Problems & confusion with the Multiverse

[ratiocinator]

In other words. It does nothing. It's a process.

A process that does nothing. You don't even see how daft that is, do you?

In fact it's a process that amplifies those traits that aid survival and reproduction in the environment, while ensuring that those traits that hinder the same die out. This makes evolution non-random and both your and Hoyle's analogies mind-numbingly silly.

If you bothered to read the site you linked without looking through the distortion of your blind faith, you might learn something.

The conditions which are random, by the way, are what make natural selection.

By 'conditions' I assume the environment. I guess you could call that 'random' in one sense but it really doesn't matter so long as it's relatively stable over generations of the species under consideration. Also changes to the environment can help evolution because it means opportunities for new variation to become dominant.

What you did, is put natural selection somewhere in the analogies, to create a strawman...

Since both analogies ignored it, putting it into them is not a straw man. The analogies were straw men preciously because thy ignored it.

It seems both evolution and the identification of fallacies are things that you struggle to understand.

The places in the analogies where natural selection is present, is where the paint drops, and where the airplane parts fall.

Wow. You really don't understand at all, do you?

ETA: From the very same page you linked to:

At the opposite end of the scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a completely random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don’t. Natural selection is NOT random!​

 

[Audie]

A process that does nothing. You don't even see how daft that is, do you?

In fact it's a process that amplifies those traits that aid survival and reproduction in the environment, while ensuring that those traits that hinder the same die out. This makes evolution non-random and both your and Hoyle's analogies mind-numbingly silly.

If you bothered to read the site you linked without looking through the distortion of your blind faith, you might learn something.



By 'conditions' I assume the environment. I guess you could call that 'random' in one sense but it really doesn't matter so long as it's relatively stable over generations of the species under consideration. Also changes to the environment can help evolution because it means opportunities for new variation to become dominant.


Since both analogies ignored it, putting it into them is not a straw man. The analogies were straw men preciously because thy ignored it.

It seems both evolution and the identification of fallacies are things that you struggle to understand.

Wow. You really don't understand at all, do you?

It's impossible to be well informed,
intellecually honest, and deny evolution.

 

[nPeace]

A process that does nothing. You don't even see how daft that is, do you?

In fact it's a process that amplifies those traits that aid survival and reproduction in the environment, while ensuring that those traits that hinder the same die out. This makes evolution non-random and both your and Hoyle's analogies mind-numbingly silly.

If you bothered to read the site you linked without looking through the distortion of your blind faith, you might learn something.

Play with words. That doesn't help.
A process does nothing, A process is driven.
When you say natural selection selects, it just as daft as your semantics attack.

It seems both evolution and the identification of fallacies are things that you struggle to understand.

I don't struggle to understand anything here. ...not even the ego stroking.

Wow. You really don't understand at all, do you?

Yes, it's funny, isn't it.
When we don't understand what is said, it can sound funny.
When we take the time to, we learn.

ETA: From the very same page you linked to:

At the opposite end of the scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a completely random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don’t. Natural selection is NOT random!​

It that a motto or something for atheist.
Please. It is not informative. ...and certainly does not change the fact that you believe, things equivalent to a plane making billions of trips, dropping paint, ant it resulting in a painting of the Mona Lisa... or a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.

 

[nPeace]

It's impossible to be well informed,
intellecually honest, and deny evolution.

Oh dear. How insulting to so many intelligent professors.
Oh, well, I don't actually know what they are saying about you, but I know what I am thinking about believing in the theory of evolution.

 

[ratiocinator]

It that a motto or something for atheist.

No, it's called 'the truth'. And it is dishonest of you in the extreme to characterise it as 'atheist'. Many, many people who aren't at all atheist agree with evolution. Most mainstream denominations accept evolution. You represent nothing but a tiny sect of those that deny it.

It is not informative. ...and certainly does not change the fact that you believe, things equivalent to a plane making billions of trips, dropping paint, ant it resulting in a painting of the Mona Lisa... or a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.

I thought your God didn't like people bearing false witness.

 

[ratiocinator]

It's impossible to be well informed,
intellecually honest, and deny evolution.

Strictly it's not impossible, just very, very rare. Here is somebody who manages it:

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.​

​

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)​

...​

It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. ​

...​

Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.​

​

If only there was a bit more honesty like this.

 

[nPeace]

No, it's called 'the truth'. And it is dishonest of you in the extreme to characterise it as 'atheist'. Many, many people who aren't at all atheist agree with evolution. Most mainstream denominations accept evolution. You represent nothing but a tiny sect of those that deny it.

I meant the posting of the information that national selection is random.

I thought I made that clear.

I thought your God didn't like people bearing false witness.

Yes. ...and?

 

[ratiocinator]

I meant the posting of the information that national selection is random.

What are you on about? I posted a quote about natural selection not being random and you said it was "motto or something for atheist". That natural selection is not random is central to evolution that is accepted by vast numbers of theists and only denied by your tiny cult and others like it.

Yes. ...and?

Why are you doing it?

 

[nPeace]

What are you on about? I posted a quote about natural selection not being random and you said it was "motto or something for atheist". That natural selection is not random is central to evolution that is accepted by vast numbers of theists and only denied by your tiny cult and others like it.

Now you got me writing things I don't mean.
That's what I meant. Right.

Why are you doing it?

I'm not. Why are you?

 

[ratiocinator]

Now you got me writing things I don't mean.
That's what I meant. Right.

Eh

I'm not. Why are you?

When you said "...you believe, things equivalent to a plane making billions of trips, dropping paint, ant it resulting in a painting of the Mona Lisa... or a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." if is a falsehood. I do not. Hence you are bearing false witness against me.

 

[nPeace]

Eh


When you said "...you believe, things equivalent to a plane making billions of trips, dropping paint, ant it resulting in a painting of the Mona Lisa... or a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." if is a falsehood. I do not. Hence you are bearing false witness against me.

I said your beliefs are equivalent.
If you show me otherwise, you can disprove what I said.
As it stands, everone is entitled to make statements regarding their observations.
For example, if I say, you created a strawman, or you believe in a philosophy, I am speaking from observation.

As God is witness, when we speak a truth, it may sound like this...
(John 8:44) . . .You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. . .
However, if there is a basis, we can also say this...
(John 8:14) . . .my witness is true. . .

You have the right to argue your case, and bear false witness against me... because you have no god.

 

[ratiocinator]

I said your beliefs are equivalent.

They're not in the least bit equivalent. It's not even my opinion. You could easily find out exactly why they are not if you weren't so afraid of learning. You even linked to a site that would explain it, if you bothered to read it and made some honest attempt to understudy.

If you show me otherwise, you can disprove what I said.

I already have. Neither examples have anything remotely like the non-random process of natural selection.

 

[Audie]

Strictly it's not impossible, just very, very rare. Here is somebody who manages it:

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.​

​

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)​

...​

It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. ​

...​

Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.​

​

If only there was a bit more honesty like this.

Ive seen that. And-
Sorry- ah* but, how is that different from
the honesty of some famous bank robber
who when finally caught after dozens of stick- ups,
was asked
" WHY do you rub banks??"
Answered-
" Because thats where the money is."?

And at that the bank robber is showing
more integrity than the person you cited.
And no cognitive dissonance.
So is the trailer park fundy with
" then howcum theres still minkeys?"


Do you see why?

* as we say in HK

 

[Audie]

Eh


When you said "...you believe, things equivalent to a plane making billions of trips, dropping paint, ant it resulting in a painting of the Mona Lisa... or a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." if is a falsehood. I do not. Hence you are bearing false witness against me.

Basic creotactic- make things up.