Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#72673 Jan 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it's only "self-evident" to biased observers. Otherwise you'd be able to demonstrate your "self-evident" claims in an objective manner via the scientific method.
You can't.
That doesn't necessarily mean you're incorrect. It only means you're bullshitting everyone when you claim it's "self-evident".
But we all know how fundies do love to ignore the 9th Commandment.
So if you found ...lets say an alien computer on mars....you would assume that it was a natural phenomena because there was no aliens around? Your argument would be that it is a natural phenomena based on lack of evidence of aliens who built it. Complexity of design makes it self evident.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#72674 Jan 27, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Good!
Now tell me what brought about the particle?
Or simply, how did the particle came? What brought it?
There was no cause. The reason being there is no particular event that precedes it to cause the phenomena. This is normal in quantum physics, though it is counter-intuitive. But there's no violation of energy conservation laws as the positive particle is counter-balanced by the negative. So far all scientific research demonstrates quantum physics to be correct.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#72675 Jan 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
people in asia wopship buddha as a god every day. Along with other buddhist deities.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#72676 Jan 27, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I am using logic. If cats and other mammals can give birth or create their kind, they must definitely have a creator( the Genesis).
Ah, abiogenesis. That doesn't necessarily mean that Goddidit.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#72677 Jan 27, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Sound like the bird.
Evolution like i said actually means change or metamorphosis, but evolution from non-human to human, is a farce...
On the contrary, I've demonstrated it. You have not addressed it. It stands until you do.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#72678 Jan 27, 2013
correction...worship.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#72679 Jan 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no cause. The reason being there is no particular event that precedes it to cause the phenomena. This is normal in quantum physics, though it is counter-intuitive. But there's no violation of energy conservation laws as the positive particle is counter-balanced by the negative. So far all scientific research demonstrates quantum physics to be correct.
in other words it's done with magic.
altered state

Kansas City, MO

#72680 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, another of your perversions brought to light. So clothing is a sexual thing to you as well? Is there anything that you don't find sexual? I worry about the people around you now.
We just seen evolution at a stand still. Thanks Kit! Lets pray there is a God!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#72681 Jan 27, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
So if you found ...lets say an alien computer on mars....you would assume that it was a natural phenomena because there was no aliens around? Your argument would be that it is a natural phenomena based on lack of evidence of aliens who built it.
No, if we found a computer on Mars that would be evidence that someone built it and put it there. Your design analogy fails as computers are not naturally occurring self-replicating organisms.
xxxooxxx wrote:
Complexity of design makes it self evident.
"Design" is assumed. How exactly is "complexity" measured in your examples? I can quite easily provide you with examples of EXTREME complexity, made PURELY by natural forces. Of course you could demonstrate me wrong by providing evidence of the mechanisms used by your intelligent agent responsible for them.

Complexity alone does not necessarily indicate intelligence. And in fact may be the opposite of what you require. A designer wants things to be simple, easy to create, easy to repair. Complexity is a barrier to that.

Here's another reason why you're wrong. Someone has written "Hello there!" in the sand. The symbols involved are actually very simple. They were designed that way so they would be easy for people to remember when learning the language. Yet it's not likely that a combination of wind, rain and water would be able to make those shapes in the sand. But it's very easy for someone to just grab a stick and write it.

Nearby we can see some pretty repeating criss-cross shapes made in the sand. One might even describe them as more complex shapes than "Hello there!" Made by crabs, an unintended side-effect of the way they walk. But again easy for someone to imitate by just using a stick. However while we know that natural forces are incapable of creating one, we know that they are capable of creating the other.

