61% Believe in Evolution

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by sandy, Jan 2, 2008.

  1. Neverfly Banned Banned

    What you think is not necessarily relevant to what it is.

    What "Code" is in Evolution that is well designed?

    Demonstrate the validity of your arguments and show:
    -Intelligence in evolutionary design
    -Creators touches
    -a lack of random factors or a structure or organization to evolution that denotes a designer

    You see, evolution is NOT a design. There is nothing designed about it.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    The process can create life and keeps making it better for its environment. Do you find that to be random or consistent within population evolution?

    First you can prove to me that anything is 'random' and then I will try to show to you if there are 'random' factors or not.

    'The code' is simply the laws that guide everything to make this possible. Can you create a process that creates life and keeps on improving it? I surely can't design a process that self-regenerates life as evolution has. It is the best system of laws (code) I've seen that has done this...

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Not quite.
    What I observe in evolution is that genetics are passed on by survivors.
    A green glob of goo would survive and Pass On Its Genes if nothing inhibited that.
    Since there ARE factors in the environment that inhibit procreation, only creatures that are ABLE to pass on genes survive.
    Environmental conditions can change drastically more quickly than evolutionary adaptation occurs since evolution demonstrates a random CHANCE that a creature will develop the genes that provide an advantage in survival. The Vast Majority of creatures that lack an adaptive trait will DIE AND GO EXTINCT while the few that DO happen to possess the surviving genes get to breed.
    Where is the intelligent design in that?.

    Additionally, bad genes are passed on if favorable genes create stronger breeding. A handsome man will pass on genetic diseases more readily than an ugly one.
    This is observed in nature. And with us, as our medical field seeks out ways to disable genetic defects, diseases and bad genes.

    AGAIN- You are Only demonstrating that You Do Not Understand Evolution.

    Please accept that you don't understand it and start LEARNING about it instead of throwing your misconceptions about it about.

    It's as if you don't understand Calculus and you're trying to demonstrate mathematical claims- You just cannot do it and expect your claims to hold any weight.

    This is a clear fallacy.
    I cannot Prove that things are random. I can provide strong evidence to the apparent randomness observed in nature. You can try to Prove that things are NOT random. Provide evidence that can be tested and observed of a Divine Being manipulating things and then making it appear as though it is random in some strange cosmic conspiracy.

    If what you said was true- explain why life itself HAS NOT IMPROVED in the last million years or so?
    It adapts to a given environment if the genetic sequences favor survival in that environment.
    If that environment Changes- that life DIES.
    End game. All done.

    You Do Not Understand Evolution. I'm TELLING you- You don't get it. Learn about it instead of making stuff up.
    What will it take for you to realize that? And you dare call other people closed minded? You refuse to recognize your own fallacies, claim others must carry Your Burden of Proof, throw out misconceptions about something you don't understand and then demand others prove you wrong.

    When are You going to Open YOUR eyes and YOUR mind?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    So do you know if the designer intended these things to survive or to be passed? Do you know the intentions of the designer? Please share...

    Really? I think you're working under assumptions about the designer, which you haven't proven yet or addressed- so If you working under assumptions means I don't understand evolution- so be it :shrug:

    Coincidentally I'm a biology major and I've taken the classes on Evolution already- I will re-register for them because I am talking to people who are working assumptions for which they haven't provided any proof- and that is used as an argument against me.

    So you agree there is no proof- okay so you can demonstrate things are 'random'- I can use the same things and demonstrate 'pseudo-randomness'- so now what?

    And why does it matter in the overall picture that life continues? Do you know what the designer intended? Did he intend everything to survive? Assumptions? I know....

    You're the only one making assumptions about the designer- but I'm making stuff up? Okay

    Well you're making assumptions about the designer, but I'm being closed minded? Aren't 'assumptions' 'restrictions' technically?

    When you justify your assumptions?

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. Neverfly Banned Banned

    No, I do not KNOW.

    What I observe is a LACK of any intelligent design.

    So, I cannot prove that a designer created it and did so in such a way as to make it strongly appear as though he had not...
    But my brain is not up to the task of rationalizing such a thing. It would land me in a straight jacket and padded room to try.

    What? Try that again, but this time, make sense.
    I have described and presented an accurate brief on Evolution to counter your claims.
    Simply claiming that I did not does not change that I did.

