Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

taking the piss, but at least admitting it

Quote:

how did god come to exist?

he evolved, obviously!

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

As long as I can determine the energy it absorbs and the energy it loses I can define it as a closed system.

'If I can show it gains or loses energy, then it's a closed system.'

Laughing

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

real life wrote:
When I use a response like 'The mathematical odds against complex organs and interdependent biological systems generating themselves from squat make evolution an impossibility' --

--- then I get accused of using 'an argument from incredulity'.

Not by me. I would accuse you of implicitly assuming that neo-Darwinian evolution is a random process. The contrary is true: it's a supremely non-random process.

Natural selection is random.

In reality sometimes the 'better adapted' critter survives, and sometimes it doesn't.

Sometimes a 'better adapted' species gets wiped out, leaving less evolved species to inherit it's habitat.

Or to put it plainly 'Better adapted species survive, except when they don't.' Laughing

If you allow selective interpretation such as this, then you have a non-falsifiable proposition.

As some have explained, it's circular reasoning.

'Evolution shows that the better adapted survive.'

'How do we know those that survived were better adapted?'

'Because they survived.'

0 Replies

Real

Quote:

If I can show it gains or loses energy, then it's a closed system.'

I misinterpretation, of course, but what is one to expect. As someone pointed out on another thread, if you feel thermodynamics is wrong why not show us the correct equations/analysis? You can start off by showing us where a closed system means closed off from the rest of the universe.

Since I am not one to argue basic science and as Ros pointed out this was a thread where YOU prove creation, not disprove science I won't continue to bite.

If you would be kind enough to answer two questions that have intruiged me for a while: Do you understand how (place your own negative adjective here) you look to people who have been trained in science when you use these ridiculous tactics of using terms in their colloquial sense instead of as clearly defined in science, such as closed system, to ridicule basic 9th grade science?

Do you understand this is especially apparent when, as in another post, someone actually puts up the mathematical basis of some concept, which you ignore, seem to show that you are incapable of understanding the very concepts you denigrate?

Second, since you are clearly not convincing anyone that you are correct and science is wrong, why do you continue to do it? Just like to argue, nothing better to do, etc.?

I personally don't care what you believe or disbelieve I was just wondering what you get out of it.

Oh...and...we are still waiting on that proof of creationism. It would help if you would provide not just the pros but the mathematical formalism to back it up. And here's your emoticon Laughing

right back at you.

0 Replies

Quote:

Natural selection is random.

no, mutation is random. selection is whatever's leftover. it's called "selection" because survival is the determining factor- factor, not random.

Quote:

Sometimes the 'better adapted' critter survives.

every single time.

Quote:

Sometimes it doesn't.

wrong.

Quote:

Sometimes a 'better adapted' species gets wiped out, leaving less evolved species to inherit it's habitat.

that never happens to an entire species. if it does, it wasn't better adapted. period.

Quote:

Or to put it plainly 'Better adapted species survive, except when they don't.'

that's a nice story you wrote. here's the one that actually has something to do with what we're talking about:

"better adapted" is not constant. the environment changes, what is "better adapted" to that environment also changes.

plants develop ways to fight off being eaten, the creatures that eat them adapt, they go back and forth sometimes.

at one point, trees were taking over the earth. they were better adapted. mammals came around and started breathing the oxygen that would have suffocated the plants, and exhaling co2.

but man also started pulling trees down. still, it was better for the trees than overpopulation.

all sorts of things randomly change if an entire species gets wiped out, it wasn't that well suited to the change. it may have been perfectly well adapted to what was there before. trees used to be at the top of the food chain, in a way. at least they could compete with any other life form for resources.

but the ice age wiped out entire species of trees, the ones least suited to climate change.

what was left? the ones better suited.

while adaptability to cold might have been the saving grace last time, next time the determining factor may be how much man is encouraged to plant more of them, which ones are best for furniture and medicine. the environment changes.

what's best adapted to the NEW environment is what stays, and there's a lot of gray area and wiggle room. most species have more than one thing going for them, so to use audio as a metaphor, it's more like second and third harmonics than random white noise.

so to rephrase your pithy remark: evolution is totally random, except basically all the time.

i would love to know how much of this stuff you already know, it could save us a lot of trouble.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Natural selection is random.

No it's not.

0 Replies

tinygiraffe wrote:

real life wrote:
Sometimes a 'better adapted' species gets wiped out, leaving less evolved species to inherit it's habitat.

that never happens to an entire species. if it does, it wasn't better adapted. period.

Do you understand why that is a circular argument?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Natural selection is random.

No it's not.

Does the 'more evolved' (or 'better adapted' if you prefer) critter/species ALWAYS survive?

0 Replies

Quote:

'Evolution shows that the better adapted survive.'

'How do we know those that survived were better adapted?'

'Because they survived.'

That would be your circular argument RL. Evolution doesn't make that argument.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:
As long as I can determine the energy it absorbs and the energy it loses I can define it as a closed system.

'If I can show it gains or loses energy, then it's a closed system.'

Your ignorance is simply astounding RL.

If you can measure the input and output of energy of a system then you can measure what the system itself does. Essentially, you are creating a closed system by measuring everything that goes in and out and accounting for that in your calculations.

0 Replies

Isaac Asimov said this in one of your links RL..

Quote:

Evidence actually in favor of creationism is not presented, of course, because none exists other than the word of the bible, which it is current creationist strategy not to use.

Since Dr Asimov passed away several years ago, I guess it is still the strategy of creationists to not use the bible. Meanwhile science has progressed in the last 15 years.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Thomas wrote:
real life wrote:
When I use a response like 'The mathematical odds against complex organs and interdependent biological systems generating themselves from squat make evolution an impossibility' --

--- then I get accused of using 'an argument from incredulity'.

