Just Accidental?

[SkepticThinker]

Both require "belief" so both are belief systems. Opposite beliefs is all.

Neither theism or atheism are belief systems. Theism is a belief. Atheism is a lack of a belief. Theism makes a claim about a single thing. Atheism doesn’t accept that claim about that single thing.

If we follow your line of reasoning here, then not believing in big foot has to be considered a belief system. Not believing in leprechauns has to be considered a belief system. Not believing in unicorns has to be considered a belief system. See how that doesn’t work?

 

[Deeje]

You don’t have a clue what is out there, any more than anybody else does. Maybe Thor is out there. From what you describe, it sounds like there’s no way of actually knowing, so I wonder how it is that you claim to know that the specific god you worship is out there.

Personal experience....which is something atheists will never have.
You cannot possibly know what forces are out there as yet undiscovered, so you cannot discount them.

Your response seems evasive to me. I’m just following your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion here. Are you not claiming that complex things require designers?

Tell me what complex things that you use in everyday life that are specifically designed for a purpose had no designer.
Complex components cannot come together randomly to produce the life we see on this planet. Heck....even the simple parts of a mousetrap cannot come together accidentally....even they require a measure of dexterity and intelligence to assemble. Living things are made up of complex components that all work co-cooperatively, each contributing to the well being of the entire organism. This is true, no matter how simple the life form is. Even a simple cell is not simple at all......

A one-celled animal can catch food, digest it, get rid of wastes, build a house for itself and engage in sexual activity. Each cell of the human body has been likened to a walled city, with a central government to maintain order, a power plant to generate energy, factories to produce proteins, a complex transportation system, and guards to regulate what is permitted to enter. And a single human body is made up of as many as 100 trillion cells. All just accidental?

If artificial selection (selective breeding) works, then so does natural selection.

Artificial selection does not naturally occur in nature as we can clearly see. The species stay separated by their own biology....remaining within their "kind" to breed. We never see a transitional life forms in the fossil record.....we have only science's assumptions about that, more based on imagination than facts.

They are just different forms of the same process, with the difference being that the former involves intentional motive on the part of the humans (i.e. selecting for desired traits) while the latter involves naturally occurring processes in an organism’s environment (i.e. no intention or guidance is involved).

Sorry, I don't buy that. Science can produce evidence for adaptation with species....but that does not automatically translate to organic evolution producing the myriad species seen on earth today, from a single celled life-form that "somehow" sprang into life in some primordial soup. Who is in fantasy-land now?

Both require the presence of genetic, heritable differences in a population and both lead to changes in allele frequency over time. The overall mechanism involved in both is the same. If you acknowledge that artificial selection is possible, I wonder how you can deny the existence of evolution.

Easy....its just common sense. Artificial selection does not produce a new species that can reproduce itself. Horses and donkeys produce mules....but mules are invariably sterile. You cannot produce a mule from a mule. Genetic roadblocks prevent it. There are genetic roadblocks in all species.

We were talking about your assertion that complex things must have designers. That’s a suggestion, not a fact.

Evolution is a suggestion, not a fact....design denotes a purpose. Purpose requires intelligence and the means to serve that purpose.
The mechanism that evolutionists describe has no more basis in fact than the existence of a powerful Intelligence that science has yet to discover.

Yes, genetic mutations are random, but natural selection is not.

Natural selection is seen in adaptive changes within species...these are small and commonly cosmetic.....such as what Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands. These were change in color, or size, or the shape of certain features of some species that were different to mainland varieties of the same species. These were obviously dictated environmentally....such as a change in food source or climate. But the species were not transitioning into completely different creatures. The iguanas had adapted to a marine environment and marine diet. The finches had adapted a beak to a different food source.....but they were still the same species as on the mainland.
These superficial changes do not explain the evolution of one species becoming many different kinds of life forms over millions of years.

Most mutations are neutral. And as you can see, harmful mutations don’t actually survive very long in a population. The beneficial ones tend to survive much longer than the harmful ones. A mutation that is beneficial in one environment may be harmful in another, so the determination in whether or not a mutation is beneficial depends on the environment.

Tell me what naturally produced beneficial mutations are ever seen in man or animals that are passed on to benefit their offspring.
A list would be good.

Like I pointed out before, something like 99.9% of every species that has ever lived has gone extinct, which is what we would probably expect if evolution is a reality. I’m still wondering how it points to a designer.

The Bible says that we are created in the image of our Maker....do we like to experiment with the design of things? Isn't that part of being creative? We know that dinosaurs never lived in the same time period as man. Perhaps the Creator had a role for these giants that was fulfilled and their services no longer required? Since he does not tell us why we no longer see these creatures, ( I for one am glad we don't co-exist) we are as much in the dark about them as evolutionist are.