    You have put forth many misconceptions about evolution-- I recognize them as they are quite common-- and now you deny that you have.
    If you KNEW they were misconceptions, you wouldn't HAVE them, now would you?
    Nonetheless, you have them.

    You do not understand what Proof is, either.

    Proofs only exist in mathematics.
    I cannot PROVE that water is wet. I can only provide strong compelling evidence that it is.
    However, since I cannot prove that a mind controlling invisible butterlfy is not circling my head and feeding me false impressions of reality, I can never reach 100% certainty that water is wet.

    Meanwhile, you have failed to support, demonstrate, cite or uhh..."prove"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ANYTHING you have said.
    I provided you links and cites earlier to TalkOrigins- Not much, but a start-- You have not demonstrated having done any investigation at that site.

    How can you demonstrate that?

    AGAIN-- why would he design evolution to act in such a way as to DENY that he exists by its very behavior?

    Yes, I cannot PROVE that such did not happen. But the idea is too irrational to entertain.

    What are all these "assumptions" I am making?
    Spell them out clearly or retract that claim.

    By Spouting your misconceptions about evolution- showing clear Misunderstanding that you REFUSE to accept you have- You are making stuff up.

    Build a bridge and get over it.

    Stop making unsupported claims
    Spell out my assumptions clearly.
  9. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Any being who would design the horror that is evolution, which involves creatures competeing in a blood-sport like arena of life and death for survival, is sick. Espeacially concidering It could just produce life in situ.

    Only someone blood thirty would see THAT as beautiful. How "beutiful" is it to watch a lion rip the face off a baby human girl and ingest her peace by peace?!? THAT IS SICK!!!
  10. superstring01 Moderator

    That was my first thought!

  11. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Thanks for finally getting to the point.

    Your response entailed why there is no 'design'- And you cited some observations:

    And I quote:

    That is an assumption that the code was designed to not encompass extinction... That is why I asked you, did you know the intention of the designer?

    You stated:

    That is assuming that the process with randomness, excludes design- when it is quite possible that the randomness allows the life to evolve- an elemental part of the 'design'- what is the justification that the designer can not utilize a mechanism of randomness? If it achieves the purpose of what is intended... why not?

    The WHOLE thing could be a single design...

    Its practically Evolution + changed assumption.... But the changed assumption changes how you 'understand' it- from 'randomness' (as currently understood) to 'psuedo-randomness'- for example


    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Mar 20, 2010
  12. Neverfly Banned Banned

    In order to rationalize that the "Code" includes extinction, one must conclude that the designer Wanted to make it Appear as though he had No Intelligent Control over the events he set into motion.

    It is an assumption on your part to claim that ID includes factors of extinction.
    The Evidence Demonstrates that Extinction is a result of an inability to survive- which is a much simpler explanation than that a designer made it that way and also included the grand conspiracy to make it appear as though he had not.
    As you can see- this is an assumption on YOUR part and not mine. You must support Your Claims with Evidence.

    You are assuming that there IS design where none seems apparent nor applicable. The assumption is on you and it is your burden of proof. You must demonstrate that ID is probable and support your claims with evidence.
    The assumption is on you that apparent randomness is actually a design. You must support that assumption with evidence.

    The whole thing could have been designed by a Snot faced sneezing space monkey.
    Making bold assertions is easy.
    Can you prove it is not a snot faced space monkey?

    Support your claims with evidence as I have.
    These assumptions you list are ALL your assumptions about an Intelligent designer conspiring to hide his existence. Support that claim.

    Your claims, as I expected, that I made assumptions didn't hold water.

    My claims are based on clear observational evidence.

    Your claims support something you have presented no evidence for.

    Provide evidence or retract your claims as unsupportable.
  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Pseudo-randomness being observed as an emergent principle from the inherent properties of the natural system, from atoms on up.

    In which case any 'design' is incidental to nature, and not the other way around.
  14. Unimportant Registered Member

    It's not hard to understand.

    Do not generalize creationism as precluded due to evolution.

    Your ignorance is demonstrated well.

    The mainstream conception of the creator is quite primitive and it will remain primitive for eons in humanity future until a great change come about.