It's not the alleged "complexity" of something that's important, but the mechanisms used to create those phenomena, and what they are capable of.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#72682 Jan 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And here I thought Bill Gates was an atheist.
Bill is an outspoken atheist. Steve was an agnostic deist. Funny that, huh?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#72683 Jan 27, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
people in asia wopship buddha as a god every day. Along with other buddhist deities.
Like I said, some sects may do that, but it's not the standard view of Buddha.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#72684 Jan 27, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
in other words it's done with magic.
Nope. Simply a natural occurrence. However it may seem like magic to the incredulous.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#72685 Jan 27, 2013
altered state wrote:
<quoted text>We just seen evolution at a stand still. Thanks Kit! Lets pray there is a God!
Yep, Nano could be a case against natural evolution. lol

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#72686 Jan 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, if we found a computer on Mars that would be evidence that someone built it and put it there. Your design analogy fails as computers are not naturally occurring self-replicating organisms.
<quoted text>
"Design" is assumed. How exactly is "complexity" measured in your examples? I can quite easily provide you with examples of EXTREME complexity, made PURELY by natural forces. Of course you could demonstrate me wrong by providing evidence of the mechanisms used by your intelligent agent responsible for them.
Complexity alone does not necessarily indicate intelligence. And in fact may be the opposite of what you require. A designer wants things to be simple, easy to create, easy to repair. Complexity is a barrier to that.
Here's another reason why you're wrong. Someone has written "Hello there!" in the sand. The symbols involved are actually very simple. They were designed that way so they would be easy for people to remember when learning the language. Yet it's not likely that a combination of wind, rain and water would be able to make those shapes in the sand. But it's very easy for someone to just grab a stick and write it.
Nearby we can see some pretty repeating criss-cross shapes made in the sand. One might even describe them as more complex shapes than "Hello there!" Made by crabs, an unintended side-effect of the way they walk. But again easy for someone to imitate by just using a stick. However while we know that natural forces are incapable of creating one, we know that they are capable of creating the other.
It's not the alleged "complexity" of something that's important, but the mechanisms used to create those phenomena, and what they are capable of.


"if we found a computer on Mars that would be evidence that someone built it and put it there. Your design analogy fails as computers are not naturally occurring self-replicating organisms."

actually computers are being developed right now with organic materials which support that idea.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#72687 Jan 27, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
"if we found a computer on Mars that would be evidence that someone built it and put it there. Your design analogy fails as computers are not naturally occurring self-replicating organisms."
actually computers are being developed right now with organic materials which support that idea.
Organic materials is very ambiguous. There are a lot of organic materials in rocks, do you think that rocks are alive?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#72688 Jan 27, 2013

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#72689 Jan 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, some sects may do that, but it's not the standard view of Buddha.
It's mainstream Asian practice.
Nihilus Arterius

Akron, OH

#72690 Jan 27, 2013
Evolution and Creation are both right in my opinion. Through science we can see how God did it.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#72691 Jan 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>It has confirmed places and some of the people, nothing to date has confirmed any of the supernatural crap in it. Until you have evidence to support that, it's all garbage, not different than a comic book or movie.
I have lots of evidence it's called " The Bible".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#72692 Jan 27, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
"if we found a computer on Mars that would be evidence that someone built it and put it there. Your design analogy fails as computers are not naturally occurring self-replicating organisms."
actually computers are being developed right now with organic materials which support that idea.
Except they don't. The argument is simply this: If a human plants a seed in a plant pot then quite obviously all plants on Earth required an intelligence to plant them. This is despite the fact that plants have no trouble reproducing without us. And most plants are not intelligent.

"Humans make computers therefore someone made humans!" is pure argument via analogy. Unfortunately for creationists they don't rely on analogies to merely help EXPLAIN evidence (which is what analogies are for), they use them IN PLACE of evidence. Which is why they can never provide a single piece of direct evidence of their god's/intelligent designer's mechanisms, or even existence.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 6 min Sublime1 20,228
What Could Be Sweet,...? 7 min SUG here 15
What's your tip for the day? 10 min SLY WEST 1,054
I Like..... (Mar '14) 10 min Taubman 310
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 11 min dragoon70056 1,978
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 35 min CJ Rocker 147,097
Simple things that make you happy, smile, ... etc. (Feb '12) 40 min Debra27 4,991
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 2 hr Fred Bear 5,604
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••