Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Robert.Evans]

How can the laws of probability come from luck, if luck is defined in terms of them?

They can only come from an intelligence, then. Ergo, you proved God. Congrats

Or, more plausibly, your dichotomy is not correct.

Ciao

- viole

Haha... they do say that the laws have to exist to create the universe - it does beg the questions, where and how?

 

[Robert.Evans]

How can the laws of probability come from luck, if luck is defined in terms of them?

They can only come from an intelligence, then. Ergo, you proved God. Congrats

Or, more plausibly, your dichotomy is not correct.

Ciao

- viole

People always say that the intelligence/luck dichotomy is not correct. So tell me what is the third, fourth answer, or what is wrong withthat. I look at from simple terms, right from the beginning. Is there a mind or not? If not, then luck. Whatever process comes up to steer everything else, must be by luck

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The law of probability is from logic and reality? So leaving aside logic for now, where does this reality you speak come from? Intelligence or luck - ultimately I mean.

Why can it not be both? If intelligence is not involved, it is one massive stroke of convenient luck wrapped up in a big bow of nonsense.

And I don't know if he knows what he's talking about or not, but he does bring up some interesting points, which people seem to ignore.

It is currently unknown. Why is it that 1+1 always equal 2? God? Not god?

The evidence points to where it points.

No he doesn't. I just don't have the energy to continue to tell him why he is wrong for the 12th time.

Perhaps he doesn't feel that they are really answered. Just a thought. I don't see how inanimate matter, energy, atoms, whatever you want to call it, can bring about what we see through, ultimately, luck, blind chance, randomness, which somehow has to have some form of AI there (processes) to make it all work, all of which have ALSO to be from luck because ULTIMATELY some say there is no intelligence invovled. I never see anyone answer that. I think evolution is held part in faith as ID is.

If he doesn't understand my explanations by now there is no way that I can convey it to him in the English language.

Where is the evidence for ID? It would take years and years of study to even go over all of the evidence we have for evolution. There is a tremendous amount of it. Where is the evidence for ID? "It looks designed" isn't evidence. I could just as easily say "It looks like its actually all a hologram" and boom. Same effect.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Evolution doesn't claim that a single cell "morphed" into a human being accidently or any other way. So, I'm not sure what you are getting at.

The assertion that the design of a single celled organism morphed into that of a human, through millions of significant, but purely accidental improvements..

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is currently unknown. Why is it that 1+1 always equal 2? God? Not god?

The evidence points to where it points.

No he doesn't. I just don't have the energy to continue to tell him why he is wrong for the 12th time.

If he doesn't understand my explanations by now there is no way that I can convey it to him in the English language.

Where is the evidence for ID? It would take years and years of study to even go over all of the evidence we have for evolution. There is a tremendous amount of it. Where is the evidence for ID? "It looks designed" isn't evidence. I could just as easily say "It looks like its actually all a hologram" and boom. Same effect.

We established that evolution is not directly measureable, testable, observable, i.e. that it is not ascertainable by traditional scientific principles, in contrast with e.g. the distance to the moon which can be directly measured, observed tested.

That's why nobody debates the distance to the moon, but most people doubt evolution, the evidence is indirect and not particularly convincing as yet.

 

[leibowde84]

The assertion that the design of a single celled organism morphed into that of a human, through millions of significant, but purely accidental improvements..

through trillions of beneficial, detrimental, and neutral mutations over billions of years guided by natural selection, yes. I don't get why that is so far fetched.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

through trillions of beneficial, detrimental, and neutral mutations over billions of years guided by natural selection, yes. I don't get why that is so far fetched. .

Because that is a common misconception- natural selection cannot guide a random mutation towards being a significant improvement. The mutation dictates what natural selection has to choose from, not the other way around

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Perhaps he doesn't feel that they are really answered. Just a thought. I don't see how inanimate matter, energy, atoms, whatever you want to call it, can bring about what we see through, ultimately, luck, blind chance, randomness, which somehow has to have some form of AI there (processes) to make it all work, all of which have ALSO to be from luck because ULTIMATELY some say there is no intelligence invovled. I never see anyone answer that. I think evolution is held part in faith as ID is.

That used to be the assertion for classical physics, that a couple of simple laws, time and luck produced all the wonders of physical reality for no particular reason.

Only the 'ignorant masses' believed that there must be a deeper guiding force, dictating exactly how matter organizes itself towards the specific functional results we see.

They were absolutely correct and for the right reason: Entropy, without instructions to follow, all matter would collapse, so too with life. the simple laws of random mutation and natural selection- do not spontaneously produce a sentient being- no more than the simple laws of classic physics create great fusion reactors and elements specific to life.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It is currently unknown. Why is it that 1+1 always equal 2? God? Not god?

The evidence points to where it points.

No he doesn't. I just don't have the energy to continue to tell him why he is wrong for the 12th time.

If he doesn't understand my explanations by now there is no way that I can convey it to him in the English language.

Where is the evidence for ID? It would take years and years of study to even go over all of the evidence we have for evolution. There is a tremendous amount of it. Where is the evidence for ID? "It looks designed" isn't evidence. I could just as easily say "It looks like its actually all a hologram" and boom. Same effect.

I believe evolution is correct, but it cannot be dismissed so lightly, that things look designed, and usually, there is good reason for such obversations. Usually we accept it as evidence. Can we really say it was because of some natural forces which accidentally arose in order to shape other randomness?

 

[Robert.Evans]

That used to be the assertion for classical physics, that a couple of simple laws, time and luck produced all the wonders of physical reality for no particular reason.

Only the 'ignorant masses' believed that there must be a deeper guiding force, dictating exactly how matter organizes itself towards the specific functional results we see.

