• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

P

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
leibowde84 said:
But, obviously "random" in this context means "not intentionally ordered". That in no way means that patterns and such shouldn't be expected. For this reason, isn't this a straw man?
Click to expand...
You mean you actually understand what he's talking about? I'd like a translation.
 
M

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
leibowde84 said:
This is irrelevant. Just take a second to read my actual claim. No more straw men.

I am saying that well over 90% of species have gone extinct. And, according to the creationist view, they didn't "evolve" into any other species. So that was it for them. So, why do the number of species or ill-equipt "designs" so severely outweigh the number of adequate ones. That is a horrendous success rate.
Click to expand...

The species were simply not designed to last forever. As individuals are not designed to last forever, it makes no sense why species would be designed to last forever. Each of these species you mention were of course highly efficiently organized and super complex organisms. And none of them had the sort of cancerous chaos one would expect on account of random mutations. The design of an individual is mainly only the adult organism. You can tell when somebody is before, at, or after, the designed adulthood.
 
M

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
Revoltingest said:
This obviously disproves evolution.
Why? Because choosing, probability & subjectivity.

Someone slap me now.
Click to expand...

It is more or less correct.

The common intuition that the bird looks desgined, that it is chosen as one whole, is right.

The probability of it coming to be by every part being chosen independently from every other part, and coincedentally forming a whole, is zero.

And subjectivity is the only way to get a clue about what the agency of these decisions is, by which the flamingo came to be. Or so to say, the flamingo as it is, is an expression of the spirit by which it was created.
 
Last edited:
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
q konn said:
Agreed.
Click to expand...
It seeems as though you want to engage, but you have arbitrarily chosen an example (a John waters movie?) To assert that there is a creator to the universe. But when read in "context" it appears as though you just wanted a set-up for your purple unicorn punchline. The post is, after being stripped down, essentially just like saying "I believe in creationism."

Not much of a premise. Not much content at all. Perhaps in your head there still sits the 1000 lines that prove a point or make a point that underscores this belief of yours, or perhaps not. But, evolution accounts nicely for life, and scientific theories of abiogenesis accounts plausibly for the formation of life. So, any argument that it is impossible has been put to rest, and that it is more likely than unicorns on mars is settled.

Thus, in reply to the op, without all the superfluous banter: neato, that is unfortunate.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Curious George said:
It seeems as though you want to engage, but you have arbitrarily chosen an example (a John waters movie?) To assert that there is a creator to the universe. But when read in "context" it appears as though you just wanted a set-up for your purple unicorn punchline. The post is, after being stripped down, essentially just like saying "I believe in creationism."

Not much of a premise. Not much content at all. Perhaps in your head there still sits the 1000 lines that prove a point or make a point that underscores this belief of yours, or perhaps not. But, evolution accounts nicely for life, and scientific theories of abiogenesis accounts plausibly for the formation of life. So, any argument that it is impossible has been put to rest, and that it is more likely than unicorns on mars is settled.

Thus, in reply to the op, without all the superfluous banter: neato, that is unfortunate.
Click to expand...
Well, no, not practically, or conforming to probability. I already explained this earlier in the thread.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:
It is more or less correct.

The common intuition that the bird looks desgined, that it is chosen as one whole, is right.

The probability of it coming to be by every part being chosen independently from every other part, and coincedentally forming a whole, is zero.

And subjectivity is the only way to get a clue about what the agency of these decisions is, by which the flamingo came to be. Or so to say, the flamingo as it is, is an expression of the spirit by which it was created.
Click to expand...
Actually, my post was just sarchasmogenic bafflegab.
 
LegionOnomaMoi

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
popsthebuilder said:
Why is it that people don't understand that the theory of evolution as one unit evolving to the best of its ability for the sake of its existence within its environment goes hand in and with some creative force starting everything kind of like something starting the Big Bang?
Click to expand...
Why? Logic, for one. Actually, that suffices.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
q konn said:
No, because one would be using unit repetition as a basis for determining randomness in the first place. So, it's a self defeating argument. That is why, theoretically, one could actually hold that position, ie the improbable random sequence theory, however, it then forces the issue of other possibilities utilizing the same probabilities. So, one would be forced to apply the same inference to ones other formulas.
Click to expand...
But, there is no evidence supporting creationism that is verifiable, but there is for evolution. So doesn't that make evolution more likely?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top