Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[averageJOE]

I don't understand your "choosing" argument, or how it relates to creationism v evolution.

I will explain it to you:
You have to choose that he is right and the rest of us are wrong.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Since I don't believe in creationism, I don't see that gods are making choices about evolution of species.
As for the "duh" comment, I'll point out that you've been lacking in clarity in stating your case.
One ought not chalk up the resulting problems as due to other posters' shortcomings.

It is your shortcomings. Now you repeat again about gods making choices while I already dealt with that.

 

[leibowde84]

...I referred to natural selection, evolutionary psychology, etc. So once and for all it is proven that Leibowde is just pretending to be reasonable.

You made claims about these things, but you have yet to provide any support for these claims. Thus, they are merely unsubstantiated claims.

 

[leibowde84]

It is your shortcomings. Now you repeat again about gods making choices while I already dealt with that.

I understand that you BELIEVE that you expressed your claims clearly, but, according to every single member who has commented on them, you did not. I agree with Revoltingest. You need to do a better job of fleshing out your claims and actually supporting them.

 

[leibowde84]

I understand at least in part his claims. They aren't unreasonable, as far as I can tell. The problem is that you open your theories up to whatever is relevant as an counterargument, that's all. This is the issue, with claiming a position that has a many pre-requisites /leading theories/, and propositions. I do not think that that is his responsibility to only argue against what you are familiar with.

He is clearly erroneously using the word "evolution" to mean "materialism". Anyone who does this is either, 1) developing a straw man, or 2) very confused. He has provided absolutely no reasoning for his equating "evolution" with "materialism", which should lead us all to believe that he does not know what the theory of evolution actually is. He is merely putting words in people's mouths and disregarding the limits of what the theory claims.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I understand that you BELIEVE that you expressed your claims clearly, but, according to every single member who has commented on them, you did not. I agree with Revoltingest. You need to do a better job of fleshing out your claims and actually supporting them.

And the result of this typical sort of evolutionist garbage is that freedom is completely ignored in science and subjectivity is out the window.

 

[leibowde84]

And the result of this typical sort of evolutionist garbage is that freedom is completely ignored in science and subjectivity is out the window.

See ... this is a great example of what I mean. Can you express this more clearly? How can my comment be seen to completely ignore science and subjectivity? I did not speak to them in my comment here, so I would appreciate some kind of explanation.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

See ... this is a great example of what I mean. Can you express this more clearly? How can my comment be seen to completely ignore science and subjectivity? I did not speak to them in my comment here, so I would appreciate some kind of explanation.

Nevertheless we can see that the result of your contributions is that you destroyed all knowledge about how organisms are chosen to be the way they are.

And as subjectivity operates by choosing, you threw out subjectivity too.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How do you go from pink flamingos to "there is no way they were created but it is obvious that they happened randomly"?

So, your position is that it essentially happened randomly, right? Somehow all the elements came together, and now we have pink flamingos?

Pink flamingos are not random, and they aren't created. Flamingos are pink because of their diet. It's no different that trying to say that having red/pink urine is random or created after you ate a bunch of beets. There is literally no mystery, no guessing, no randomness, and no "creator" behind it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I explained to Revoltingtest 3 times that agency of a decision is a subjective issue, that science about choosing only deals with the facts of how a decision is made, not the agency of a decision. No matter I explained it 3 times he still insists on his garbage that the science is about gods making decisions.

How evolutionists operate in doing science is, first they throw their subjectivity out the window. That leaves them with no courage, and no motivation to deal with anything difficult. And that is how evolutionists end up a slave to their bizarre preconceived notions, ad infinite. And that I highlight it now does not mean that Revoltingtest will now get it, that the agency of a decision is a subjective issue in creationist science, and not any part of the proposed facts. He will never get it.

=====
Revoltingtest :
You believe that stochastic processes driven by a fitness function can produce emergent properties only by divine control.

Syamsu :
That something is chosen does not presume divine control. The agency of any decision is a subjective issue, and irrellevant for science. Science can just denote how it is chosen. The genome can be chosen as a whole, or it can be chosen in parts in consideration of the whole, or every part can be chosen independently from every other part, etc.The point is that one can do science about how things are chosen, and not refer to God, or any agency of any decision for that matter. And the evidence indicates that organisms are chosen as a whole in an intelligent way.

