Evolution is illogical and non sense

[ArtieE]

Diseases get old and weak humans culled from the population as well. Is this good overall for humans such that we should not interfere by producing medicine?

There's no general rule for this. Doctors in hospitals face these kinds of life and death decisions every day and to figure out what is the moral thing to do in each case can be very complicated.

 

[Etritonakin]

Suppose you have a supercomputer capable of calculating the motions and forces working on absolutely every single atom in the universe from the big bang to now. Would it have ended up with us writing exactly what we write here and now?

No. At a certain point, we became able to change what would otherwise be -by decision.

The reason is that we can -based on anything or nothing -decide what we do or do not, and also change the "natural" course of things.
We can allow a river to flow as it will, or change its course by decision, for example. We can learn about the workings of nature, and change them.

Humans are subject to natural things, but natural things are also subject to us (and increasingly so).
For instance... Human beings are essentially programmed to die after a certain amount of time, but it is not outside the realm of possibility that we could change that fact (all else being favorable).
We can cause things which were not inevitable -in a way that is unpredictable.
Available options may be limited to what is possible at the time, but the decision is ours.
We are somewhat predictable -but not completely.

I can write this -or I can not write this. It is not predetermined. I determine it. The atoms obey me. I am not merely subject to the nature of the atoms.

Even if "evolution" produced man's present state without creative influence at any point (illogical), man can now decide whether or not evolution itself continues or ceases.

We are able to model reality in our imagination -and then make changes to it -master it.

Fortunately (given our present level of discipline, etc.), our human bodies have a limited ability to interface.

Will write more later.....

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Evolution has no real thinking brain. Yet you act as if it did.

Your whole diatribe contains quite a few other pain points and horrors than just the above - but I chose this one because I understand what you're trying to get at, and I found it completely devoid of understanding to a frightening degree.

Of course there is no "mind" or "brain". When we speak of "evolution" we're not talking about a "being" - no more so than when people use the term "Mother Nature". We're talking about a term used to invoke the picture of a process. One that is carried out solely by the creatures it is "affecting".

Take, for example, the tree that produces those little helicopter seeds. Those aren't simply made for human enjoyment - they perform that way for the distinct purpose of giving each seed the maximum possible distance from the parent tree so that there isn't a competition for resources between parent and child. In evolutionary terms, the tree is not thinking "I need to get these damn kids away from me!", it is merely a functioning group of individual cells that have found mutual benefit in coming together with a specific patterning and goal. But what can happen is that the pattern can change slightly - either for the benefit or detriment of the tree. If it is a benefit that gives a freshly growing tree a better chance at survival (e.g. - the seeds being able to "fly" a bit farther from the parent), then that tree is more likely to produce offspring that are further distanced from itself and therefore are better able to survive. Take this to a degree of millions upon billions of attempts over time (i.e. trees creating thousands and thousands of seeds, all producing child trees with possible slight augments or defects) and you have millions of chances to survive or die - survivors getting to produce seedlings more like themselves and the non-survivors not passing their traits on at all. And that is the process. The trees whose seeds are cast further from the parent "won out" time and time again - they themselves not dying and not killing the parent by sucking up the water, sun, nutrients from soil, etc., until one day the "pattern" was finally a freaking helicopter of a seed that could fly/drift hundreds of feet from the source.

No "mind" involved. Just the best-case scenario winning out time after time until a stable balance is achieved. Everything looks "perfect" to your eyes because that balance/stability has simply been met in any species lucky enough to be alive today.

 

[cow_beet]

Late to the game on this one. But just look into the evolution of the bones in the ear as evidence....

 

[futureplanet]

Do you think you could write about some doubts in quantum physics? Or write about your doubts in aeronautical engineering? The point is, don't you think anyone could come with a bunch of points and doubts on any topic for which they are uneducated? ESPECIALLY if they are motivated to reject it by a pre-existing faith belief? Are you willing to really learn about evolution? Or, are you hoping that your lack of knowledge in evolution exists everywhere in the world and that even biologists don't know of the many the systems and transitions you don't know about? If you were shown lots of transitional fossils and pointed to books, videos, scientific publications and the like, would you agree they are real?

 

[futureplanet]

Some giraffes run, get a hot brain and survive. Not EVERY giraffe dies EVERYTIME. Those with minute cooling abilities survive statistically just a little more than those without it.

