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

[PureX]

Read it again.

Most of us understand that a possibility is a possibility, not a proof of existence.

You understand very little. That much is quite clear.

 

[Copernicus]

That's easy. It's logical to assume that some source must exist in some sense, even if we have no way of comprehending the what, or how, or why of it. While the alternatives: that there is no source, and it all just spontaneously happened from nothingness and for no reason, or, that existence is eternal in spite of the fact that nothing that exists is eternal, are both just patently illogical propositions.

"God" is just a placeholder term we use for what we imagine and refer to as this presumed mystery source of existence.

Uh, no that is just the beginning of the the turtles all the way down argument. What is the origin of your source?

The origin of his source is obvious: his imagination. But, if we assumed that what he imagined to be the source (i.e. God) actually existed and magicked the universe into existence, then it would have been a brilliant guess, much to the chagrin of those who don't believe in magic or miracles. And your question would then demand an answer to which his imagination would spring forth with a new source of that source.

 

[McBell]

I am simply pointing out that the God answer is as much a possibility as any other we might imagine.

Yet you can not actually demonstrate this claim as any other than wishful thinking.

And when considered properly, it is the more logical.

Another claim you have not yet shown to be anything other than wishful thinking.

Certainly compared to the random accident theory that most atheists try to push forward.

Strawman.

 

[PureX]

The origin of his source is obvious: his imagination. But, if we assumed that what he imagined to be the source (i.e. God) actually existed and magicked the universe into existence, then it would have been a brilliant guess, much to the chagrin of those who don't believe in magic or miracles. And your question would then demand an answer to which his imagination would spring forth with a new source of that source.

To ask for the source of the source of all that is, is just a stupid question. The answer would be already contained within the question, so there would be no point to asking it at all.

To proclaim that the source of all that exists as we know it acted via "magic" is all well and good considering that we have no possible means of comprehending the active source of existence. To us, I suppose, it would appear quite "magical" if it could "appear" to us at all. But it doesn't. At least not that we can recognize. So I suppose you can refer to it however you choose. Magic, miracle, mystery, or just "who knows?"

Also, to presume that the mechanism IS the source is equally stupid because the immediate next question is what is the source of the mechanism. And that is the question being pondered in this thread. (The mechanism being evolution.) And of course none of us knows. But it is logical to expect that there is one. And that whatever it is, it transcends the limitations and descriptions of exiatence as we know and experience it. Does that make it "magical"? That's up to you. I suppose that's as apt a description as any.

But ignoring it is not going to make the source question go away. It's just going to make you look ignorant.

 

[Kenny]

That's ok, enough of us can so that science and progress continue.

my position doesn’t limit science. - It just defines divine connection

 

[PureX]

Yet you can not actually demonstrate this claim as any other than wishful thinking.

I can validate the claim two ways ("demonstrate" is a stupid request). One, is that it is logical and reasonable for us to presume that existence as we know it has a source; call it "God", call it a "singularity", call it "Bob". Whatever we call it, the name is just a placeholder for a profound mystery that neither science, religion, or philosophy can penetrate.

And the second form of validation is also via logic. And that is that whatever this mystery source is, it would logically have to be transcendent in scope and power of that which has sprung from it. By definition, it would have to be "supernatural" to have manifested the 'nature' of all that exists.

Another claim you have not yet shown to be anything other than wishful thinking.

You all are just going to keep repeating this idiocy because you honestly have no idea how to participate in a philosophical discussion.

 

[McBell]

You all are just going to keep repeating this idiocy because you honestly have no idea how to participate in a philosophical discussion.

Of course, it can not in any possible way be that you simply have not done what you claim to have done, right?
Everyone else is wrong, right?
Only you are right, right?

 

[PureX]

Of course, it can not in any possible way be that you simply have not done what you claim to have done, right?
Everyone else is wrong, right?
Only you are right, right?

I have given you the logical justification a half dozen times, now, and you have no idea what to do with it. You don't understand because all you want to do is fight with it. That's not my problem.

 

[McBell]

I have given you the logical justification a half dozen times, now, and you have no idea what to do with it. You don't understand because all you want to do is fight with it. That's not my problem.

Yet you keep repeating yourself thinking it will do something it has not yet done....

 

[PureX]

Yet you keep repeating yourself thinking it will do something it has not yet done....

I was giving you the benefit of some consideration. But I can see it was wasted.

 

[McBell]

I was giving you the benefit of some consideration. But I can see it was wasted.

You remind me of another member.
@theif I think his name is/was.

He too kept playing the same old song and dance.

 

[Copernicus]

To ask for the source of the source of all that is, is just a stupid question. The answer would be already contained within the question, so there would be no point to asking it at all.

Then that makes your source a stupid answer to the stupid question, since the simplest answer is that physical reality is all that is.