Abiogenesis is the field of research that delves into questions about how life began. Evolution explains what happens when life already exists. And I don’t think it excludes the existence of some deity that could have put it into motion. I don’t understand why some theists don’t think evolution could have been designed by the god(s) they worship.

That is a compromise many make to sustain some credibility with both camps. I don't subscribe to that at all.
I take the Creator at his word. You are free to ignore him if that suits you.

I don’t think “god did it” actually explains how life came into existence. It doesn’t tell us anything about how it happened at all. It just inserts a bigger mystery into the equation.

Does it? My limited intellect at this particular juncture is not something I see as a permanent condition.....and I don't see the intellect of scientists as being anywhere close to what the Creator has, so I am free to ignore their musings and look forward to a world where I can explore everything with a mental capacity that will allow me to understand the "how" of it all...and I will have forever to do it.
In the meantime, I will just enjoy the creation and admire the creative skills of the one who gave me the senses to see, hear, smell, taste and feel his marvelous handiwork.
We are here for a reason and we are no accident of blind random forces. That is my belief and I have been shown nothing that makes me doubt it for a second.

 

[sayak83]

So if the 99% of scientists decided to jump off a cliff...would you join them? If not, why not? If they gave you a convincing argument about why you should and why they all thought it was a good idea.....why wouldn't you?

Of course I would jump of the cliff if 99% of the scientists give me a convincing argument bolstered by good evidence showing that is the appropriate action. In fact I regularly trust the scientists on far more extreme actions. Sleeping blissfully in a steel cage weighing several tons hurtling through air thousands of miles above the ground without a care in the world (aircrafts); or again happily becoming unconscious willingly as they use large knives, scalpels and saws to cut through my body and bones(during an operation). I am going to bet that you do too. Only arguments and evidence guides my decisions on such matters, nothing else.

I believe the 1% (though I have serious doubts about the accuracy of that figure) .

I have evidence for that figure of course.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/...views/2015-07-23_aaas-members-elaboration_02/
98% of all scientists and 99% of all scientists with PhD degrees believe that humans evolved. It was the largest consensus among all the questions asked to the scientists.
Of these (if you read the detailed report),
91% believe that evolution occured through natural selection alone
8% believe that a Supreme Being guided the overall evolutionary process and gave it direction. (i.e. theistic evolution).
Both these positions are compatible with the scientific evidence for theory of evolution.

Since you are going against the 99% consensus position of scientists, what you are doing is rejecting science. Hope that is clear.

We see through the rhetoric and the assumptions and the speculation based on nothing but imagination (as I have demonstrated here quite a few times)

All the rhrtoric and fanciful imagination is from your part. You have demonstrated nothing whatsoever. You have jumped from topic to topic, expressed your personal incredulity based in pure ignorance. Nothing more.

"Natural selection" is science's substitute for "Goddidit". I believe it makes less sense logically.
Who can "select"anything without intelligently knowing why a selection was made and what it would achieve?

Incredulity based on ignorance is all that you have. Natural selection is a fully worked out mathematical theory of demonstrably automated non-purposive design and change that can be proved to work without any helping hand whatsoever. It is so good that the principles of evolution have been incorporated in very successful engineering design algorithms (called genetic algorithms or evolutionary algorithms) because it can efficiently design systems precisely when we cannot know beforehand what the best design plan would be.

http://www.solver.com/genetic-evolutionary-introduction

Learning evolutionary design algorithms is standard fare in much of computer science and electrical engineering design programs.
https://books.google.com/books?id=gwUwIEPqk30C&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Interesting isn't it? A process inferred by Darwin and Mendel by studying peas and finches in 1850's has become the state-of-the-art design and optimization methodology throughout engineering design, computational coding and machine learning? Mere chance?

Making the Creator go away has become an artform......not to mention making it the greatest con job in the history of the world.....but then, you don't believe in the con-artist either....so what is left to say? We can only allow the the hearts and minds of the readers here to help them come to their own conclusions about the argument. It is a choice between belief systems after all.

Its a choice between actual knowledge and delusion causing belief. Your blindness is caused by your deluded believe that your faith in the existence of your God depends on rejecting the truth of evolutionary theory at all costs. Such a flimsy faith you have!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Personal experience....which is something atheists will never have.

You cannot possibly know what forces are out there as yet undiscovered, so you cannot discount them.

Atheists have personal experiences all the time.

I don’t discount anything. I could be convinced of anything, provided there was sufficient evidence for me to believe it.

