Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

As macroevolution is something employed by the ID crowd,

You are aware this term has been around since the 1930’s and coined by an evo. The evo’s tried to downplay this as they do not like it, for obvious reasons. You do not either. Evo’s are desperate to couple micro and macro together. They fail to consider the designed in limitations of organisms. They have to now though. So do you.

No i don’t. There’s only “evolution”. To use micro- and macro- denotes the ability to draw a line where one ends and the other begins.

That line doesn’t exist.

 

[buffalo]

No i don’t. There’s only “evolution”. To use micro- and macro- denotes the ability to draw a line where one ends and the other begins.

That line doesn’t exist.

Thanks. Proves my point. It has to be that way no matter the evidence.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

No i don’t. There’s only “evolution”. To use micro- and macro- denotes the ability to draw a line where one ends and the other begins.

That line doesn’t exist.

Thanks. Proves my point. It has to be that way no matter the evidence.

No, it proves my point, Buff.

If you can’t clearly draw a line between micro and macro, then there isn’t a line. There’s just “evolution”.

 

[Techno2000]

I wonder when the shark-horse will be given a more formal name.

Did it crawl out of the water, or is it now going in the water ?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Was it the tiny number of scientists who acceppt the view of the DI. Impressive!

ID is now gaining the lead.

So what was the number of scientists who show that acceptance of ID is valid?

It only takes one.

Just the one.

You know the number of people who claim Elvis is still alive?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So are they?

No, a theistic evo does not deny God.

At last! Please tell Ed. No, don’t worry, I’ll tell him.

Ed, Buff confirms that evolution does not deny God! Is he wrong? Please discuss…

 

[Vonsalza]

The local lake is grossly overloaded with water from 2 weeks of steady rain.

The local falls are normally 70 feet high. The lake is so over-swollen that a fast impeller driven boat could get up them now. Maybe 10-15 feet.

Not gonna try that. But I am gonna spend the weekend poking around on all that water and absolutely not getting on the forum. Been around too much this week.

Dinner beckons.
You gents keep carrying the fire.

 

[buffalo]

Ed, Buff confirms that evolution does not deny God!

Is that what I said? I said a theistic evo does not deny God, by definition. He has to make a fundamental decision. I diss Scripture or I diss evo You should eb able to see the problem here.

Many have become atheist because of this. The others struggle and throw out Genesis.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

edwest:

That’s it! I’ve got some photos too. Can’t find them at the moment…

Yeah… this is what we mean when we say macroevolution .

As macroevolution is something employed by the ID crowd, it aids your critics in further associating the concept with nonsense.

The problem is, l don’t see no macroevolution going on, we’ve been waiting 4.5 billion years!

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Ed, Buff confirms that evolution does not deny God!

Is that what I said? I said a theistic evo does not deny God, by definition. He has to make a fundamental decision. I diss Scripture or I diss evo

I think you understand this but don’t want to admit your own part in it.

 

[IWantGod]

A monkey in reality will never type out Richard III.

You would have had a better argument if you had said that there is no such thing as Richard III without the directed-meaning or information which those words symbolically represent.

If you had said that, then it would not matter that the words came together by chance or by random activity because while the monkey is a particular type of cause in respect of how Richard III is realised, the monkey is not responsible for the meaning that Richard III represents, without which Richard III is meaningless and has no information at all. Thus despite Richard III being realised by chance you can still attribute the meaning of those words to the activity of an intelligent cause.

If you can show how something similar to this principle applies to biological organisms, then you have a successful type of intelligent design argument, which is a lot better than traditional intelligent design arguments since it works regardless of whether the natural theory of evolution is true or not.

 

[Bradskii]

The local lake is grossly overloaded with water from 2 weeks of steady rain.

The local falls are normally 70 feet high. The lake is so over-swollen that a fast impeller driven boat could get up them now. Maybe 10-15 feet.

Not gonna try that. But I am gonna spend the weekend poking around on all that water and absolutely not getting on the forum. Been around too much this week.

Dinner beckons.
You gents keep carrying the fire.

Durn. But myself likewise, tomorrow I have to be heading away to parts far from this kitchen table to places where I might consider barrels and fishes to be less diverting than the local entertainment I might find there. No, which I know are there.

So hasta la vista.

Techno…Do yourself a favour and go read that post that I wrote to you earlier.

 

[Bradskii]

Aloysium:

A monkey in reality will never type out Richard III.

You would have had a better argument if you had said that there is no such thing as Richard III without the directed-meaning or information which those words symbolically represent.

If you had said that, then it would not matter that the words came together by chance or by random activity because while the monkey is a particular type of cause in respect of how Richard III is realised, the monkey is not responsible for the meaning that Richard III represents, without which Richard III is meaningless and has no information at all. Thus despite Richard III being realised by chance you can still attribute the meaning of those words to an intelligent cause.

If you can show how something similar to this principle applies to biological organisms, then you have a successful type of intelligent design argument, which is a lot better than traditional intelligent design arguments since it works regardless of whether the natural theory of evolution is true or not.