    There's so many misconceptions about the creator, and atheists base their conclusion off these misconceptions.

    The epitome of Good creator do not reign supreme and neither does an an evil creator reign supreme. The creator is omnipresent and simply exist as the universe, deprived of right wing/left wing discrepancies.

    I hate that "God" term. Pretty much correct.
  15. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    That is an assumption that there is no control- if the designer designed it a way then he controlled it to be this way-

    A simpler explanation- sure- but so what if your explanation is simpler? Are you working under the assumption that the simpler explanation is the only explanation to anything.

    I didn't make the assumption- I just let it be- I didn't say the designer included extinction- but I said he could have... you're the one making assumptions of what the design intended.

    And you're assuming there isn't.

    I don't support the ID movement. Lol. Note that I accept the evidence for Evolution.

    And you have to show that it isn't... or at least show that something is actually random and not pseudo-random

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I 100% agree... note I'm not trying to support any particular 'god'- was that another assumption?

    Might as well could have been. It could be anyone- a hooker even... but so what?

    I agree with all that evidence but not your interpretation of it that there is no 'design'- that is what you think.

    I didn't say he hid his existence I didn't say anything about him- all I said was that it can be understood this way.... I'm not debating the validity of evolution but the understanding of it- you guys can't seem to open your brains from the textbook Evolution even in a discussion-

    Anyone who can read should be able to see that you're making assumptions.

    No, its based upon that interpretation of evidence.

    I agree its Evolution + extra assumption of a existence of a designer.... I agree I haven't provided any proof- I never contended to have proof- but what I am saying is that Evolution can be understood in a different light with this extra assumption. Not to mention there is no evidence that what is labeled as 'random' in Evolution is not actually 'pseudo-randomness'-.

    I was offering a different understanding of Evolution- Evolution's proof is there, the only thing unproved is the 'designer'- and one thing not proved in evolution is randomness.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Mar 20, 2010
  16. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    But 'pseudo-randomness' is part of the design- Essentially if the whole nature (not just evolution) is designed then that design has some properties.. amongst those properties is 'pseudo-randomness'- potentially. So like I said WHOLE thing (as in the complete creation) is a single design- having certain properties which obviously would be part of that 'creation' that is designed. What 'pseudo-randomness' indicates is that everything is a result of something, through a directed process not just 'it happened'- that coherency can be attributed to nature or a designer... One would expect a directionless nature to basically be totally random- why aren't all the laws just random, why do they work together, and so on-- I can agree that this can be attributed to nature as inherent properties- but they also can be attributed to a designer-

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Mar 20, 2010
  17. Unimportant Registered Member


    Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in some form by a supernatural being or beings.


    Creationism means the belief that a creator created everything we see in reality. Creationism does not specifically require humanity to be considered creationism. If the creator created the universe, and the natural rhythms of the universe failed to create humanity, the creator creating the universe and some form of life is still considered creationism.
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Again: your own quote states "humanity". Now explain to me how you fail (still) to see it.
    The word Creationism has a specific meaning - if you're going to redefine it explain it.
  19. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    And this is based on what?

    And these misconceptions would be...?

  20. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Yes, it is hard to understand. Is English your second language?
    You're speaking gibberish.
    Explain how my analogy that demonstrated the problem with the logical fallacy and exposed the error in proposing absurdities as valid arguments demonstrates ignorance?
    Obviously, it doesn't. But since you couldn't think up a witty retort, you resorted to an ad hom attack instead.
    Provide Evidence to support this claimed knowledge of yours, enlightened one.

    Or are you just inventing crap off the top of your head?
    Complete hogwash.

    You're saying that the designer designed the system to make it look like he didn't.
    That's absurd.

    No. Occams razor.
    It is not the assumption it can be the Only explanation. However, your explanation is an effort in conspiracy theorist absurdity to highly irrational levels.

    Prove that Puff the Magic Dragon didn't swallow bubble gum and flame fart the Universe.

    Devling into absurdities that cannot be disproved is ridiculous. This is why you must supply:
    Support your claim with evidence. Stop obfuscating and start backing up your rhetoric.

