Intelligent Design, Edward Feser's views

  • Thread starter Thread starter tafan2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bradskii said:
For something that has already happened? 1.
Click to expand...
Before it happened… what are the odds it will.

You are going in the direction of the silly multi-verse atheist escape clause. More fantasy land.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
For something that has already happened? 1.
Click to expand...
Before it happened… what are the odds it will.

You are going in the direction of the silly multi-verse atheist escape clause.
Click to expand...
You really don’t get this, do you…

There is no aim in evolution. To calculate the odds of something happening one needs to describe exactly what is going to happen. Which is impossible if there is no determined end result. It’s like throwing a handfull of sand on the floor and saying that the odds of each of the miilions of grains landing in exactly the place they did is astronomically high. Therefore someone must have designed it so each grain is exaclty where it is.

But that makes no sense to you. Because you literally don’t understand the principles. It’s like explaining calculus to a chimp.
 
Bradskii said:
I’m putting the fact that you got 2 right out of 4 down as just dumb luck.
Click to expand...
Nah. Evo advocates have proven it a religion. Talk about blind faith. It has to be. We know it. It cannot be design. Ahhh, no. No God, no God, no God. There is NO EMPIRICAL PROOF of evolution.

Just think, you may be a faithful Catholic in one of those other universes.

Design is the better explanation and is regaining its prominence it lost for a few hundred years.
 
Last edited:
Just as an excercise, can you point to any post on any thread about evolution where someone has argued that it disproves God?

Any at all? At any time?

Or are you blowing smoke again. Because as you know full well, the number of people on this forum who are Christian and have been trying to explain evolution to you (yeah, I know…brick wall meet head) are legion. So you can take your straw man and stick it.

And what was that use you found for your finger? It won’t preclude you carrying out the last suggestion, would it?
 
If I shuffled a deck of cards and drew a single card, a king of hearts, that’s 1:52, pretty unlikely. Am I amazing?

If it’s drew two cards and got a king of hearts and a 3 of clubs that’s a 1:2704 chance. Am I amazing?

If I draw 3 whatever combination I draw would be a 1:140,608. See where this is going. I could shuffle and deal incredibly unlikely combinations of cards all day long. But no one would be impressed because there are natural laws that explain how the card combinations came to be.
 
Shuffle the cards and 1 million times in a row draw 4 aces each and every time in the same order.
 
Why? That would be goal oriented which you agreed evolution doesn’t have. If you do the same I’ll believe you designed the outcome.
 
Nope. No goal. It is simply illustrating how astounding the odds for
fine tuning or evolution has to overcome.

Essential reading…a trillion trillion years or more

Uh OH! Essential reading for evo supporters.

When Theory and Experiment Collide

Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.

idvolution.blogspot.com

Essential reading.....a trillion trillion years or more

IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin
idvolution.blogspot.com idvolution.blogspot.com
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
Wesrock:
selective pressures out-compete less efficient forms for resources and in reproduction, tending towards increasing specialization and apparent refinement in the existing populations over billions if not trillions of permutations.
Click to expand...
And that of course would have had to have played a role in every plant and animal in existence that we have on the planet today…what do you think odds would be ?
Click to expand...
Of course it would have played a role. As things fill certain niches, diversify, become reproductively isolated, etc… the diversity and specialization of millions of species is exactly what you’d expect.

Bradskii’s analogy about marveling over the odds of grains of sand falling one way as opposed to an uncountable number of other ways really applies here.
 
Last edited:
The results are not. The point is any combination is the same odds so when you say what are the odds of life being the way it is, you’re acknowledging there’s lots of other ways it could be. The probability of any one outcome is low. The probability of AN outcome is 1.
 
Wesrock said:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
Wesrock:
selective pressures out-compete less efficient forms for resources and in reproduction, tending towards increasing specialization and apparent refinement in the existing populations over billions if not trillions of permutations.
Click to expand...
And that of course would have had to have played a role in every plant and animal in existence that we have on the planet today…what do you think odds would be ?
Click to expand...
Of course it would have played a role. As things fill certain niches, diversify, become reproductively isolated, etc… the diversity and specialization of millions of species is exactly what you’d expect.
Click to expand...
There would have had to have been millions of perfect environmental pressures to trigger all this perfect DNA mutations.
 
Why would it need to be perfect. It was what it was and what it was produced what it is.
 
You’re assuming to get the exact species we have right now distributed as they are, as opposed to any number of alternative scenarios in which life could be just as diverse but with all different species. All you need is for there to be scarce resources and competition. That’s it. That could come in millions of varieties, true, but so long as you have scarce resources you’re going to see specialization and refinement. If there’s different niches for competition you’re going to see more diversity. It could be the conditions we have (no assumptions being made: we know there are scarce resources in billions of niches and billions of competitive relationship possibilities) or other conditions, but it’s no freat feat that there happen to be scarce resources and oppprtunities to compete over them.

Just… oy vey
 
I don’t think fine tuning is a good argument anywhere, but at least do it over cosmological constants and physical laws. That seems to have slightly more grounding than a complete lack of understanding about natural selection and allele drift leading to such diversity and specialization.
 
Wesrock said:
scarce resources you’re going to see specialization and refinement.
Click to expand...
There would have to have been just the right scarce resources scenario popping up in the environment every 5 seconds to account for all the transitional stages that evolution supposedly needed to build the plant and animal kingdom we have today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top