It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolutionist I can prove to you that what you believe (evolution) is based on illogical reasoning, i

page: 30
26
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by indigothefish
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


i think he/she is speaking of inanimate objects with the complexity of living things, like computers and robots...
edit on 1/3/2011 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)


Complexity is in the eye of the beholder. A tree is no more complex than a computer, and vice versa if you look at the cells. Either way, he's trying to fill a gap in knowledge (since he doesn't have evidence to support his claim) with a mythical creature...it's the typical god of the gaps trap he's falling for


MrXYZ - do you know evolution's typical 'gods of gaps'? Or should I say its 'magic wand'?

These two 'gods of gaps' are always used whenever evolution can't explain somethin.

Any idea?

BTW - can you please explain how or why "A tree is no more complex than a computer"?



ciao,
edmc2





How is evolution in any way related to the god of the gaps concept?


The tree was just an example. Complexity is a subjective attribute, so you can't use complexity to rationalize your belief in god.

Example:

If you showed DaVinci, who was a great inventor for his time, the plans for the large Hadron collider...well, I'm pretty sure he'd call those plans "complex" as well, possibly even magic. Which is exactly what you're doing when you argue that complexity is a sign for god's existence. It's complete hogwash...
edit on 3-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


That would require inanimate objects like stones to require a creator as you claim...we know they don't..so your whole argument is seriously flawed. You just CLAIM inanimate objects require a creator, but that's demonstrably WRONG.


You missed my point MrXYZ- that is, intelligence.




ciao,
edmc2


So now you're claiming intelligence (or what you perceive as intelligence) is evidence for a creator? That's completely irrational!!



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Why is this wrong? Why is your quiz pointless?
Because you don't offer the choice of natural AND created.

All the images on the right were human creations that very poorly mimick nature.


Point of the test is logic.

Please tell me if a pencil requires a maker - that is, to put together its components - why is the universe doesn't require one? Please explain logically.

ciao,
edmc2


Surely the pencil needs the evolution of man to create it?

He couldnt make a pencil 2000 years ago but now he can = evolution

Thats logic.

Regards S_G



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Comparing a pencil to the universe is null.. One is man made, the other occurs in nature. There is no "universe factory" that pumps out new universe on a conveyor belt. The universe does not need a "builder", just as other natural processes need no assembly.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Seed76
 


Thanks Seed76 for providing the link:

As for the accuracy of the summary of Prof Dawkins' book. Of course it's accurate:

Here are quotes on pages 15 and 16: (I'd like to quote more - but mods will not allow it)


...Processes analogous to these must have given rise to the ‘primeval soup’ which biologists and chemists believe constituted the seas [15] some three to four thousand million years ago. The organic substances became locally concentrated, perhaps in drying scum round the shores, or in tiny suspended droplets. Under the further influence of energy such as ultraviolet light from the sun, they combined into larger molecules. Nowadays large organic molecules would not last long enough to be noticed: they would be quickly absorbed and broken down by bacteria or other living creatures. But bacteria and the rest of us are latecomers, and in those days large organic molecules could drift unmolested through the thickening broth.

At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not necessarily have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself. This may seem a very unlikely sort of accident to happen. So it was. It was exceedingly improbable. In the lifetime of a man, things that are that improbable can be treated for practical purposes as impossible. That is why you will never win a big prize on the football pools. But in our human estimates of what is probable and what is not, we are not used to dealing in hundreds of millions of years. If you filled in pools coupons every week for a hundred million years you would very likely win several jackpots.

Actually a molecule that makes copies of itself is not as difficult to imagine as it seems at first, and it only had to arise once. Think of the replicator as a mould or template. Imagine it as a large molecule consisting of a complex chain of various sorts of building block molecules. The small building blocks were abundantly available in the soup surrounding the replicator. Now suppose that each building block has an affinity for its own kind. Then whenever a building block from out in the soup lands up next to a part of the replicator for which it has an affinity, it will tend to stick there. The building blocks that attach themselves in this way will automatically be arranged in a sequence that mimics that of the replicator itself. It is easy then to think of them joining up to form a stable chain just as in the formation of the original replicator. This process could continue as a progressive stacking up, layer upon layer. This is how crystals are formed. On the other hand, the two chains might split apart, in which case we have two replicators, each of which can go on to make further copies.

A more complex possibility is that each building block has affinity not for its own kind, but reciprocally for one particular other kind.


(Note:Bold mine)

You can read the entire book but the summary will still be the same.


MrXYZ - can you spot the magic wand?

How confident are you with this statement:


The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition, nobody was around to see what happened. There are a number of rival theories, but they all have certain features in common.


Yet...


The simplified account I shall give is probably not too far from the truth.(1)


Will it require a strong 'faith' to believe the above words?

ciao,
edmc2



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syyth007
Comparing a pencil to the universe is null.. One is man made, the other occurs in nature. There is no "universe factory" that pumps out new universe on a conveyor belt. The universe does not need a "builder", just as other natural processes need no assembly.


Simple question:

If man-made objects require rules to design, build and function properly does the universe require rules / laws to function properly?

thanks,
edmc2



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


First of all, what does the origin of life have to do with the theory of evolution? It makes no statements regarding the origins of life.