You don’t know anything more than anybody else knows.

Tell me what complex things that you use in everyday life that are specifically designed for a purpose had no designer.

You want an example of something that was specifically designed with a purpose that doesn’t have a designer? Your question doesn’t make any sense.

If you recall in one of my last posts, I tried to explain how it is that we determine that things are designed. One of those things was that we compare what we know are designed things to undesigned things which we find in nature. If you think everything is designed (as you claim to) then you really have no way of determining whether anything is designed at all.

Can you explain why you think complex things require a designer and on what basis you make that claim, given that you think everything is designed in the first place? Wouldn’t you say that simplicity is more of a goal in design than complexity?

Complexity arises naturally all the time (though since you believe that everything is designed, I guess this won’t make sense to you). We see it cave formations, sand dunes, and weather patterns, to name a few.

I walk outside and breathe the air every day. Do you consider the atmosphere to be complex?
I use a spoon every day in life. Do you consider a spoon to be complex? We know those are designed. And yet they seem so simple. There is not much too them, is there? In fact, I could probably use a stick as a spoon if I really had to. Does that mean a stick is designed? How can we ever tell if everything is supposedly designed?

Complex components cannot come together randomly to produce the life we see on this planet. Heck....even the simple parts of a mousetrap cannot come together accidentally....even they require a measure of dexterity and intelligence to assemble. Living things are made up of complex components that all work co-cooperatively, each contributing to the well being of the entire organism. This is true, no matter how simple the life form is. Even a simple cell is not simple at all.....


A one-celled animal can catch food, digest it, get rid of wastes, build a house for itself and engage in sexual activity. Each cell of the human body has been likened to a walled city, with a central government to maintain order, a power plant to generate energy, factories to produce proteins, a complex transportation system, and guards to regulate what is permitted to enter. And a single human body is made up of as many as 100 trillion cells. All just accidental?


.

On what basis do you make the claim that complex components cannot come together to produce life?


Mousetraps are a bad example since they don’t contain genetic material and do not reproduce on their own.

Artificial selection does not naturally occur in nature as we can clearly see. The species stay separated by their own biology....remaining within their "kind" to breed. We never see a transitional life forms in the fossil record.....we have only science's assumptions about that, more based on imagination than facts.

Yes I know. Hence the reason I just said that artificial selection doesn’t occur naturally and explained the difference between that and natural selection. In artificial selection, desirable traits are selected for by humans, based on their own preferences. In natural selection, they are selected by an animal’s environment and thus is a naturally occurring process. They both work the same way, with the only difference being artificial selection involves intentional motive while natural selection does not.


We see many transitional life forms in the fossil record, and in fact, everything is a transitional fossil since everything is constantly in transition. I can’t believe people still use that tired old line when it is so plainly inaccurate.


There is no such thing as a “kind” in biological science.


Rather than going off on a tangent though, let’s get back to the point of discussion. You had asked me how nature is able to select for favourable traits without the use of intellect. I think you were trying to say that since humans are able to genetically manipulate animals then surely we must all be designed by a God.


There is more than enough conclusive evidence pointing to the existence of natural selection as a evolutionary mechanism.

https://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Evolution--Futuyma--chap11--fb.pdf

Sorry, I don't buy that. Science can produce evidence for adaptation with species....but that does not automatically translate to organic evolution producing the myriad species seen on earth today, from a single celled life-form that "somehow" sprang into life in some primordial soup. Who is in fantasy-land now?

Why don’t you buy small changes turning into bigger and bigger changes over vast periods of time? Do you have some kind of evidence demonstrating some barrier that stops that from happening?

Easy....its just common sense. Artificial selection does not produce a new species that can reproduce itself. Horses and donkeys produce mules....but mules are invariably sterile. You cannot produce a mule from a mule. Genetic roadblocks prevent it. There are genetic roadblocks in all species.

There’s no way around it unless you ignore empirical evidence.


Common sense takes you the other way. The success of artificial selection demonstrates how an accumulation of naturally mutations can change the traits of an animal, given the presence of selection pressures. If evolution were not a fact of life, then artificial selection would be impossible. Artificial selection gave us things like dogs, bananas, corn, broccoli, and cows. Mules aren’t really considered a new species precisely because they can’t interbreed and create viable offspring.

Evolution is a suggestion, not a fact....design denotes a purpose. Purpose requires intelligence and the means to serve that purpose.

Do you have something to offer besides “I know you are but what am I?” and repetition of the same unsubstantiated claim?


Evolution is both a scientific theory and a demonstrable fact.

The mechanism that evolutionists describe has no more basis in fact than the existence of a powerful Intelligence that science has yet to discover.

