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

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aloysium said:
What makes for an atom or molecule involves pretty much all the properties found in nature, reflected in the laws we have formulated, to which as an individual component, it is subject to.

Likewise, animals and we ourselves are subject to and expressions of the physical universe.

A lion roaring, expressing the anger, fear or desire for dominance is a collection of atoms and molecules, mindless in themselves, but participants in that which forms the lion’s being. This being is an expression of a kind of being that was created at the beginning and through time has been moulded, the result of pre-existing capacities to do so, as part of its environment into the present ferocious form that includes its instinctive behaviour.

“Mindless chemicals” are like an unpopulated pile of bricks beside a cement mixer, surrounded by measuring sticks, strings, shovels and trowels. By means of there intrinsic behaviour alone, they cannot spontaneously create a home. A home requires a plan, hard work and loving persons to occupy it. Likewise any living being, especially ourselves, exists because we are created as a particular kind of thing that is so much more than its physical and also psychological parts.
Click to expand...
This is quite wrong. Particles are not subject to the laws we have formulated. The laws describe how the particles act. It may seem like splitting hairs but it’s an incredibly important point.

And there needs to be nothing at all extraneous to the properties of any matter for complexity to arise. As we know, our universe started with the most basic of building materials and by means soley of the properties of those materials they eventually evolved into what we have now.

The physical laws that we have only describe what happened. They had no part in the process. Just like mathematical laws do not force one plus one to equal two. If you have one and you are given another, then it is axiomatic that you now have two. We can then formulate mathematical rules to represent thIs.

There are no rules to fiddle with to arrive at different versions of existence. The rules only represent what happened (and therefore what will happen under the same circumstances). It can be as simple as adding one plus one or as complex as developing universe.

There is only one result possible when you add one to one. Who is to say that that premise breaks down at some point (and if so at what point).
 
buffalo said:
If your read and heard Paul Davies you would not have posted this.
Click to expand...
If you had read or heard Paul Davies you would be able to explain how his argument supports your view of Creationism. This idle chucking of lumps of raw text, followed by a vague suggestion that we ought to work it all out for ourselves, just doesn’t cut it with me. How does this work with you? …
  1. “Professor Paul Davies is no friend of Intelligent Design.” (uncomondescent.com)
  2. " If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe is the case, the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it." (Paul Davies at the guardian.com)
  3. "The living cell is the most complex system of its size known to mankind. Its host of specialized molecules, many found nowhere else but within living material, are themselves already enormously complex. They execute a dance of exquisite fidelity, orchestrated with breathtaking precision. Vastly more elaborate than the most complicated ballet, the dance of life encompasses countless molecular performers in synergetic coordination. Yet this is a dance with no sign of a choreographer. No intelligent supervisor, no mystic force, no conscious controlling agency swings the molecules into place at the right time, chooses the appropriate players, closes the links, uncouples the partners, moves them on. The dance of life is spontaneous, self-sustaining, and self-creating.” (Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle)
Now don’t go trotting off the to quote-mine just to fetch another lump. If you think somebody has justified Intelligent Design rationally, explain how. It’s difficult to argue against reason, and if you used some no doubt Bradskii and I would slink away to our (different) caves with our tales between our legs. Till then, Evolution Rules.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Now don’t go trotting off the to quote-mine just to fetch another lump. If you think somebody has justified Intelligent Design rationally, explain how. It’s difficult to argue against reason, and if you used some no doubt Bradskii and I would slink away to our (different) caves with our tales between our legs. Till then, Evolution Rules.
Click to expand...
Quite a few of these guys are no friends of ID. And that is why I quote them. They are coming up against realities, that they are fighting, so no Divine foot is let in the door.

They are no friends of ID, just yet. But they are coming up against inescapable conclusions.
 
No. You don’t quote them. You quote mine them. You simply cut and paste with zero understanding of what you it means.

You have been caught out so many times you must be psychologically incapable of feeling shame.
 
Bradskii said:
No. You don’t quote them. You quote mine them. You simply cut and paste with zero understanding of what you it means.

You have been caught out so many times you must be psychologically incapable of feeling shame.
Click to expand...
Interesting that the quotes are not rebutted by you or anyone else. Nice try though. Most often, the article or paper is cited and I QUOTE the conclusion, the main points, etc. I have rarely, if ever seen you or others here do that. Many times I provide multiple sources and references.

Zero understanding? - Always resort to Rule #1 - always attack the poster when out of arguments.
 
There are some that say that everything has a purpose.

Yours escapes me. Except as a means of mild amusement whenever I tune in to anything associated with matters of science on these forums.

I’ve been involved in forums for very many years. And in my formative years, if I could express them as such in those times, I used to bend the truth. I used to play fast and loose with the facts. And invariably I would be found out. As I am these days when I do the same.

And my response was (and still can be) embarresment.

You know you are found out. You know you bend the truth. You know you play fast and loose with the facts. It happens almost on a daily basis. Yet you have no shame.

I truly cannnot understand that.

How do you do it?
 
In science for Grown-Ups, probabilities are taken seriously. For example, no one would have spent tens of billions of dollars building the Large Hadron Collider if the probabilities of the relevant sud-atomic colliding were calculated to be too small (I don’t know what mathematical criteria they used - I used to think I was a nuclear physicist of great renown, but then I discovered I wasn’t).

In science for Space Toddlers - such as in the sphere of abiogenesis - taking probabilities seriously is optional. This is because atheist philosophy trumps any objections presented by mathematics.
 
Bradskii said:
This is quite wrong. Particles are not subject to the laws we have formulated. The laws describe how the particles act. It may seem like splitting hairs but it’s an incredibly important point.
Click to expand...
I read @Aloysium 's post the same as yours, i.e. we have formulated laws, equations, etc. based on our observations of particles acting. So I think you are both saying the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
Let me get this straight … To you, one person winning the lottery, say, a thousand times, is a realistic possiblity?
Click to expand...
Of course. Really you non-mathematicians have such narrow imaginations…
 
Glark said:
In science for Grown-Ups, probabilities are taken seriously.
Click to expand...
In science for Grown-Ups, relevant probabilities are taken seriously. Irrelevant probabilities with no relation to reality are ignored.

The Bible contains around 3,700,000 characters. Allowing 60 possible characters (26 lowercase, 26 uppercase, space and some punctuation) that is a probability of 1 in 60^3,700,000 that the Bible exists. Obviously you will ignore that probability and not take it seriously because the basis of the calculation is wrong.

All those creationist tornado-in-a-junkyard calculations are also wrong because they ignore the effects of natural selection.

rossum
 
Bradskii said:
Particles are not subject to the laws we have formulated. The laws describe how the particles act. It may seem like splitting hairs but it’s an incredibly important point.
Click to expand...
A point in fact that I was making in the run-on sentence which led to the misinterpretation.
Aloysium said:
What makes for an atom or molecule involves pretty much all the properties found in nature, reflected in the laws we have formulated, to which as an individual component, it is subject to.
Click to expand...
The “to which” refers to the properties of nature rather than our laws, which were referenced because we use them to describe and understand those properties that constitute natural events. The “as an individual component, it“ refers to the atom. And, “is subject to.” again is about the “properties of nature” of which the atom is a part. Those properties are inherent in the atom itself as a key component of matter - what it is and the sorts of relationships it forms with other atoms.

The 3000 character limit forces one to try and compact information that would be better stated in posts three times that number. But then, who would read them? I’ll keep doing what I have been, hoping some communication can happen in this tower of Babel that is the Internet.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top