 

[ljgregorysr]

Is evolution the mutation of any said...being or life form?

 

[Cruiser88]

Psa 14:1 To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.

2Co 4:3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.
2Co 4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Is evolution the mutation of any said...being or life form?

Not really. Some mutations exist independent of speciation.
A mutation in a single individual is not evolution. A repeated mutation within a population that leads to differences so much so that it creates a separate population, is evolution.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Psa 14:1 To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.

2Co 4:3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.
2Co 4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

GRRRRRRR

 

[Cruiser88]

Babes in Christ will spend years arguing with atheists..........time to grow up and realize they're blind and in the dark.........all arguments here are a waste of time........as is quite evident.........

 

[Xaxyx]

Whereas, I for one continue to cling to the hope that those whose minds are clouded by religion can, one by one, eventually be led back out into the light. It will take time. It will take patience. It will take understanding, and compassion, and empathy. But they can be saved. I have faith in my fellow human beings. And I care, very much, about their fates.

 

[Cruiser88]

I care about their fates as well........but those in hard core unbelief will have to be drawn by the Holy Spirit and by the hearing of the gospel.........and that is the "work" of the mature in Christ to proclaim a simple gospel to all who will hear.........you may recall Christ gave short shrift to those who rejected Him in the villages.......He said "shake the dust off" and leave.........the sad truth of today is only a small number actually know what the gospel is for today........so without further adieu here it is :

1Co 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,
1Co 15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

 

[Blastcat]

Explain this to me evolutionist. In science they can explain in specific detail many functions found in nature. Photosynthesis etc. All about systems, Muscular, Nerve and it goes on. Yet evolution never can explain evolution is that type detail. You can not give one proven example of evolution of one species to another higher order species. You can't tell us what it started at and what it became. You can't explain the no. of steps it took and what each step entailed to get there. That is not like the science I am referring to above. So evolution is really non science non sense.

It looks like you are confusing the idea of "ALL" with the idea of "SOME" or "MANY".. those aren't the same ideas. And you have a peculiar understanding of science that isn't really how the word is usually understood. That might make it easier for you to arrive at your conclusion with, but your premises are based on a word conflation and a bad definition.

Allow me to explain.

Nowhere in science does it say that if we don't know absolutely everything, what we do know is wrong. So, you might be right that we cannot explain everything.

But you are making a mistake in reasoning. You are trying to equate not knowing everything with not knowing anything. And that line of reasoning doesn't follow.

Just because we don't know all things never means we don't know some things. We do know some things about how evolution works, and in fact, we know a LOT of things. Your understanding of science in this case is unfortunately guided by your beliefs. Only creationists would describe science the way you have done.

Plus explain this. You say An explosion of energy started all the extreme order and precision we see in creation. Yet in no other example can you give where an explosion of energy ever produces order, precision etc. When I see storms, explosions etc. Much less energy than the Big Bang supposedly had and the aftermath is anything but order, precision, intracate design etc. My logic and common sense just doesn't buy it.

Ok, you don't buy it. You don't have to. But, if you think that the origins of the universe has anything to do with evolution, you are simply wrong. There are different fields of study in science. If you want to jump to another field, that's fine.. but cosmology is not evolution.

But when you say that you don't buy it. you have to consider that you are disagreeing with a huge amount of knowledge and science. I don't know how you arrived at your opinion. The scientists do use a very rigorous method to test what they claim. It's the most rigorous method that humanity has. I don't want to be rude, but, what method are you using to evaluate all of that data?

Evolution says the Design we see in creation only appears designed. Well that might be correct if talking about a cloud. But we are talking about FUNCTIONAL DESIGN etc. That is a big big difference. It is what makes life possible since that Function makes life possible.

If you use the example of a cloud, and say that it is not designed, fine. That's a part of nature. And I can say that a cloud is "designed" to provide shade, rain, wind, and beauty. These are functions that I can ascribe to clouds. But I realize that this is me doing that .. And you want to now say that humans are different from clouds. Clouds are not designed, but humans are?

Can you explain the difference between one part of nature and another part of nature?

I don't understand at all what you mean by function makes life possible. Does a cloud's function make life possible? Does a car's function makes life possible? Function itself is what, exactly, in your way of seeing things?