That mechanism is a demonstrable one.


Once someone is able to demonstrate the existence of a powerful Intelligence, then that is the time to believe it. And not before that.

 

[ArtieE]

"Selection"....isn't that the key word? When you select something, what part of your anatomy is involved? And could you make a selection without it? Does your selection indicate purpose with a perceived outcome?

These questions indicate such an extraordinary ignorance about evolution and natural selection and genetics that I can only advice you to take some elementary courses or read a beginners book on the subject. Until then it's difficult to have a serious discussion with you about the subject or consider your other arguments.

 

[Deeje]

Of course I would jump of the cliff if 99% of the scientists give me a convincing argument bolstered by good evidence showing that is the appropriate action. In fact I regularly trust the scientists on far more extreme actions. Sleeping blissfully in a steel cage weighing several tons hurtling through air thousands of miles above the ground without a care in the world (aircrafts); or again happily becoming unconscious willingly as they use large knives, scalpels and saws to cut through my body and bones(during an operation). I am going to bet that you do too.

I wasn't talking about aeronautical engineers designing an aircraft that has been proven through rigorous testing to fly safely with hundreds of passengers....or skilled surgeons who have spent years perfecting their procedures and have operated successfully on many people without too many negative incidents.

"Jumping of a cliff" in this instance looks like certain death, but the scientists assure you that they have altered gravity in this one location......now would you jump?

Only arguments and evidence guides my decisions on such matters, nothing else

Me too...which is why I cannot accept the "evidence" offered by science for evolution. There is no solid evidence that it ever happened the way they say it did. I have yet to see anything but supposition.

I have evidence for that figure of course.<>

Since you are going against the 99% consensus position of scientists, what you are doing is rejecting science. Hope that is clear.

That would be rather stupid since I believe in the greatest scientist in existence....but he just isn't human. He is the one responsible for those who study science being able to learn the limited amount of knowledge that they have gleaned so far. It is clearly not much when compared to what there is still to determine. The more scientists learn...the more they realize how much more there is to know.

So...what I reject is not science at all.....I reject organic evolution as the process by which all life on earth came to be what it is today. I hope that is clear.

All the rhrtoric and fanciful imagination is from your part. You have demonstrated nothing whatsoever. You have jumped from topic to topic, expressed your personal incredulity based in pure ignorance. Nothing more.

I can't say that you are ignorant, but I can say that you appear to have swallowed the science fiction hook, line and sinker. Your fantasy is way less credible than mine....but that is just my opinion from what I have gleaned reading articles that were supposed to convince me that life popped up in some ancient primordial soup and magically changed itself into every life form on the planet without a single bit of intelligent direction....all under the expert direction of "natural selection".
Sounds right and the right people with the diplomas are pushing it, so it must be true.....

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Incredulity based on ignorance is all that you have. Natural selection is a fully worked out mathematical theory of demonstrably automated non-purposive design and change that can be proved to work without any helping hand whatsoever. It is so good that the principles of evolution have been incorporated in very successful engineering design algorithms (called genetic algorithms or evolutionary algorithms) because it can efficiently design systems precisely when we cannot know beforehand what the best design plan would be.

If you have a particular algorithm that runs on your computer, and it solves many problems efficiently, do you assume that it designed and installed itself?
If a computer programmer designed an algorithm that once installed, could install itself on all computers connected to it in a network without you doing anything to prompt it, would you then say that these computers were so clever that they installed these programs all by themselves?
If the means to install the algorithm was the work of a computer programmer...who should get the credit?
I am saying that logic dictates a programmer. Computer programs and algorithms don't just pop out of thin air. They require design and installation by someone with intelligence and expertise.

Interesting isn't it? A process inferred by Darwin and Mendel by studying peas and finches in 1850's has become the state-of-the-art design and optimization methodology throughout engineering design, computational coding and machine learning? Mere chance?

Very interesting. I especially liked this....."Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) are a type of artificial intelligence. EAs are motivated by optimization processes that we observe in nature, such as natural selection, species migration, bird swarms, human culture, and ant colonies."

Artificial intelligence...now haven't scientists been working on that for years? What are the chances that Siri might be a product of evolution?

"EA's are motivated by optimization processes".....can you tell me what optimization processes take place in any design by man that is not motivated by an intelligent choice to facilitate that optimization?

Ant and termite colonies and bee hives are a classic example of organization and complete co-operation for the benefit of the whole colony. If you have ever watched documentaries on the way these fully "programmed" creatures operate, humans could take a leaf out of their book. Just accidental, you say.....programmed by Mr Nobody.

Its a choice between actual knowledge and delusion causing belief.