Great point.

It says something about the level of debate that no-one could pick up on that. It emphasises the point I made earlier that most people don’t listen to arguments - they just look for an opportunity to post their own.

I do have an argument against what you said, but you probably know what it is so I shan’t bother making it. Time is limited for the next week or so.

 

[Techno2000]

Time is limited for the next week or so.

That should give you plenty enough time to build up some more snarkiness.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium:

At any rate, during the era of cosmic inflation, the Universe was energy itself, undergoing a rapid, exponential expansion, having the same properties everywhere, from which matter and radiation, were created, representing the hot Big Bang. From that plasma, atoms were created, and from there this universe as we know it, consisting of stars and planets.

I don’t understand. Do you believe the whole BBT is wrong? It seems you do but this paragragh^^ reads like you accept it post inflation.

The basic science, the math behind it all, is probably on track, at least as much as we can be at this time. The issue I was addressing has to do with the interpretation.

We go back in the timeline of the universe to arrive at how it started. If you read most accounts of the Big Bang, the description at many points sounds as though the causal direction is backwards from the present, with atoms, for example, breaking apart into subatomic particles as we approach the younger universe as a cosmic ocean of hot orange plasma. Other accounts are worded in such a manner that it is as if the laws of physics are eternal, the present universe, their natural outcome, previously existing as a potential awaiting the conditions to be right for their particular expression. It is stated that the cooling of the early universe precipitated the formation of atoms. Behind it all there is the idea of all this bringing itself into existence. All these are stated usually indirectly, implicit in the descriptions used to describe what we find if when we look back in time. In the attempt to distance science from religion and philosophy, which we do when we stick to the math, the omission of creation seriously distorts the story of our origins, which is what is being discussed here. A more honest rendition would be to simply detail what we find, but we can’t help but introduce causality into any description. Omitting God, introduces the possibility of other sources of being, and today, it is usually stated to be matter.

I could go on and on, but had better stop, hoping this clarifies what I was trying to get across.

 

[Aloysium]

It doesn’t matter if it has meaning or not; to believe that chemistry is sufficient in describing how living forms came to be and diversified, as well as the presence of the growing complexity of organisms in time, is as contrary to reason, as believing a monkey could ever type Richard III.

I don’t make an intelligent design argument. God clearly exists and the ToE does not describe how he brought all living things into existence as He did. Its two pillars are expressions of death in the world, and could never cause what we see around us today, and in the fossil record.

 

[Bradskii]

I could go on and on…

I think that’s a past conditional. It should be a future imperative.

 

[Rubee]

You would have had a better argument if you had said that there is no such thing as Richard III without the directed-meaning or information which those words symbolically represent.

If you had said that, then it would not matter that the words came together by chance or by random activity because while the monkey is a particular type of cause in respect of how Richard III is realised, the monkey is not responsible for the meaning that Richard III represents, without which Richard III is meaningless and has no information at all. Thus despite Richard III being realised by chance you can still attribute the meaning of those words to the activity of an intelligent cause.

Edit: Oops! Meant to reply to @IWantGod

That’s exactly the argument that’s made re the code in DNA, I’ve made it twice here myself to two different posters. I can’t copy-paste my posts a third time.

I’ll just ask, if the arrangement of the ntides in the DNA has no meaning independently of the ntides, how is it humans can crack it and read this arrangement? How come the things humans read in the arrangement are things that have nothing to do with the ntides? Like the person/entity ‘RICHARD III’, geneticists read things like “eye” etc in the arrangement of the ntides: real things that are totally independent of the ntides. And this meaning pre-exists the formation of these real things.

The ntides behave exactly like an alphabet or the 1-0 in computers. They are 4 symbols that are arranged in very specific ways. These specific arrangements have nothing themselves to do with the ntides, just like RICHARD III has nothing to do with each of these letters in that name. Yet the arrangement has been successfully cracked by humans so that you can read something like “eye” and not “eye-lash” or whatever, in a certain arrangement. This meaning is not arbitrary but follows a standard logic, exactly like a language.

Question is: the signification is arbitrary, not natural, exactly like a language. Humans typically make this signification which constitute the rules of the language in spoken/written language as well as computer programming: Who did it for DNA?

There’s certainly meaning in the arrangements of the ntides. It’s the only way they are read by humans.

 

[edwest]

Exactly right. The issue is recognizing that such coding can only be created by an intelligence. The arrangement is highly specific and necessary to get a properly functioning organism.

 

[Aloysium]

It’s pretty pathetic that one completely accepts without questioning that which they cannot see but rejects that which they can see if they at least try and look at the evidence objectively.

So, another post among others that explain why we should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true. There is someone out there who claims to have seen evolution, and that looking at the evidence, in any way other than through an evolutionary lens, is pathetic.

I already know I am pathetic, so that approach doesn’t work to convince me of adopting your truth, as much as that might be frustrating to you.

It’s much better to stick to arguments.