How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[shunyadragon]

"g'nite for the thousandth time.

Face it, you have an religious agenda. JW. the rejects science preemptively, no reasonable knowledge of science,

You unethically accept some evidence from science and selectively reject other evidence. Genesis and the Pentateuch were written by believers that believed it literally as written, but you jerrymander it to justify a more ancient earth.

By the way the writers of the NT and the Church Fathers also believed in a literal Genesis and Pentateuch without question.

 

[YoursTrue]

Spare me friend ..

Don't bother then explaining. Bye.

 

[YoursTrue]

Spare me friend .. this is getting painful .. no one said a fish went directly from the water to land in once generation.. Please stop talking about something that is way outside your knowledge scope .. "As IF" this is not the case .. and end up building the most ridiculous of strawman fallacy which do nothing but demonstrate a big understanding deficiency .

The Fish does not go from water to land in one generation Brother TY .. please stop this horrible line of irrational reasoning.. from the only one I have seen so far .. other than yourself .. arguing for ID. K .. KK ? This is a "Objective Voice" .. who is "On your side" .. trying to tell you something .. and you are not listening..

OH -- and lest we not forget who is who .. ME - Chemist - Applied microbiological Specialist - Religious and Biblical archaological Enthusiast .. YOU -- Religious Enthusiast

Maybe you don't understand I never said or thought that scientists think that fish went from water dwellers to land dwellers in one generation.

 

[Ostronomos]

As the most perfect mind of all says, order is the absence of chaos.

A person who does not have any beliefs knows that a God is equivalent to reality.

The same person who says this has proven materialism false.

As everyone who is awakened knows, the God is a reality.

 

[Ostronomos]

A few things to keep in mind:

• "Complexity" is not a scientific concept. Rather, it is more of an aesthetic one. There is no justifying "complexity" in the sciences any more than there is justifying "beauty" or "ugliness" - it's a subjective and very personal reaction certain humans have to witnessing the wonders of the world around us.
• 3.5 billion years is a very, very, very, very, very, very, very long time. That's roughly how long life has been on Earth. Human lifetimes are extremely brief - none of us really has any comprehension of these massive time scales. Our incredulousness at how these things are possible on these massive time scales is more symptomatic of human limits of perception than anything else.
• Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of biological evolution. If you are not a scientist or don't have a job where biology is a significant part of your work, it really doesn't matter what you believe about any of this. If you find it hard to believe, then don't. The mechanisms of evolution will continue regardless and don't particularly care what you believe about them.

And, most importantly - experiencing awe and wonder and the splendor of the gods (aka, nature) is not only normal, but routine. I suppose if you aren't a Pagan like myself, you would frame it more like experiencing awe and wonder at God's creation. Nothing about biological evolution is incompatible with accepting the gods are present within the world or had a hand in the making of things. While accepting the gods is not a scientific perspective, it doesn't have to be. Science is only one way of knowing among many. And while it's one that I personally enjoy a great deal, I can't imagine limiting oneself to it. There's just no need to. By all means, continue to be inspired by emotions of awe and wonder, let the muses of ages past and their mythic stories speak to you, let your soul of souls shine.

Beautifully said.

I must add that design and the evolution of complex systems is the narrowing of perfection.

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe you don't understand I never said or thought that scientists think that fish went from water dwellers to land dwellers in one generation.

Then you need to really clarify the English of your posts.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then you need to really clarify the English of your posts.

Unfortunately you and some others think they know what I believe. I never said that scientists do not believe that fish morphed from fish water dwellers to land dwellers. Let me be clearer if possible for your sake. Scientists insofar as I know, believe that fish evolved to land dwellers, such as apes. I never said it was said to happen in one generation. Just to clarify. Also to @Sargonski

 

[YoursTrue]

Face it, you have an religious agenda. JW. the rejects science preemptively, no reasonable knowledge of science,

You unethically accept some evidence from science and selectively reject other evidence. Genesis and the Pentateuch were written by believers that believed it literally as written, but you jerrymander it to justify a more ancient earth.

By the way the writers of the NT and the Church Fathers also believed in a literal Genesis and Pentateuch without question.

The BIBLE is inspired by God. Not asking you, of course, to believe it, but there is no evidence showing the idea that humans evolved from fish, although many here believe that. Libraries are more than filled with huge amounts of papers, journals and books. The Bible is not like that.

 

[paarsurrey]

How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

It's either evolution or magic. Personally i don't believe in magic

Why not to mention another, one has ignored, please, right??
Another one is G-d created via evolution , right,please?

Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

The BIBLE is inspired by God. Not asking you, of course, to believe it, but there is no evidence showing the idea that humans evolved from fish, although many here believe that. Libraries are more than filled with huge amounts of papers, journals and books. The Bible is not like that.

The last two responses do not answer my points on the problems of interpreting the Pentateuch, The problem is compounded by the fact the you keep repeating redundantly "there is no evidence" and no proof without remotely understand science. English or the context of what is "evidence."