LOL No, I'm afraid that you are guilty of swallowing a delusion yourself. Are you telling me you can't be wrong? Are you really so sure that all this life is the product of undirected chance?

What if the Creator and his 'assistants' are extra-terrestrial beings that science has not made contact with....yet. Do you believe in extra-terrestrials sayak? It only means life forms that originate from outside of the earth.
I think your whole concept of "God" is flawed and influenced by radical religionists who swear that the earth was created in 7 literal days by a big magician. There is a reasonable middle ground that does not throw out true science, but embraces the Creator as the originator of it. It gives credit where credit is due.

Your blindness is caused by your deluded believe that your faith in the existence of your God depends on rejecting the truth of evolutionary theory at all costs. Such a flimsy faith you have!

My faith is firmly grounded in facts that are observable to me in the real world.....evolution's proponents are the ones depending on the computer graphics to sell their story.....heaven knows the fossil record is not backing them up.

I believe that there is a collective blindness that makes people want any kind of higher intelligence to go away. The clay has apparently become too intelligent for the potter. I think I can hear him laughing.

 

[Deeje]

Fibonacci numbers in nature...just accidental?

Spirals, not just on earth but out in the galaxies as well. This demonstrates a powerful designer with reach out into the vast universe.
Can we truly discount him?

 

[ArtieE]

We are here for a reason and we are no accident of blind random forces. That is my belief and I have been shown nothing that makes me doubt it for a second.

This Creator of yours, why does he exist in the first place? Was he designed and created for a reason, did he evolve through theistic or natural selection or is he just a result of random chance?

 

[sayak83]

I wasn't talking about aeronautical engineers designing an aircraft that has been proven through rigorous testing to fly safely with hundreds of passengers....or skilled surgeons who have spent years perfecting their procedures and have operated successfully on many people without too many negative incidents.

These are exactly the qualities the scientists working in the theory of evolution possess. Evolution has been demonstrated to be valid through rigorous prediction and testing, skilled biologists, geologists, paleontologists, anatomists etc. have spent years perfecting their procedures whose conclusions have been validated time and time again under stringent conditions. I have far greater confidence that the theory of evolution is true than that the airplane I am riding will land safely. Confidence based on knowledge, not faith. I am a working scientist (chemistry PhD) after all and understand enough of the science to have such knowledge.

"Jumping of a cliff" in this instance looks like certain death, but the scientists assure you that they have altered gravity in this one location......now would you jump?

If 99% of scientists agree, then they agree because that conclusion has been extensively vetted and tested, and being a scientist I will be part of that 99%, knowing the reasons for this conclusion. So of course I will jump.

Me too...which is why I cannot accept the "evidence" offered by science for evolution. There is no solid evidence that it ever happened the way they say it did. I have yet to see anything but supposition.

People blinded by faith cannot see the truth because they have deliberately shut their eyes to it.

That would be rather stupid since I believe in the greatest scientist in existence....but he just isn't human. He is the one responsible for those who study science being able to learn the limited amount of knowledge that they have gleaned so far. It is clearly not much when compared to what there is still to determine. The more scientists learn...the more they realize how much more there is to know.

Those writings you trust so much are mere myths and wishful thinking of ancient people, nothing more.

So...what I reject is not science at all.....I reject organic evolution as the process by which all life on earth came to be what it is today. I hope that is clear.

No you reject science but live in denial of this rejection. That is clear. Bible is myth, not science. No field of modern science uses the Bible or any book of any religion to inform any of their activity . They are useless to science.

I can't say that you are ignorant, but I can say that you appear to have swallowed the science fiction hook, line and sinker. Your fantasy is way less credible than mine....but that is just my opinion from what I have gleaned reading articles that were supposed to convince me that life popped up in some ancient primordial soup and magically changed itself into every life form on the planet without a single bit of intelligent direction....all under the expert direction of "natural selection".

As I said , those who wish to live in delusion will never be convinced of the truth. It is you who have fallen for a fiction and elevated it to your God and your ultimate truth. There is no magic here, just natural processes and laws whose basic features are simple to understand and the adequacy of their explanations transparent to all who have not closed of their ears .

If you have a particular algorithm that runs on your computer, and it solves many problems efficiently, do you assume that it designed and installed itself?
If a computer programmer designed an algorithm that once installed, could install itself on all computers connected to it in a network without you doing anything to prompt it, would you then say that these computers were so clever that they installed these programs all by themselves?

