2O in the universe than HO2. Evolution overall is not a random process because natural selection is not random.

Any calculation which assumes complete randomness will be in error because of that incorrect initial assumption. Some elements are random; others are not. Gravity is not a random force, so the formation of stars is predictable, not random.
 
Common design. Designers often use pre-existing designs and build on them. It is now known that life has 500 or so common conserved components on which every body plan can be built.
 
rossum said:
The universe does not run on random chance. It is not random chance that there is a lot more H2O in the universe than HO2. Evolution overall is not a random process because natural selection is not random.

Any calculation which assumes complete randomness will be in error because of that incorrect initial assumption. Some elements are random; others are not. Gravity is not a random force, so the formation of stars is predictable, not random.
Click to expand...
Blind unguided chance is better,
 
buffalo said:
Common design. Designers often use pre-existing designs and build on them. It is now known that life has 500 or so common conserved components on which every body plan can be built.
Click to expand...
Obviously incorrect. A virus does not have 500 components. You do not give a reference for your claim, but I suspect that many bacteria will also not possess all 500 components. Does a sponge or a jellyfish possess all 500? We cannot tell because you do not give a reference.

Unsupported claims that are obviously incorrect will not do you any favours in discussion.
 
True, Viruses do not have lots of components. I’m assuming that’s an over statement on his behalf.
 
So how did Evolution occur and everything so complex occur in the universe without chance? I’m stuck on both sides of Evolution and Theistic Evolution. I’m confused how would Evolution and everything so complex in the Universe happened without a creator?
 
DictatorCzar said:
So how did Evolution occur and everything so complex occur in the universe without chance?
Click to expand...
Chance is involved, but not only chance. buffalo was implying that evolution is a purely chance process. It is no. Chance is involved, but the overall process is not chance. For example, it is not be chance that thick white fur is more common in the Arctic than on the Equator.
 
Makes sense, he probably thought more about before. Not adaptation, but the changing of species and the increasing complexity of organisms. I think he meant there was more chance on not adaptation but just pure evolution.
 
At the Royal Society meeting the conversation was going in the direction of NS being an intelligent agent, then they decided to break for tea.

@rossum are you now an adherent of NS being intelligent?
 
Viruses are not alive. They do not contain basic functions as bacteria. Viruses can’t reproduce purely by themselves. They can’t produce proteins because they don’t have ribosomes. Viruses are like vampires if that makes sense. It makes your body go crazy trying to kill the virus. When you’re sick with a virus. You feel ill.
 
DictatorCzar said:
Viruses are not alive. They do not contain basic functions as bacteria. Viruses can’t reproduce purely by themselves. They can’t produce proteins because they don’t have ribosomes. Viruses are like vampires if that makes sense. It makes your body go crazy trying to kill the virus. When you’re sick with a virus. You feel ill.
Click to expand...
I was answering this post - Obviously incorrect. A virus does not have 500 components.
 
You have failed to give a reference for your “500 or so common conserved components”. You have failed to indicate whether or not bacteria, sponges or jellyfish have those common components. Failure to answer reasonable question is not going to help you in a scientific argument.
buffalo said:
At the Royal Society meeting the conversation was going in the direction of NS being an intelligent agent, then they decided to break for tea.

@rossum are you now an adherent of NS being intelligent?
Click to expand...
So, the ID crowd hired a room in the Royal Society. That does not make whatever was said in that room any more convincing than the usual ID refuted arguments. Repeating the same things in a different venue does not make them less untrue than they was before.

Natural selection is not intelligent. Currently COVID-19 is undergoing natural selection. It has a beneficial mutation (from its own point of view) and is greatly increasing its RNA (it is an RNA virus) in the population. Do you think that COVID-19 is intelligent?
 
COVID-19 is not intelligent. It’s not alive, a virus doesn’t contain the components as a cell. Its missing ribosomes, and other parts. It can not self sustain, it needs to harvest a cell. I thought the mutations were not from reproduction but genetic? Actually, the viruses change when harvesting a cell. Cells would often mutate.
 
Most viruses are exact copies. Not sure if that’s considered natural selection because there has to be genetic mutation in the RNA. Then after the mutation, they make more copies until another mutation.
 
DictatorCzar said:
Will there ever be an answer? Ive been thinking about both of them. Theistic evolution was also in my mind too. But Adam and Eve had souls, because people who believe in evolution show that bacteria was the first living thing to ever exist, but bacteria and animals don’t have souls and don’t go to heaven. But creationism, bones are weird and they confuse me. DNA too. Many common species have similar DNA. Kangaroos are not in Asia, well the big ones. There are tree kangaroos in New Guinea, but they’re a different species. They have similar bone structures and DNA, but without evolution, how did they came to be. I don’t know. I hope a great apologist will find something, or God will give us an insight.
Click to expand...
I would politely suggest that you treat most of Genesis in the same way you’d treat Aesop. Especially most of it pre-Abraham (Ch 13? 15? Somewhere in there)

The stories have an important truth to tell, but the tortoise and the hare never actually raced each other.
 
True, most of it could be figurative, not literal. Or perhaps it says in a different manner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top