Not by me. I would accuse you of implicitly assuming that neo-Darwinian evolution is a random process. The contrary is true: it's a supremely non-random process.

In reality sometimes the 'better adapted' critter survives, and sometimes it doesn't.

Sometimes a 'better adapted' species gets wiped out, leaving less evolved species to inherit it's habitat.

Or to put it plainly 'Better adapted species survive, except when they don't.'

I'll grant you there is a grain of an argument underneath your rhetoric for a change. It is true that better adapted organisms sometimes don't survive. It may even be true (though it's much, much less likely) that a better-adapted species will occasionally go extinct.

But this doesn't get you very far towards refuting neo-Darwinian evolution. As long as the statistical correlation between fitness and survival is positive -- as long as better adapted organisms are more likely than more badly adapted organisms to have much offspring -- natural selection is non-random, and your argument about it being random breaks down.

real life wrote:

As some have explained, it's circular reasoning.

'Evolution shows that the better adapted survive.'

'How do we know those that survived were better adapted?'

'Because they survived.'

This "explanation" rests on a misstatement of what Darwin said, and an old one at that. I have better things to do with my time than to re-debunk old hats again and again. Instead, I'll refer you to a reference where others have debunked it for me. See"Index to creationist claims", entry CA 500.

0 Replies

Re: taking the piss, but at least admitting it

tinygiraffe wrote:

Quote:
how did god come to exist?

he evolved, obviously!

This directs us toward the underlying conundrum in trying to prove either the existence of God or the concept of creation.

From our understanding of causality, limited as it is by our perception of space and time, we cannot conceive of a prime mover that may have always existed. Our minds reject intuitively any reference to a point of "before time began", whatever that means.

But it surely must be obvious that any creator who calls himself "He who causes to become", may have created or fabricated these dimensions (IF that is the best term for them) for the simple purpose of creating sentient beings having the facility of free will. The implications of this are far reaching and certainly must include powers that we would consider beyond natural or 'supernatural'.

How could anyone prove that?

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:
theMadJW wrote:
Real Life- don't you know they will believe in Evolution no matter WHAT you show them?

And you have a Bible story with no evidence to support it.

Mad: PLENTY of Evidence- but when not wanting to believe, it's viewed as false!

0 Replies

real life wrote:

How did matter/energy come to exist?

I don't know if and how matter and energy came to exist.

real life wrote:

How did scientific law come to exist?

I don't know if and how scientific law came to exist.

real life wrote:

Do you think that a purely naturalistic viewpoint does not create a greater mystery than it solves? Think again.

No, it doesn't, because "I don't know how X came to exist" (a) doesn't solve any mystery, and doesn't pretend to. Moreover, (b) it doesn't create any new mystery. It merely acknowledges that some problems are currently mysteries to us. Compare that with "I believe god created X, but don't know how she came into existence." This doesn't really explain the mystery because god is a terribly ill-defined term. And it does create a greater mystery than the one it (unsatisfactorily) solves, because it begs the question "who created god?"

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Natural selection is random.

No it's not.

Does the 'more evolved' (or 'better adapted' if you prefer) critter/species ALWAYS survive?

What does that question have to do with natural selection not being random?

0 Replies

Re: taking the piss, but at least admitting it

neologist wrote:

tinygiraffe wrote:
Quote:
how did god come to exist?

he evolved, obviously!
This directs us toward the underlying conundrum in trying to prove either the existence of God or the concept of creation.

From our understanding of causality, limited as it is by our perception of space and time, we cannot conceive of a prime mover that may have always existed. Our minds reject intuitively any reference to a point of "before time began", whatever that means.

But it surely must be obvious that any creator who calls himself "He who causes to become", may have created or fabricated these dimensions (IF that is the best term for them) for the simple purpose of creating sentient beings having the facility of free will. The implications of this are far reaching and certainly must include powers that we would consider beyond natural or 'supernatural'.

How could anyone prove that?

They can't. There can be no proof for God and no proof for creation, because both concepts are inherently supernatural, and the 'proof' you are being asked to provide is being measured against the requirements of science (a discipline which does not accept the supernatural in any theory).

So this whole thread is a trick question. But it's nice to see the usual characters splashing about anyway Wink

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Natural selection is random.

No it's not.

Does the 'more evolved' (or 'better adapted' if you prefer) critter/species ALWAYS survive?

What does that question have to do with natural selection not being random?

It should be rather apparent.

0 Replies

"There can be no proof for God and no proof for creation, because both concepts are inherently supernatural, and the 'proof' you are being asked to provide is being measured against the requirements of science (a discipline which does not accept the supernatural in any theory).

Mad Replies: Ah, yes- the hypocritical "requirements of science" that deny that intelligence is behind elaborate design. So you place your trust THERE?

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

real life wrote:
How did matter/energy come to exist?

I don't know if and how matter and energy came to exist.

real life wrote:
How did scientific law come to exist?

I don't know if and how scientific law came to exist.

real life wrote:
Do you think that a purely naturalistic viewpoint does not create a greater mystery than it solves? Think again.

No, it doesn't, because "I don't know how X came to exist" (a) doesn't solve any mystery, and doesn't pretend to. Moreover, (b) it doesn't create any new mystery. It merely acknowledges that some problems are currently mysteries to us. Compare that with "I believe god created X, but don't know how she came into existence." This doesn't really explain the mystery because god is a terribly ill-defined term. And it does create a greater mystery than the one it (unsatisfactorily) solves, because it begs the question "who created god?"

Oh, so, 'god' (the ultimate origin, in the creationist scenario) being an undefined term is the difference?

Well then, define the 'singularity' which is the ultimate source of matter/energy in the naturalistic scenario.

Again, you've got the same problem as the creationist, but you just can't bring yourself to admit it.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know