The natural processes that encapsulate the non-teleological design algorithms of evolution are observed to operate spontaneously in the biological world as inherent patterns of reality. We have observed their operation in the biological world and also know why they operate the way they do in the realm of biological life as outworkings of inherent regularities of physics and chemistry of these organic molecules and processes. So no belief or faith is necessary. It is directly known.
You are like a person who believes that there is a gigantic invisible fan in the sky responsible for the winds of the earth because humans have used fans to create artificial breeze in their homes! Such a person can only be called a fool.

Very interesting. I especially liked this....."Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) are a type of artificial intelligence. EAs are motivated by optimization processes that we observe in nature, such as natural selection, species migration, bird swarms, human culture, and ant colonies."

Artificial intelligence...now haven't scientists been working on that for years? What are the chances that Siri might be a product of evolution?

"EA's are motivated by optimization processes".....can you tell me what optimization processes take place in any design by man that is not motivated by an intelligent choice to facilitate that optimization?

Ant and termite colonies and bee hives are a classic example of organization and complete co-operation for the benefit of the whole colony. If you have ever watched documentaries on the way these fully "programmed" creatures operate, humans could take a leaf out of their book. Just accidental, you say.....programmed by Mr Nobody.

Correct. Programmed by nobody, because we know the natural processes (kin selection) by which ant colonies have evolved

Just in case , let me repeat:-
You are like a person who believes that there is a gigantic invisible fan in the sky responsible for the winds of the earth because humans have used fans to create artificial breeze in their homes! Such a person can only be called a fool.

LOL No, I'm afraid that you are guilty of swallowing a delusion yourself. Are you telling me you can't be wrong? Are you really so sure that all this life is the product of undirected chance?

I am willing to stake my life and life of my family on the overall truthfulness of the theory of evolution as the accurate explanation for the arising of diversity of all life on earth. Any day. I know the evidence and understand the theory, any less certainty would be illogical.

What if the Creator and his 'assistants' are extra-terrestrial beings that science has not made contact with....yet. Do you believe in extra-terrestrials sayak? It only means life forms that originate from outside of the earth.
I think your whole concept of "God" is flawed and influenced by radical religionists who swear that the earth was created in 7 literal days by a big magician. There is a reasonable middle ground that does not throw out true science, but embraces the Creator as the originator of it. It gives credit where credit is due.

I am a Hindu. Hindu theism (and other philosophies) is fully compatible with evolution. Sorry, you will have to reject all of science if you reject evolution. There is no middle ground. I know you want to believe it, you are simply wrong.

My faith is firmly grounded in facts that are observable to me in the real world.....evolution's proponents are the ones depending on the computer graphics to sell their story.....heaven knows the fossil record is not backing them up.

Oh they are backing the theory up excellently. Your refusal to believe this does not make the truth less evident.

I believe that there is a collective blindness that makes people want any kind of higher intelligence to go away. The clay has apparently become too intelligent for the potter. I think I can hear him laughing.

Whatever your blind faith is directed towards, its certainly not God. Pity.

 

[sayak83]

Fibonacci numbers in nature...just accidental?

Spirals, not just on earth but out in the galaxies as well. This demonstrates a powerful designer with reach out into the vast universe.
Can we truly discount him?

How about reading books that provide the explanation?
https://www.amazon.com/Shapes-Natur...p/B006UF3VNW/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=

 

[SkepticThinker]

I wasn't talking about aeronautical engineers designing an aircraft that has been proven through rigorous testing to fly safely with hundreds of passengers....or skilled surgeons who have spent years perfecting their procedures and have operated successfully on many people without too many negative incidents.

"Jumping of a cliff" in this instance looks like certain death, but the scientists assure you that they have altered gravity in this one location......now would you jump?



Me too...which is why I cannot accept the "evidence" offered by science for evolution. There is no solid evidence that it ever happened the way they say it did. I have yet to see anything but supposition.



That would be rather stupid since I believe in the greatest scientist in existence....but he just isn't human. He is the one responsible for those who study science being able to learn the limited amount of knowledge that they have gleaned so far. It is clearly not much when compared to what there is still to determine. The more scientists learn...the more they realize how much more there is to know.

So...what I reject is not science at all.....I reject organic evolution as the process by which all life on earth came to be what it is today. I hope that is clear.

I can't say that you are ignorant, but I can say that you appear to have swallowed the science fiction hook, line and sinker. Your fantasy is way less credible than mine....but that is just my opinion from what I have gleaned reading articles that were supposed to convince me that life popped up in some ancient primordial soup and magically changed itself into every life form on the planet without a single bit of intelligent direction....all under the expert direction of "natural selection".
Sounds right and the right people with the diplomas are pushing it, so it must be true.....

Sorry, I don't buy it.