I can ascribe function to anything at all.. rocks, clouds, cars, and even people. I don't see how our ability to ascribe function in things as a means to making life possible.

Evolution has no real thinking brain. Yet you act as if it did. It reminds me of the illustration I like to give.
Mother Nature decides to form the faces on Mt Rushmore. So it gets the forces and processes of nature to join together and uses rain, wind, erosion and time to form those faces. It shows design (we know it was) yet it isn't life. But see life not only shows Design, it is functional and makes real life possible.

That's right. Nature doesn't have a brain. And I don't know who you are talking to .. these people who seem to think that it does. You'd have to ask a lot of atheists and scientists to find out if any of them do think that nature has a brain or the capacity to think without a brain. We have NO evidence that thoughts can happen without brains of some sort.

Now, in your Mount Rushmore example, we have HUMANS here doing things to a mountain, not at all Nature. But we already know that humans have brains. We don't have any knowledge that nature can produce something like a mount Rushmore. I think if we did have an example like that.. it would help your case, but we just don't. Nature cannot think. And no atheists or evolutionary biologist would say that it does.. so.. I'm confused as to who you are referring to here.

I think it's the creationist who claims that there is this grand brain at the end of the rainbow doing everything you call a god. Atheists certainly don't believe in a brainless mind out there.. [/QUOTE]

In all of my life, I have yet to see where I find functional Design, Engineering, Programming etc not have intelligent brains behind it. Yet evolution tries to sell me that what we have occured w/o an actual intelligent brain behind it. Really? Like Mother Nature and the faces on Mt Rushmore?

That's right.. the only evidence we have of minds are of beings with brains. We have overwhelming evidence for brains producing thoughts and designs. And we have no evidence for nature having thoughts or making designs. And.. I'm confused a bit.. it looks like you're saying that the faces on Mount Rushmore were produced naturally? You can't possibly mean THAT.. surely.

Even atheist mathematician Fred Hoyle admitted it took intelligence and evolution was impossible. He described it thusly. The odds for evolution are the same as a tornado going through a junkyard and forming a 747 ready for take off on a runway! How did he get around the obvious intelligence needed that he acknowledged. He said it had to have come from outer space! That is sure pure science huh!

Right. He didn't understand evolution either, when he wrote that. That's not at all the process described by evolution. So, his opinion about evolution is based on a false idea of it. Not a good opinion at all. It's a bit shocking that such a powerful mind can be so wrong about an aspect of science. but we aren't experts in everything, just because we are an expert in something.. SOME and ALL not being the same.

I want examples where precise intricate Design Engineering Programming has ever occurred w/o actual intelligence behind it?

As far as I know, that takes a human.

Gee, if I walk upon a beach and see a cell phone, computer etc I know it took intelligence to Design, Engineer and Program it? Why can't you admit the obvious?

A cell phone is obviously the product of humans. Not of nature. I think that's pretty obvious. Can you show me an example of a natural cell phone or a natural Design Engineering Programming that has occured w/o actualy HUMAN intelligence behind it?

We have HUMAN intelligence. We agree on that.. but you want to say that since we only have HUMAN intelligence, that nature must have intelligence? Where is this intelligence? Other than in humans and in animals to a lesser extent, where IS this intelligence that you want to believe in?

Programming.. humans do that.. cell phones, only humans so far. So.. you have proved to me quite conclusively that only humans and other animals to a lesser extent design anything. Now, when are you going to make a case for this .. brainless designer you seem to believe in?

Dawkins the Blind watchmaker has always amused me. Why? Regardless of whether a watchmaker was blind or not. He couldn't make Design, Engineer or Program the watch w/o actual intelligent thinking brain could he?

You seem to insist that nature must be capable of design, and of thought since design is a form of thinking. Now, the ONLY example you ever use to prove this is that humans have brains and that humans design things. Well, that only proves that HUMANS have brains and that HUMANS can design things. Your case, however, isn't about HUMANS .. it's about nature or god or something. So, it's no good at all to provide evidence of HUMAN thinking and designing.. because we all accept that humans do it.

You want to jump from HUMAN thought to.. some god thinking or nature itself thinking.. and designing.. and I see absolutely no evidence for that leap. You have to explain how you get from human design to a god design. I don't see any attempt at an explanation. You offer your incredulity.. and your denial, and your misunderstanding of the science, but that's not evidence for a thinking nature or a thinking god. It's your opinion, but your opinion isn't evidence. In science, we demand evidence. Anyone can just make things up..

