Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The video is not convincing. It provides no insights as to how living things in a dynamic/variable environment survive, much less ‘upgrade.’ I’ve see extremely primitive, compared to humans, machine self-learning systems. They do not model the real world, and those that try to, in very limited ways, require sophisticated to highly sophisticated sensors and feedback mechanisms. Too simple.
 
Exactly Ed. The system learned to play a game with predefined rules. The search space was very small compared to the search space of evolution.
 
buffalo said:
Design is void of purpose? Then why design to begin with?
Click to expand...
It wasn’t designed, so purpose is not relevant. We assign purpose after the event, it is not intrinsic to the object in question.

The hammer manufacturer’s purpose is to sell the hammer at a profit. The hammer owner’s purpose is to hammer in nails. Is the owner misusing the hammer because he is using it for a different purpose, not the original purpose? Is the purpose intrinsic to the hammer or is it assigned externally to the hammer?

rossum
 
ChunkMonk said:
But the evolutionist ignores that and claims every single one of those stages and generations was either a clear benefit, or at the minimum was a neutral change. Which stretches the limits of credibility.
Click to expand...
Have you forgotten the countless animals /stages that were failures and died - failing to pass on their genes?
 
An unconvincing answer. Things, including living things, have a purpose. Without that purpose, a hammer is a piece of metal with a handle. Without any purpose, an animal is just there, reproduces, or not, and dies. The same for human beings. The only difference is we’re far more creative than animals. This clearly implies nihilism. The ultimate goal: “eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.” When a person is nothing, he or she will be at the whim of another who thinks the same. Nihilism again. And anarchy. But who cares?
 
Techno2000 said:
So the food ran out for the otter and evolution decided to make it go through another million years of changes so it could find a new type of food ?
Click to expand...
What decision? Environments change. Animals are all slowly changing (mutations) regardless of environment. At any point in time, the best equipped to suit the environment do best, survive longer, reproduce. Of course, this process can only produce meaningful results over huge timescales, not the mere 5778 years that some on the thread claim is the entire time that life has existed on earth.
 
buffalo said:
It is assigned by the originator, the creator.
Click to expand...
The creator’s purpose was to make a profit. Hence the user of the hammer is misusing the hammer to drive in nails. Really?

The computer manufacturer’s purpose was to make a profit. You are misusing your computer for a different purpose, not the creator’s purpose. You should be selling it on to someone else at a profit, that is the purpose of your computer, as assigned by its creator.

rossum
 
The first hammer was designed to make profit? Did you ask the very first designer? The first hammer was designed to hammer.
 
Glark said:
That’s not my position. I believe the Scriptures allow for the possibility of a creation that existed before the creation that occurred 5778 years ago.
Click to expand...
You mean you’ve evolved your position? 🤣 You were pretty clear on the last thread.
 
So, it’s all about the money. Everything humans don’t need could die tomorrow and it wouldn’t matter. Design is meant for a purpose. I’ve met plenty of people who wanted to make a profit but had no idea how to do it or simply didn’t do it. Wildlife are just nothing, as are the flowers of the field.
 
buffalo said:
The first hammer was designed to make profit? Did you ask the very first designer? The first hammer was designed to hammer.
Click to expand...
You don’t have the first hammer. Your hammer is of a different design, not as designed by the designer of the first hammer. Different hammers; different designers; different purposes.

You are still ‘misusing’ your hammer to hammer in nails (which did not exist when the first hammer was designed).

rossum
 
Yep, until then, it was starving. Time, and lots of it, was required to gradually lengthen the neck. Why this didn’t happen for humans is not explained. Time X random events that meet ‘unknowable in advance’ goals is the offered explanation.

On the face of it, it’s nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top