If you have a particular algorithm that runs on your computer, and it solves many problems efficiently, do you assume that it designed and installed itself?
If a computer programmer designed an algorithm that once installed, could install itself on all computers connected to it in a network without you doing anything to prompt it, would you then say that these computers were so clever that they installed these programs all by themselves?
If the means to install the algorithm was the work of a computer programmer...who should get the credit?
I am saying that logic dictates a programmer. Computer programs and algorithms don't just pop out of thin air. They require design and installation by someone with intelligence and expertise.



Very interesting. I especially liked this....."Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) are a type of artificial intelligence. EAs are motivated by optimization processes that we observe in nature, such as natural selection, species migration, bird swarms, human culture, and ant colonies."

Artificial intelligence...now haven't scientists been working on that for years? What are the chances that Siri might be a product of evolution?

"EA's are motivated by optimization processes".....can you tell me what optimization processes take place in any design by man that is not motivated by an intelligent choice to facilitate that optimization?

Ant and termite colonies and bee hives are a classic example of organization and complete co-operation for the benefit of the whole colony. If you have ever watched documentaries on the way these fully "programmed" creatures operate, humans could take a leaf out of their book. Just accidental, you say.....programmed by Mr Nobody.

LOL No, I'm afraid that you are guilty of swallowing a delusion yourself. Are you telling me you can't be wrong? Are you really so sure that all this life is the product of undirected chance?

What if the Creator and his 'assistants' are extra-terrestrial beings that science has not made contact with....yet. Do you believe in extra-terrestrials sayak? It only means life forms that originate from outside of the earth.
I think your whole concept of "God" is flawed and influenced by radical religionists who swear that the earth was created in 7 literal days by a big magician. There is a reasonable middle ground that does not throw out true science, but embraces the Creator as the originator of it. It gives credit where credit is due.



My faith is firmly grounded in facts that are observable to me in the real world.....evolution's proponents are the ones depending on the computer graphics to sell their story.....heaven knows the fossil record is not backing them up.

I believe that there is a collective blindness that makes people want any kind of higher intelligence to go away. The clay has apparently become too intelligent for the potter. I think I can hear him laughing.

The blindness appears to be happening on your end. You reveal this when you say things like, "heaven knows the fossil record is not backing them up" and "there are no transitional forms." These are old canards that have no basis in reality. They are the rumblings of those who don't understand evolution. Never mind that even if we didn't have those things evolution would still be confirmed via genetics.

Your whole argument is just an argument from incredulity.

 

[Deeje]

This Creator of yours, why does he exist in the first place? Was he designed and created for a reason, did he evolve through theistic or natural selection or is he just a result of random chance?

Why do you exist? I am guessing that you have some assumptions about "how" you exist, but has science ever told you "why?

Why does the universe exist? Science purports to know "how" the universe came to exist.......but does it know "why"?

Why do the laws of nature or the universe exist? We can see what they accomplish, but do you know where they came from?

I put the Creator in a category of his own....he is a unique being who has never told us "what" he is (except that he is a spirit.)
Since I can only define a spirit in human terms, I don't think it would fully describe the entity whose power brought all matter into existence. Why don't you ask him.....?

 

[Deeje]

I am willing to stake my life and life of my family on the overall truthfulness of the theory of evolution as the accurate explanation for the arising of diversity of all life on earth. Any day. I know the evidence and understand the theory, any less certainty would be illogical.

You know the "evidence" as it has been presented to you. Yet from what has been demonstrated so far, we see no real solid evidence.....you are staking your life on guesswork......not facts. If you want to do that....it's up to you.

I am a Hindu. Hindu theism (and other philosophies) is fully compatible with evolution. Sorry, you will have to reject all of science if you reject evolution. There is no middle ground. I know you want to believe it, you are simply wrong.

You are Hindu?.....in this day and age, what does that even mean?

I do not, and never have rejected science....just this one branch that seems to operate by a different set of rules, and is really good at conning people into believing what they "imagine" "might have" been the way all life became so diverse on this planet. It is in fact a concocted fantasy, backed up by good graphics, and lots of supposition.....not real evidence.

You ignore the evidence presented to you whilst telling me how stupid I am for not believing it......you are welcome to believe whatever you like. I am just here to remind you that you have no more "proof" for your position than I do.

 

[sayak83]

You know the "evidence" as it has been presented to you. Yet from what has been demonstrated so far, we see no real solid evidence.....you are staking your life on guesswork......not facts. If you want to do that....it's up to you.



You are Hindu?.....in this day and age, what does that even mean?