BTW isn't it interesting that man's "evolved" brain still can't match what evolution says a non thinking intelligence Designed, Engineered and Programmed. Man study's nature to learn how to better things for man and still can't match it.

That's right.. humans are limited.. so what? We can't reproduce gravity, and yet you seem to accept gravity. Matching what has occurred in nature isn't any requirement in science. I don't know why you even bring it up.

So I want logical common sense replies to disprove my logical, comon sense "evolved" brain.

Sorry, but parts of science are hard. It takes years and years of study to become an expert in a scientific field. You can get popularized versions of the evidence for evolution, it's out there, it's plentiful, and it's way better than most of the people in here could provide for you. But if you really don't want to learn, that's fine. A lot of people don't bother with learning.

Sometimes, in life, it's just not all that simple.

Stick to the subject and don't use your usual tactics of avoidance and changing the subject to avoid answering what you can't. Much less personal attacks showing you can't answer so you attack saying I don't understand evolution. See the problem is I actually do.

Well, from what I've read, I can't possibly agree that you understand evolution. Sorry. That's an impasse.

That is why, like Fred Hoyle, I realize it is impossible and took a supreme Intelligence. Difference I acknowledge God, Jesus the actual creator God. Colossians first Chapter and part of chapter 2 and Romans chapter 1.

Well, you realize something that most scientists don't. I will go with the huge majority of scientists who work in the field. You see, I don't believe that in just this one case, there's this demonic conspiracy of lies and stupidity from the scientific community.

I know a few scientists.. Most of them are normal, healthy individuals who happen to know a lot more than the rest of us. They just really want to know what is true, with no religious or anti-religious agenda.

You don't believe it, we got it. But your belief or unbelief says nothing at all about the actual theory. You have a religious conviction that has you denying science. OK.. too bad.

 

[Xaxyx]

I care about their fates as well...

I'm glad to hear you state that you care about others. That's a vastly different sentiment, however, than the one you communicated in your previous post, where you stated, quite explicitly, that it was a WASTE OF TIME -- your exact words -- to talk to atheists.

Yet here you are, talking to atheists. So? Is it a waste of time to talk to us? Or is it not a waste of time? Can you explain why, if it's such a waste of time, you're going right ahead and doing it anyway?

 

[Ouroboros]

Babes in Christ will spend years arguing with atheists..........time to grow up and realize they're blind and in the dark.........all arguments here are a waste of time........as is quite evident.........

Many of the people arguing in support for evolution here are not atheists, some are, but not all of them. Get your facts straight. The waste of time is really in trying to set every single person right on this. A person who knows that evolution is true is not automatically an atheist. A person can believe in God and Evolution simultaneous simply because it has to do with how we view God and what we believe is and can do.

 

[Ouroboros]

Psa 14:1 To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.

Not every person who argues for evolution says that there's no God. Only fools think that atheism and evolution are the same. It's a n equivocation fallacy.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Whereas, I for one continue to cling to the hope that those whose minds are clouded by religion can, one by one, eventually be led back out into the light. It will take time. It will take patience. It will take understanding, and compassion, and empathy. But they can be saved. I have faith in my fellow human beings. And I care, very much, about their fates.

Why don't you go to north korea, see if you like it there.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I care about their fates as well........but those in hard core unbelief will have to be drawn by the Holy Spirit and by the hearing of the gospel.........and that is the "work" of the mature in Christ to proclaim a simple gospel to all who will hear.........you may recall Christ gave short shrift to those who rejected Him in the villages.......He said "shake the dust off" and leave.........the sad truth of today is only a small number actually know what the gospel is for today........so without further adieu here it is :

1Co 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,
1Co 15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

It's because evolutionists want to know as fact what is good and evil that they are blind. They are really social darwinists who understand natural selection theory to tell them what "in fact" ought. They are in total darkness indeed, no beginning of reasoning is possible with an evolutionist.

 

[Xaxyx]

Why don't you go to north korea, see if you like it there.

Are you implying that North Koreans are somehow inferior and not deserving of education and enlightenment?

And what are you doing here on this thread, anyway? You've also stated quite explicitly, that "[y]ou might as well give up trying to talk to evolutionists". Have you changed your mind?