Do you understand evidence?

What independent evidence is there for the Genesis account and Noah's Flood.?

 

[Sargonski]

To add: Yes there are Natural forces involved, but no nothing fundamentally random involved. You are clouding the issue. The environment is driving force in evolution. Yes there ar emany sources involved with the cause of the changes and cyclic nature of the environment over time

Yes .. there is fundamental randomness involved .. you are being <@#$%^> .. do I need to construct a mathematical proof for you ? Like whats the problem ? A stray Gamma ray from space .. happening to self destruct precisely on a specific DNA linkage .. breaking a bond or two in some primative early organism on earth .. is a random event .. except in the mind of one who does not understand the existentialist fallacy.. engaging in a false conflation of existentialist fallacy and probability .. having just a little knowledge of each to be harmful

There are many driving forces in evolution ...many from the external environment .. others not .. So freaken what mate .. what does that have to do with random or not random nature of these forces ? .. I gave you an exampe of a random driving force from the environment .. for the 10 or 20th time at this point ..

and you have Chaos Theory backwards .. as Chaos theory argues for the Ghost in the machine .. not against. Do you have the faintest idea how abiogenesis works ? pretty much figured the whole thing out from start to finish .. yes a few minor gaps .. but the basics structure is there .. going from abiotic to Biotic .. and in fact we can do most of the way in a lab. using natural conditions to create self replicating molecules .. proto RNA .. the path from there to here .. most of the steps now filled in .. once you get to self replication .. but the exact path is a function of random and non random forces in the environment as was the path backwards.

but you say "No no no no " is not random .. and you say this from observation .. and I Agree SunnyD .. we have a random system producing non random results .. which argues for intellignt design .. the machine was set up to work the way that it does.... is the only way you can get the order out of the Chaos .. you see around you.. .. where you fall off the turnip cart is thinking that this means there is some Creator God of the Bible is being argued for here .. and thinking that you even have a proper definition of God .. such that you could make any comment on such an entity in any way shape or form ..

 

[Sargonski]

Maybe you don't understand I never said or thought that scientists think that fish went from water dwellers to land dwellers in one generation.

YUP Yes you did .. but if not what is it you said about Fish going from water dwellers to land .. "Walking fish cannot last long out of water and show no "growth,"" -- .. Yup .. one generation. How is it that you don't understand what it is you are saying ?

Did you expect the Fish who manages short stints out of water to set up camp >> ??? <<< "They can't last long' --- No kidding YT .. what was it that you expected to see happen in the span of one generation ?

.

 

[Sargonski]

The BIBLE is inspired by God. Not asking you, of course, to believe it, but there is no evidence showing the idea that humans evolved from fish, although many here believe that. Libraries are more than filled with huge amounts of papers, journals and books. The Bible is not like that.

What are you talking about ? While there may be parts of the Bible "Inspired by God" No Rabbi believes the entire Jewish Bible is "Inspired" .. God Breathed -- and good thing too as the book would make absolutely no sense if that were the case .

Good grief .. not even Christianity believes that except the Fundamentalists .. who don't count for anything in serious theological circles. Who are you to tell the Jew what is what about their book ? Jeepers creepers.

OK .. Do we kill the child for the sin of the Idolatrous Parent .. or do we follow God's command not to kill the child for the sin of the Father ... let each be punished for his own sin .. to be put right with God ?

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes .. there is fundamental randomness involved .. you are being <@#$%^> .. do I need to construct a mathematical proof for you ? Like whats the problem ? A stray Gamma ray from space .. happening to self destruct precisely on a specific DNA linkage .. breaking a bond or two in some primative early organism on earth .. is a random event .. except in the mind of one who does not understand the existentialist fallacy.. engaging in a false conflation of existentialist fallacy and probability .. having just a little knowledge of each to be harmful

There is no such thing as a math proof for randomness in the nature of our existence. Math proofs are for Theorems axioms.

Mathematical proof - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A mathematical proof is a deductive argument for a mathematical statement, showing that the stated assumptions logically guarantee the conclusion. The argument may use other previously established statements, such as theorems; but every proof can, in principle, be constructed using only certain basic or original assumptions known as axioms,[2][3][4] along with the accepted rules of inference. Proofs are examples of exhaustive deductive reasoning which establish logical certainty, to be distinguished from empirical arguments or non-exhaustive inductive reasoning which establish "reasonable expectation". Presenting many cases in which the statement holds is not enough for a proof, which must demonstrate that the statement is true in all possible cases. A proposition that has not been proved but is believed to be true is known as a conjecture, or a hypothesis if frequently used as an assumption for further mathematical work.

Good luck trying!!!

 

[McBell]

The BIBLE is inspired by God.

There is even less evidence that this is true than there is for evolution.
But you demand so much more evidence for evolution than you do for your beliefs.

Not asking you, of course, to believe it, but there is no evidence showing the idea that humans evolved from fish, although many here believe that. Libraries are more than filled with huge amounts of papers, journals and books. The Bible is not like that.

