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

[Hockeycowboy]

I thought the subject under discussion was the truth-value of the various claims, their evidence, and sources.

No, what @shunyadragon said, basically, was that the Bible & writers made certain claims.

From the Bible itself (since that was the source of those claims), I showed otherwise.

(Not circular reasoning.)

Just look at our short posting history on the topic.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, what @shunyadragon said, basically, was that the Bible & writers made certain claims.

Yes. those that wrote the Bible believed literally what they wrote. Many hedge and manipulate the scriptures to make them fit, but no this does not work. They remain like all ancient religions written fro an ancient cultural perspective and not remotely actual factual history.

From the Bible itself (since that was the source of those claims), I showed otherwise.

(Not circular reasoning.)

Just look at our short posting history on the topic.

The problem is independent evidence that is lacking to support believing today that the the ancient text without provenance is accurate history as it claims. Like the claims of ALL ancient religions the beliefs expressed in the texts cannot stand alone and justify the validity of the texts. This would be circular reasoning,

Where is the independent "evidence" to justify the ancient text without provenance or science?

 

[YoursTrue]

Won’t he be surprised when he’s resurrected?! - Acts 24:15; John 5:28,29

I lot of people will be!

I just hope their pride or independent spirit won’t get in the way of them accepting God’s Kingdom governing this Earth, through Jesus’ kingship!
-Matthew 6:9,10; Revelation 21:3,4.

Goodnight, my sister.

We shall see, my brother. A question can be for many--what is the meaning of life? And since the subject of the thread involves complexity evolution style for some...I guess the only logical answer for those believers in evolution might be...the meaning of life is to keep evolving!

 

[YoursTrue]

This would be a true statement if you added "that I accept" between evidences and fish.

Adeus amigo.

I guess you can say your way of sizing up the fossils would be the evidence you accept as evidence ascertaining the absolute conclusion that evolution is the way fish, birds, and humans,etc all came about.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. those that wrote the Bible believed literally what they wrote. Many hedge and manipulate the scriptures to make them fit, but no this does not work. They remain like all ancient religions written fro an ancient cultural perspective and not remotely actual factual history.

The problem is independent evidence that is lacking to support believing today that the the ancient text without provenance is accurate history as it claims. Like the claims of ALL ancient religions the beliefs expressed in the texts cannot stand alone and justify the validity of the texts. This would be circular reasoning,

Where is the independent "evidence" to justify the ancient text without provenance or science?

You're not really saying that none of the Bible writers wrote in symbolic references, are you? Take into account at least one point where the book of Daniel describes the world powers as a goat and a four-headed winged leopard.

 

[John53]

I guess you can say your way of sizing up the fossils would be the evidence you accept as evidence ascertaining the absolute conclusion that evolution is the way fish, birds, and humans,etc all came about.

The sentence makes no sense to me so I can't answer.

 

[Brian2]

Whenever I have heard people speak of "evidence for god" they almost never understand the concept of evidence.

To even have evidence you need first need an argument. The argument itself needs to be a rational argument even before you provide evidence. So what is your argument and what is your supposed evidence for God?

I don't need to understand "evidence" the same way you do or use the word "evidence" in the same way.
Why do you think that your understanding of "evidence" is the only acceptable understanding?
A common thing that people who use the argument from incredulity do, is to ignore evidence from the other side of the argument.
This has turned into a deceptive artform when it comes to atheist who are willing to accept only one definition of "evidence" and so claim that there is no evidence for a God.

 

[Brian2]

Careful Chaos Theory does not describe a "Chaotic" world it describe a fractal world.

Yes I used to argue that years ago,,,,,,,,,, that what atheists then were calling random was actually something that God could understand even if they could not.

OK, ,this is what you believe.

Surely you also believe that God can step in and do whatever He likes and that people would not know that it was God who did it.

 

[McBell]

I don't need to understand "evidence" the same way you do or use the word "evidence" in the same way.
Why do you think that your understanding of "evidence" is the only acceptable understanding?
A common thing that people who use the argument from incredulity do, is to ignore evidence from the other side of the argument.
This has turned into a deceptive artform when it comes to atheist who are willing to accept only one definition of "evidence" and so claim that there is no evidence for a God.

What definition of "evidence" do you use?

 

[Brian2]

That makes zero sense.


Natural selection requires zero planning or designing.
It's what inevitably occurs when you have systems that reproduce with variation and compete over limited resources in an ever-changing environment.

That whole process of natural selection in known environments and working in a system that can produce limited outcomes, can be set up initially to work towards known and the best outcomes in those environments for the survival of the life forms.
If you believe that it would need zero planning or designing, that is your belief, but it is not based on the evidence, which does not point to there being no designer or planner.

 

[Brian2]

Random with respect to fitness.

What does that even mean?
Taken in isolation, mutations are random.

 

[Valjean]

I don't need to understand "evidence" the same way you do or use the word "evidence" in the same way.
Why do you think that your understanding of "evidence" is the only acceptable understanding?
A common thing that people who use the argument from incredulity do, is to ignore evidence from the other side of the argument.
This has turned into a deceptive artform when it comes to atheist who are willing to accept only one definition of "evidence" and so claim that there is no evidence for a God.

Emotions and feelings are not useful epistemic tools. They aren't testable, reproducible or falsifiable. They yield inconsistent conclusions.