I do not, and never have rejected science....just this one branch that seems to operate by a different set of rules, and is really good at conning people into believing what they "imagine" "might have" been the way all life became so diverse on this planet. It is in fact a concocted fantasy, backed up by good graphics, and lots of supposition.....not real evidence.

You ignore the evidence presented to you whilst telling me how stupid I am for not believing it......you are welcome to believe whatever you like. I am just here to remind you that you have no more "proof" for your position than I do.

i am here to remind you how deluded and mistaken you are in thinking my evidence for one of the most well established branch of science is even remotely comparable to the flimsy wishful thinking that constitutes your beliefs. If you want to live believing in such make believe day-dreams, be my guest.

Hinduism, you know, the third largest religion/philosophy/way-of-life in the world?

 

[Deeje]

How about reading books that provide the explanation?
https://www.amazon.com/Shapes-Natur...p/B006UF3VNW/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=

From your link...."Patterns are everywhere in nature - in the ranks of clouds in the sky, the stripes of an angelfish, the arrangement of petals in flowers. Where does this order and regularity come from? It creates itself. The patterns we see come from self-organization. Whether living or non-living, scientists have found that there is a pattern-forming tendency inherent in the basic structure and processes of nature"

"It creates itself"?....if I go to an art gallery and someone points out a Picasso or a Rembrandt.....and I say that they just created themselves, I would be laughed out of town. But science says that these masterpieces just "created themselves", and everyone believes them....go figure.

"The patterns we see come from self-organization"?.......sure they do....but the process of self replication is programmed into all these things....even in the way ice crystals form we see a pattern yet.....no two are the same.

That is a lot of 'self creation'.....'organized by themselves' for what purpose I wonder? These creatures are the product of undirected forces that made them choose these designs for themselves, but not consciously.....really?

They all look hand crafted to me.

 

[ArtieE]

Why do you exist? I am guessing that you have some assumptions about "how" you exist, but has science ever told you "why?

I exist because my parents wanted a child. I see your point. I can ask how a rock exists and science could answer that but if I ask why a rock exists I would have to find whoever or whatever made the rock and ask why he/she/it made it.

Why does the universe exist? Science purports to know "how" the universe came to exist.......but does it know "why"?

So scientists can come up with different theories as to "how" the universe exists but to find out "why" they would have to find whoever/whatever made it and ask why. And if they also asked he/she/it "how" and "why" he/she/it existed what then? Would there be a "why" or just a "how"? Is there ultimately only a "how" to be asked?

 

[Deeje]

Hinduism, you know, the third largest religion/philosophy/way-of-life in the world?

You mean this Hinduism?

 

[sayak83]

From your link...."Patterns are everywhere in nature - in the ranks of clouds in the sky, the stripes of an angelfish, the arrangement of petals in flowers. Where does this order and regularity come from? It creates itself. The patterns we see come from self-organization. Whether living or non-living, scientists have found that there is a pattern-forming tendency inherent in the basic structure and processes of nature"

"It creates itself"?....if I go to an art gallery and someone points out a Picasso or a Rembrandt.....and I say that they just created themselves, I would be laughed out of town. But science says that these masterpieces just "created themselves", and everyone believes them....go figure.

"The patterns we see come from self-organization"?.......sure they do....but the process of self replication is programmed into all these things....even in the way ice crystals form we see a pattern yet.....no two are the same.

That is a lot of 'self creation'.....'organized by themselves' for what purpose I wonder? These creatures are the product of undirected forces that made them choose these designs for themselves, but not consciously.....really?

They all look hand crafted to me.

We know the natural processes that create them extensively and science (this times physics and chemistry) explains all of them with great adequacy. What it looks like to you is irrelevant. Read the book, read the math, read the experiments.

As I have said. You have to reject all science, did I not?

 

[sayak83]

You mean this Hinduism?

Yes. Obviously. There is more to it than pretty statues. But that's the one.

 

[Deeje]

I exist because my parents wanted a child. I see your point. I can ask how a rock exists and science could answer that but if I ask why a rock exists I would have to find whoever or whatever made the rock and ask why he/she/it made it.So scientists can come up with different theories as to "how" the universe exists but to find out "why" they would have to find whoever/whatever made it and ask why.

Exactly. Isn't that just logical?
If you are going to ask the Creator why he created, the answer is in his written communication to man.
If you ask science why anything exists, what would they answer? We all know that there is no answer possible from their worldview.
There are no reasons for the existence of anything.....least of all God.

And if they also asked he/she/it "how" and "why" he/she/it existed what then? Would there be a "why" or just a "how"? Is there ultimately only a "how" to be asked?

Asking the Creator why he exists is rather pointless don't you think? Why does anything exist? Does he owe you an explanation?
What makes you think he does?