They were absolutely correct and for the right reason: Entropy, without instructions to follow, all matter would collapse, so too with life. the simple laws of random mutation and natural selection- do not spontaneously produce a sentient being- no more than the simple laws of classic physics create great fusion reactors and elements specific to life.

It is an interesting point pointed out by someone, that laws don't create anything. Yet that is usually what is proposed.

Let me ask you a question that I get no real answer to. Two have said they have answered it, but I have seen no such answer. When I ask: Is everything created through intelligence or luck; people say it is false dichotomy. Do you know of a third or forth, or why that is wrong? I don't. Even processes must be by luck if no intelligence is involved. Is that not right?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is an interesting point pointed out by someone, that laws don't create anything. Yet that is usually what is proposed.

Let me ask you a question that I get no real answer to. Two have said they have answered it, but I have seen no such answer. When I ask: Is everything created through intelligence or luck; people say it is false dichotomy. Do you know of a third or forth, or why that is wrong? I don't. Even processes must be by luck if no intelligence is involved. Is that not right?

Of course, but putting both out on the same playing field is hardly a competitive match!

Atheist theories like multiverse, M theory etc, must assume an absence of God, in order for chance to be allowed to operate without interference.

But the same does not apply in reverse, flying spaghetti multiverse or not, ID is still the more probable explanation for a universe like ours.

i.e. theists are quite happy to allow the dichotomy, because there is an obvious winner when both are allowed to compete on their own merits.

 

[leibowde84]

Because that is a common misconception- natural selection cannot guide a random mutation towards being a significant improvement. The mutation dictates what natural selection has to choose from, not the other way around

I did not claim that natural selection "guided specific mutations". I was merely pointing out that the guiding force behind random mutations causing beneficial changes in species over vast amounts of time is natural selection. Basically, natural selection is the term that describes how beneficial mutations, generally, make it easier for organisms to reproduce. Obviously, it is a natural and, thus, imperfect process. And, it only is applicable when vast amounts of time are involved.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Of course, but putting both out on the same playing field is hardly a competitive match!

Atheist theories like multiverse, M theory etc, must assume an absence of God, in order for chance to be allowed to operate without interference.

But the same does not apply in reverse, flying spaghetti multiverse or not, ID is still the more probable explanation for a universe like ours.

i.e. theists are quite happy to allow the dichotomy, because there is an obvious winner when both are allowed to compete on their own merits.

But even a multiverse without intelligence (an absence of God) must come abou tthrough luck ultimately, mustn't it?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I did not claim that natural selection "guided specific mutations". I was merely pointing out that the guiding force behind random mutations causing beneficial changes in species over vast amounts of time is natural selection. Basically, natural selection is the term that describes how beneficial mutations, generally, make it easier for organisms to reproduce. Obviously, it is a natural and, thus, imperfect process. And, it only is applicable when vast amounts of time are involved.

So what is this "natural selection" that does this? What is this "natural" that you speak of?

 

[leibowde84]

So what is this "natural selection" that does this? What is this "natural" that you speak of?

"Natural Selection" is the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.

 

[Robert.Evans]

"Natural Selection" is the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.

Yes, but you distinctly called it "natural". If I had said it was God or supernatural, you might well ask what is it, where is it, where does it reside, how did it form, what made it etc. So, you say it is natural and I want to know what this natural is. Do you understand?

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, but you distinctly called it "natural". If I had said it was God or supernatural, you might well ask what is it, where is it, where does it reside, how did it form, what made it etc. So, you say it is natural and I want to know what this natural is. Do you understand?

I don't think I understand what you are asking. It is "natural" because it exists in nature on it's own, or is "natural". But, I don't think that is what you are asking. Can you clarify?

 

[Shad]

Can we verify a single cell accidentally morphing into a human being? Conjecture is all we have either way at this point

Considering no one proposes this you setup a strawman to knock down. Congratulations.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

the guiding force behind random mutations causing beneficial changes in species over vast amounts of time is natural selection

Again the misconception created by stating it this way, is that natural selection is somehow capable of guiding the significant beneficial changes themselves, of somehow helping overcome the odds against such a remarkable fluke

But the significantly beneficial changes must all happen before they can be naturally selected as such- by pure chance as evolutionists would have it.

Natural selection goes without saying, it's the process by which the Mustang outlived the Pinto, obviously if you have a significantly superior design, it will outperform it's competitors- nobody debates this

Creating the superior designs by sheer fluke is the tricky part, make any random change in a 747, and the chances of screwing it up entirely, is always vastly higher than the odds of accidentally creating a significantly improved aircraft, this tendency increases the more highly evolved the design.

By these simple laws, nature selects the fittest yes- aka the least unfit, the least damaged version of it's predecessor. That random changes would somehow inherently favor increasingly superior designs for nature to select from is a fallacy.

 

[Shad]

Again the misconception created by stating it this way, is that natural selection is somehow capable of guiding the significant beneficial changes themselves, of somehow helping overcome the odds against such a remarkable fluke

But the significantly beneficial changes must all happen before they can be naturally selected as such- by pure chance as evolutionists would have it.

Natural selection goes without saying, it's the process by which the Mustang outlived the Pinto, obviously if you have a significantly superior design, it will outperform it's competitors- nobody debates this

Creating the superior designs by sheer fluke is the tricky part, make any random change in a 747, and the chances of screwing it up entirely, is always vastly higher than the odds of accidentally creating a significantly improved aircraft, this tendency increases the more highly evolved the design.

By these simple laws, nature selects the fittest yes- aka the least unfit, the least damaged version of it's predecessor. That random changes would somehow inherently favor increasingly superior designs for nature to select from is a fallacy.

Hilarious 747 gambit which is nothing more than the watchmaker fallacy redressed. If using Dawkins form it is a horrible argument as Dawkins in a biologists...