    Quit Beating Around the bush.
    Do you think all this backpeddling makes you look witty and smart?
    Sure, he could have created the Universe and then made it Look as though he didn't. That notion is still absurd. Since you continue to backpeddle, I'll make an assumption for you.
    Considering that you continue to put forth these possibilities without taking on the responsibility to support them -- I will assume that your claims are yours and your backpeddling is you trying to worm out of providing EVIDENCE!

    No, it is quite apparent that there isn't. If you have reason to show that there IS, then provide the evidence.

    I do not believe you. In two threads you have strongly pushed the possibility while spewing misconceptions about Evolution left and right.
    Everytime you are asked to support your claims, you backpeddle out and try to say you never made the claim.

    If you do not support ID and do find Evolution as the most accurate model, you have no reason to behave in this manner.

    Your posts are chock full of fallacies and backpeddling. I have no reason to trust your word.

    No, I do not. I cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on YOU to show that there IS something where there is quite apparently is nothing.
    The accepted model is that Evolution is not intelligently designed. The evidence for it is overwhelming. For you to oppose that evidence puts the burden of proof on your shoulders.
    Your posts strongly push the idea of an intelligent designer or creator.
    I did not say God in what you replied to. Was that your assumption? Stop Obfuscating and start providing evidence for your claims.

    You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
    All of the evidence makes it clear that there is no intelligent design within Evolution.
    You Want to believe there is doesn't allow you some other "Alternative interpretation" just to have your cake and eat it too.

    You're also admitting to lying.

    You stated above that you do not Support ID and that you support Evolution. Clearly, that must have been a lie since you now state you think that Evolution is DESIGNED. Good thing I didn't fall for your lie.
    If YOU think what is clearly not designed is designed and made to look as though it wasn't- You must provide Evidence that such is the case.
    Show me where Evolution was designed in such a fashion.

    Obviosuly you do not understand Evolution.
    In order for evolution to have been designed- it's REQUIRED that the designer went to great pains to hide his design and existence.
    If you actually understood evolution, you would be well aware of this.
    Since you have lied once, I have no reason to believe any of your other claims about being a biology major or that you have been taught evolution theory.
    This is not an innocent discussion.
    You are Promoting Intelligent Design.

    Since you have already admitted such, in spite of lying about it earlier, no one has any reason to believe your evidence avoiding backpeddling.

    Provide Support and Evidence for your claims that evolution is intelligently designed.

    No. The evidence is quite clear. My claims are based upon a High Probability. You say it's possible that it was designed that way- therefor YOU must show that it WAS.
    Do so.

    The fancy footworking and irrationality involved in justifying such absurdities make it more damaging to someones sanity to try your claimed interpretation.
    Just because someone COULD claim what you have claimed doesn't mean it bears any validity whatsoever.

    It's Possible that the Space Monkey or Puff the Magic Dragon did it.
    Without any kind of evidence and with the necessity of wild conspiracies and nonsensical justifications, such speculations would drive a person mad.

    It's unproved whether I'm here on the computer typing to you or if I'm actually in a padded room imagining all this.
    It's unproved if I live in the Matrix.
    It's unrpoved if the Space Monkey Or puff the magic Dragon did it. OR a trillion other concepts we could invent off the top of our heads.
    So what?

    To entertain such notions is an absurdity and it is for THIS reason that one must go by the evidence and not by wild speculations.
    Sure, a person could justify evolution and a designer as you describe- but he'd be a total fruitcake.
  21. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    I could have responded to everything but in the end I think this is the only important part....

    So you agree that it is a way to combine the idea of evolution and a designer- the fact you think he'd be a fruitcake is your opinion.

    I don't need to show anything else.... The fact is that Evolution can be understood in ways differently if one makes an extra assumption- you would not agree with the assumption because of Occam's Razor... while others would argue that this rule may not reflect reality (obviously you would argue the opposite)....

    I just wanted to tell you that a theist can be compatible with Evolution- they are not mutually exclusive- unlike what you would have it be. If someone already believes in some God, he can also believe in Evolution and there will not be a contradiction..

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Not at all.

    Even if one goes as you suggest, they are still removing their Deity Far into the background- or making him seem pretty insane as a deity.
    It would be very counterproductive to their concept of their deity- and this is why fundamentalists froth at the mouth over evolution instead of merging it with their religion.
  23. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Your opinion.

    I'm enjoying your qualifications of 'insane' and others.

    That's their choice.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page