 

[Valjean]

That whole process of natural selection in known environments and working in a system that can produce limited outcomes, can be set up initially to work towards known and the best outcomes in those environments for the survival of the life forms.
If you believe that it would need zero planning or designing, that is your belief, but it is not based on the evidence, which does not point to there being no designer or planner.

Yes, you can artificially select for desired traits, but nature also selects -- unguided and unintentionally. No pre-planning or design is needed.
This is well evidenced and easily observable.

 

[Brian2]

The evidence that there is no need for it, is quite simply that the natural process of evolution is sufficient to explain the facts.
When you have an explanation that is sufficient to account for the facts, then there is no need for any undetectable entities getting involved in unknown mysterious ways.

Like the example I always give of the chocolate cake that goes missing from your kitchen.
Your kids have a stomach ache and their faces, t-shirt and hands are covered in chocolate cake.
The explanation that your kids ate it, is sufficient to account for the missing cake.

Does it rule out that a burglar came into in your kitchen and stole said cake? No.
But it sure shows that there is no need to invent such to explain the missing cake.

On top of that, you are not even positing something as mundane and known to exist as a burglar. No, you are positing a magical being who intervened in magical ways.........

You are positing nothing and I am positing a being who has shown Himself in history according to many people.

Do you require "faith" to not include magical cake thieves to account for the missing cake in the example above?

So now the cake thieves are magical? Hmmm
Anyway your cake example is not really equivalent, it is just an argument set up to point in one direction.
If you want to talk about belief in a creator or belief that there is no creator then do that and not about chocolate cakes and kids with chocolate on their mouths and tummy aches.
Evidence for evolution does not point to "no designer", that is a faith based position.

False. The NEED is most definitely eliminated.
If you wish to posit a NEED, then you are going to have to demonstrate that.
A NEED is much stronger wording then a mere OPTION or POSSIBILITY. Even though those would have to be supported with evidence as well, off course.

You are being confused now. It is not me who first came up with the idea of "need". It is atheist who say there is "no need",,,,,,,,,,,, and using your idea, that would be stronger than saying there is no OPTION or POSSIBILITY. Are you saying that there is no "option" or "possibility" of a designer? That is a strong statement and is a statement of faith.

All you are doing is building a giant argument from willful ignorance. Not just mere ignorance, because we actually know quite a lot about evolution and KNOW that it is sufficient to account for the facts (and thus eliminate the NEED for any other alternatives - magical or otherwise).

Actually I would say that it is you who has the argument from ignorance. You are saying that there is lack of evidence for a designer so that means there is no designer.
And let's not forget that you are willfully ignoring the idea that this designer could be spirit, uncreated, not a detectable part of the universe.
And let's not forget the fact that you and science do not know if a designer changed the environments for the system to work or initially designed the whole evolution system.
Science acknowledges this but you have a position of faith, a belief that there is no designer and go beyond what science says, even if you pretend to be the one who is on the side of science.

Which step in particular in evolution would you say that "nature could not do it alone" and demonstrate how you have concluded that.

No, I just believe that there is a designer. I am not arguing that there is definitely a designer.
You claim there is no need, so demonstrate how you conclude that if you want or just stick to your position of faith, that there is no designer.

I'll bet 500 bucks on an argument from ignorance being included in your answer.

Arguments from ignorance are probably common with people who are arguing that God definitely is needed or definitely is not needed.
I have faith that God did it, you have faith that there is no need for a God, but seem to want to make it something that only I need to justify by argument and that you do not. But if you are the one making the positive claim, that there is no need for a designer, then you should show it to be true.

 

[Brian2]

Are you trying to say that a philosophical acceptance of empiricism only in your search for what is true, and rejecting the possibility that other forms of evidence could be true, is not an argument from incredulity,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or more accurately, a way of life based on incredulity?

 

[John53]

I don't need to understand "evidence" the same way you do or use the word "evidence" in the same way.
Why do you think that your understanding of "evidence" is the only acceptable understanding?
A common thing that people who use the argument from incredulity do, is to ignore evidence from the other side of the argument.
This has turned into a deceptive artform when it comes to atheist who are willing to accept only one definition of "evidence" and so claim that there is no evidence for a God.

Multiple online dictionaries are pretty clear with a definition of evidence, it appears to be one of the few English words that doesn't have numerous multiple meanings. The only difference seems to be when used as a legal term.

Maybe you should define what it means to you so we can understand what you're getting at.

 

[Valjean]

Just to be clear, popular dictionaries tend to be descriptive, nor proscriptive. In these epistemic discussions we're using the word in a more technical sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't need to understand "evidence" the same way you do or use the word "evidence" in the same way.
Why do you think that your understanding of "evidence" is the only acceptable understanding?
A common thing that people who use the argument from incredulity do, is to ignore evidence from the other side of the argument.
This has turned into a deceptive artform when it comes to atheist who are willing to accept only one definition of "evidence" and so claim that there is no evidence for a God.

Your post demonstrates that you do not understand the concept of evidence. What you are talking about are observations and observations are not necessarily evidence.

This is why you should try to understand what is and what is not evidence. An ad hoc argument has no evidence and mistakenly thinks that observations are evidence. To have evidence you first need a rational explanation. Observations will either support that explanation or refute it. And if you cannot think of a possible refutation of your argument it probably is not an explanation, it is just a worthless ad hoc argument.

 

[YoursTrue]

The sentence makes no sense to me so I can't answer.

Ok...

 

[John53]

Ok...

This sentence I do understand