To proclaim that the source of all that exists as we know it acted via "magic" is all well and good considering that we have no possible means of comprehending the active source of existence. To us, I suppose, it would appear quite "magical" if it could "appear" to us at all. But it doesn't. At least not that we can recognize. So I suppose you can refer to it however you choose. Magic, miracle, mystery, or just "who knows?"

Thank you for acknowledging my right to call it "magic". Sleight of the Invisible Hand.

Also, to presume that the mechanism IS the source is equally stupid because the immediate next question is what is the source of the mechanism. And that is the question being pondered in this thread. (The mechanism being evolution.) And of course none of us knows. But it is logical to expect that there is one. And that whatever it is, it transcends the limitations and descriptions of exiatence as we know and experience it. Does that make it "magical"? That's up to you. I suppose that's as apt a description as any.

Again, thanks for sanctioning the appropriateness of my calling it "magic". And I can't help but point out it is stupid to ask the source of evolution, because that is just finite math. If you understand how the mechanism actually works, then you should know that. No gods are needed to explain it, just a math course and some logic.

But ignoring it is not going to make the source question go away. It's just going to make you look ignorant.

Well, I concede that it will make one of us look ignorant. New people are born every day, and not all of them are going to learn about evolution or even understand it when it is taught in the classroom.

 

[YoursTrue]

Neutrinos are not magic as far as i know

I mean, gorillas don't have microscopes, do they? In other words, how come only humans of the later homo sapien species seek to find out such things as neutrinos, how did the eyeball come about, and things like that?

 

[F1fan]

I mean, gorillas don't have microscopes, do they?

Would you have any idea how to use one than a gorilla? Just because humans can speak and have a complex language doesn’t mean they use their intelligence.

In other words, how come only humans of the later homo sapien species seek to find out such things as neutrinos, how did the eyeball come about, and things like that?

Go back 200 years and humans had just a fraction of the knowledge we have today. Go back 10,000 years and humans had little more knowledge than other apes. Just because our species evolved a larger brain is not a credible reason to claim some superiority over other species, especially when so many humans reject and ignore knowledge for the sake of their primitive religious traditions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are 3 billion base pairs in the human genom(a cell) and around 30-40 trillion cells in a human each specialized for a specific function.

There are approximately 86 billions of neurons in the brain.

The eye has a cornea, iris, pupil, lens, retina, optical nerve, macula, fovea, Aqueous Humor, Vitreous Humor, Ciliary Muscles, sclera, Choroid and Conjunctiva to name a few. The eye can distinguish between 10 million colours.

The human gut is home to trillions of microorganisms, collectively known as the gut microbiome.

These are just a few incredible facts about the human body there are hundreds more.

This doesn't even touch on the origins of the first cell, first DNA, first multi cell etc etc

How can you expect anybody to believe that it was random mutations that ultimately created all of this, the complexity is ridiculous and there's no way all these complex organisms could have evolved to work together in harmony as they do?

Scientists can measure the mutation rate, scientists can estimate population sizes. Scientists can also observe and estimate the rate of positive mutations. Right there you have all that is needed to judge if evolution is possible or not. Have you heard any scientists that are experts in the filed saying "OMG!! Evolution is impossible!"

We know that it is possible. The basic mechanisms are understood and there do not appear to be any contradictions. We have endless evidence that evolution happened.

On the other hand there is not any scientific evidence for any creationist explanation of how life arose. When everything supports one side and one side only why would any sane person believe in magic instead?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I mean, gorillas don't have microscopes, do they? In other words, how come only humans of the later homo sapien species seek to find out such things as neutrinos, how did the eyeball come about, and things like that?

That silly argument does not help you. It only makes you look bad.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not filling in any gaps. I am simply pointing out that the God answer is as much a possibility as any other we might imagine.

Many things are possible....
- God did it.
- Reality is a simulation on a computer.
- Aliens did it.
- Someone else's gods did it.

What those explanations lack is usefulness.
Evolution makes predictions that can be tested, ie, it's science.
The other explanations offer us nothing useful.

 

[McBell]

That silly argument does not help you. It only makes you look bad.

They passed being worried about how bad they look long long ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They passed being worried about how bad they look long long ago.

I have to be diplomatic. The ban hammer always looms large for me.

 

[Sargonski]

You telling me what i believe when you know nothing about me is thr height of ignorance. Though don't expect you to apologize for what you fail to understand.

I thought you knew what i believe, certainly that's the impression you give.

Yup its your opinion, but feel free to believe whatever you want about it.

I know plenty about you ?! enough to correct your baseless claim and flawed logic Why are you continuing to play the victim as if you have been slighted in some way .. running around crying "Ignorant" When all I have done is explain a flaw in your beliefs ... this flaw that you have not defined your terms .. and so how can you say whether or not you believe in Magic .. if that term is undefined ?

Don't have to know anything about your what you believe to tell you this Sister Christina .. now did you wish to define your term ... so we can understand what it is that you don't believe in ?