The Bible is a book of faith.
It has nothing to do with evidence.

 

[Brian2]

Old antiquated science. No, mutations are not random. I referenced a list of over one hundred research papers that describe mutations as following fractal patterns based on Chaos Theory. As with other individual cause and effect events the timing is random, but the process of mutation is not random.

I'm not sure if I follow what you said, and how the timing can be random, but the process of mutation is not random.
However it does show a problem religious people have in wanting to follow what science says and science altering it's view point over time.
Anyway, if even mutations are not random AND natural selection is not random, that makes it even easier to see that evolution is one of those things that could not only be predictied by a designer of the system, but also that the system could be designed to produce certain life forms, depending on the environments encountered.

 

[Sargonski]

There is no such thing as a math proof for randomness in the nature of our existence. Math proofs are for Theorems axioms.

Mathematical proof - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A mathematical proof is a deductive argument for a mathematical statement, showing that the stated assumptions logically guarantee the conclusion. The argument may use other previously established statements, such as theorems; but every proof can, in principle, be constructed using only certain basic or original assumptions known as axioms,[2][3][4] along with the accepted rules of inference. Proofs are examples of exhaustive deductive reasoning which establish logical certainty, to be distinguished from empirical arguments or non-exhaustive inductive reasoning which establish "reasonable expectation". Presenting many cases in which the statement holds is not enough for a proof, which must demonstrate that the statement is true in all possible cases. A proposition that has not been proved but is believed to be true is known as a conjecture, or a hypothesis if frequently used as an assumption for further mathematical work.

Good luck trying!!!

??? of course there is a mathematical proof for randomness .. but it was a Joke. .. and why would you post a definition of a mathematical proof .. as if this means you know something .. Your definition does not show there is not a mathematical proof for randomness .. you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about . .. Sorry Sunny .. "Deductive Reasoning" -- is not your forte ..

How about posting a definition of randomness .. and showing how a stray gamma ray breaking a bond in an cell's DNA does not meet that definition. Show us those deductive reasoning skills

 

[shunyadragon]

??? of course there is a mathematical proof for randomness .. but it was a Joke. .. and why would you post a definition of a mathematical proof .. as if this means you know something .. Your definition does not show there is not a mathematical proof for randomness .. you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about . .. Sorry Sunny .. "Deductive Reasoning" -- is not your forte ..

How about posting a definition of randomness .. and showing how a stray gamma ray breaking a bond in an cell's DNA does not meet that definition. Show us those deductive reasoning skills

There is no such thing as a math proof for randomness in the nature of our existence. Math proofs are for Theorems axioms.

Mathematical proof - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org
A mathematical proof is a deductive argument for a mathematical statement, showing that the stated assumptions logically guarantee the conclusion. The argument may use other previously established statements, such as theorems; but every proof can, in principle, be constructed using only certain basic or original assumptions known as axioms,[2][3][4] along with the accepted rules of inference. Proofs are examples of exhaustive deductive reasoning which establish logical certainty, to be distinguished from empirical arguments or non-exhaustive inductive reasoning which establish "reasonable expectation". Presenting many cases in which the statement holds is not enough for a proof, which must demonstrate that the statement is true in all possible cases. A proposition that has not been proved but is believed to be true is known as a conjecture, or a hypothesis if frequently used as an assumption for further mathematical work.

Good luck trying!!!

Math proofs concerning math theorems using axioms within math only, and NO math proofs of randomness for nature. You may use math to describe randomness, but that is for math only

Methodological Naturalism falsifies Theories and Hypotheses for the nature of our physical existence. Yes , Math is in the tool box, but there is no such thing as 'proofs' involved in the sciences of nature..

 

[YoursTrue]

There is even less evidence that this is true than there is for evolution.
But you demand so much more evidence for evolution than you do for your beliefs.


The Bible is a book of faith.
It has nothing to do with evidence.

It depends upon how one looks at it and the fruitage (works) of those who profess faith in the Bible as God's word. If I thought that humans evolved from some Unknown Common Ancestor of apes, new or old, naturally I'd go along with that theory. But because there is such a vast difference as far as I am concerned (I say that because I know people will argue with that point), between bonobos and humans, I will stick with the Bible as the truth regarding the creation of the world and life within rather than the theory of evolution. That's one reason why I choose to observe and obey what the Bible says, also how I look at it. I know that's a point perhaps of consternation for some, but not for me.

Luke 15 -- "Or what woman who has ten silver coins and loses one of them does not light a lamp, sweep her house, and search carefully until she finds it? And when she finds it, she calls together her friends and neighbors to say, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my lost coin.’
in the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of God’s angels over one sinner who repents.”

 

[YoursTrue]

There is even less evidence that this is true than there is for evolution.
But you demand so much more evidence for evolution than you do for your beliefs.


The Bible is a book of faith.
It has nothing to do with evidence.

When Jesus preached, he was spoken about. And after his death and appearance to his disciples after his resurrection from the dead, they went ahead with the preaching.