Revoltingtest :
Perhaps the use & definition of "choosing" is problematic.
I don't see evolution as involving choice.
It simply happens because the conditions cause it.
No supernatural intervention is required.

Syamsu:
For people choosing it works the same way as out in nature. The science will just denote the different ways the brain can turn out and how the decision is made. There is no reference to any agency doing the choosing for people either. It is simply categorically a subjective issue.

Revoltingtest :
I don't understand your "choosing" argument, or how it relates to creationism v evolution.

Syamsu:
choosing is the mechanism of creation.

Revoltingtest:
Since I don't believe in creationism, I don't see that gods are making choices about evolution of species.
====

 

[Revoltingest]

Very, very, bad. Trying to computate that is a feat unto itself. Let me put it this way, it's worse than the usual numbers offered, because those would tend to give a benefit of doubt to /0/ . In the ''real world'', the probabilities are astoundingly bad./ie in the real world no one gives benefit of doubt to /0/ in a similar context./
just my opinion!

If you can't comprehensively state any premises, show a method, & quantify them to some extent, then it's rather meaningless to talk of probability.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is your shortcomings. Now you repeat again about gods making choices while I already dealt with that.

See post #191.
We must agree to disagree about assigning shortcomings.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

See post #191.
We must agree to disagree about assigning shortcomings.

That would mean something if you can refer to any single evolutionist among the millions of them who can provide a scientific description how any choice is made, regardless if the choice is human, animal, or out in nature. There is no evolutionist who has a scientific understanding about how choosing works, that shortcoming is a prerequisite to becoming an evolutionist.

 

[suncowiam]

Very, very, bad. Trying to computate that is a feat unto itself. Let me put it this way, it's worse than the usual numbers offered, because those would tend to give a benefit of doubt to /0/ . In the ''real world'', the probabilities are astoundingly bad./ie in the real world no one gives benefit of doubt to /0/ in a similar context./
just my opinion!

If you can't prove it to be 0, then there's no point to this topic. It's just as you say, just an opinion.

Plus, you can't prove it to be very bad, either. You don't know the actual probability and just assuming a very low number.

I'll respect your opinion as long as you continue to make it clear that there is no sound basis for these opinions.

 

[Shad]

That would mean something if you can refer to any single evolutionist among the millions of them who can provide a scientific description how any choice is made, regardless if the choice is human, animal, or out in nature. There is no evolutionist who has a scientific understanding about how choosing works, that shortcoming is a prerequisite to becoming an evolutionist.

Open a biology text book and you will find your answers.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If you can't prove it to be 0, then there's no point to this topic. It's just as you say, just an opinion.

Plus, you can't prove it to be very bad, either. You don't know the actual probability and just assuming a very low number.

I'll respect your opinion as long as you continue to make it clear that there is no sound basis for these opinions.

There is a sound enough basis, and many evolution scientists themselves are getting away from the idea of random or error mutation as the ultimate source for variation.

 

[suncowiam]

There is a sound enough basis, and many evolution scientists themselves are getting away from the idea of random or error mutation as the ultimate source for variation.

Oh, what are they? Cite your sources.

Sounds like another opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Open a biology text book and you will find your answers.

Well that is simply not true. You will only ever find evolutionists talking about an organism sorting out a behaviour, where the result is forced by the data to sort, and the sorting criteria. It could not have turned out any other way. This is what evolutionists call choosing, much like a chesscomputer sorting out a result by calculation.

 

[leibowde84]

Nevertheless we can see that the result of your contributions is that you destroyed all knowledge about how organisms are chosen to be the way they are.

And as subjectivity operates by choosing, you threw out subjectivity too.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "organisms are chosen to be the way they are"? I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

[Shad]

Well that is simply not true. You will only ever find evolutionists talking about an organism sorting out a behaviour, where the result is forced by the data to sort, and the sorting criteria. It could not have turned out any other way. This is what evolutionists call choosing, much like a chesscomputer sorting out a result by calculation.

Sorry it is, take a few courses in biology. The issues is you have loaded terminology which is restricted by your religion. Thus anyone not using your strict terminology is not accepted which makes your bias to great to overcome unless you do it yourself. Organisms do not pick the best or nor the worst as organism have no control over their genes. You impose an system which is not part of evolution for the simple fact that organism go extinct. If organism could pick the best result then none would go extinct as each would continuous be best suited for any environment it is in. This is not the case.