Also, when you are quoting Dawkins...what's your point? He's saying his theory might not be that far off, but that it's obviously not a certainty. Again, he's talking about the origins of life, and NOT evolution...



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Syyth007
Comparing a pencil to the universe is null.. One is man made, the other occurs in nature. There is no "universe factory" that pumps out new universe on a conveyor belt. The universe does not need a "builder", just as other natural processes need no assembly.


Simple question:

If man-made objects require rules to design, build and function properly does the universe require rules / laws to function properly?

thanks,
edmc2


We know of plenty of laws that govern the universe and there's a whole scientific department called "astrophysics" that concerns itself with nothing else


Of course those laws do in no way work as evidence to prove the existence of a creator...
edit on 3-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Your intent appears to be to minimize god's power...by claiming he couldn't have made life to evolve and change..
While sane believers understand that God can do anything..thus evolution is a remarkably slick process he invented! Please stop trying to minimize God's abilities.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by nivekronnoco
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Your intent appears to be to minimize god's power...by claiming he couldn't have made life to evolve and change..
While sane believers understand that God can do anything..thus evolution is a remarkably slick process he invented! Please stop trying to minimize God's abilities.


On the contrary nivek - evolution or to be precise - organic evolution - minimizes God's power and Almightyness for it portrays him as incapable of producing / creating perfect beings. Just imagine all the deaths that has/had to occur in order for life to be as it is. If God's intent for creating/improving life was through 'organic evolution' then as a believer of a Creator (which I think you are) - how do you reconcile these words of Jesus the son of God?

"In reply he said: “Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female.” – Matthew 19:4

Confirming these statements:

“And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” – Gen 1:27

Are these statements elevate God as the Creator or do they disprove 'evolution'?

ciao,
edmc2



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Of course those laws do in no way work as evidence to prove the existence of a creator...


Of course they do. Here's a simple logic for you.

Does law require a lawgiver?

Or

Does a law require a law maker?

In other words - can a law / rules exist apart from a law maker / law giver?

If no - then please explain sciectifically and logically of course.

ciao,
edmc2



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by nivekronnoco
 


While that is a hell of a lot better than creationist ideology, I would hope you understand that your position is both unprovable and unscientific. Now, I'm not saying you don't have a right to hold it, but you in no way have a right to claim it as anything more than a personal religious belief.

I respect everyone's right to believe what they want, though I don't think anyone has a right to have their position go unchallenged.
edit on 3/1/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


As I've told you and others in the past, it'll take a lot more than a religious text to falsify evolution. Hell, I even opened an entire thread (link in my signature) to allow people to attempt to falsify evolution. So far, no dice.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Of course those laws do in no way work as evidence to prove the existence of a creator...


Of course they do. Here's a simple logic for you.

Does law require a lawgiver?

Or

Does a law require a law maker?


False analogy. Just because we use the same word for a 'legal' law and a 'natural' law doesn't mean that they're the same sort of thing.




In other words - can a law / rules exist apart from a law maker / law giver?

If no - then please explain sciectifically and logically of course.


This whole thing is the same sort oozyism, athe rest his banned account, was peddling for a while. MrXYZ and I and others have repeatedly stated that the 'laws' of nature and the 'laws' of the court are entirely different.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


First of all, what does the origin of life have to do with the theory of evolution? It makes no statements regarding the origins of life.

Also, when you are quoting Dawkins...what's your point? He's saying his theory might not be that far off, but that it's obviously not a certainty. Again, he's talking about the origins of life, and NOT evolution...


May I suggest, read the book first.

Note the very first page as shown the screen cap below:




To quote a part:


This book should be read, can be read, by almost everyone. It describes with great skill a new face of the theory of evolution


note: bold/underlines mine

Do you disagree with the quote above?

ciao,
edmc2

btw - did you happen to spot the 'magic wand' or the 'gods of gaps' in evolution theory?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


What? Legal law and laws of nature? I didn't even mention legal laws. But since you've mentioned it - can legal laws exist apart from a body of lawmaker? logic says of course not - there's always a lawmaker behind a law. Agree?

So back to my question - per physics - can the laws of the universe exist on it's own? That is NO lawmaker?

If yes, can you please explain how and ...?

ciao,
edmc2

ps - no idea who this oozy your talking about - besides even a fourth grader knows that laws require a lawmaker of else mom and dad are invalid.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Of course those laws do in no way work as evidence to prove the existence of a creator...


Of course they do. Here's a simple logic for you.

Does law require a lawgiver?

Or

Does a law require a law maker?

In other words - can a law / rules exist apart from a law maker / law giver?

If no - then please explain sciectifically and logically of course.

ciao,
edmc2



You are confusing man made laws with natural laws for a start. The mere comparison is beyond laughable!

You can't just argue that because there's man made laws, all natural laws require a creator too. If that's the "logic" you're trying to argue, then I'm sorry to burst your bubble, I don't think what scientific evidence is.

Prove to me that a creator is involved in gravity or any other natural law! Real proof showing the involvement of a creator, not some philosophical mumbojumbo that is in no way, shape, or form scientific evidence.

As to our current scientific knowledge, we have to assume laws can obviously exist without a creator (as Hawkins has correctly stated) because we have ZERO (nada...zip...zilch) evidence that a creator is involved in natural laws and ZERO evidence for his/her/its existence anyway.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Yes, argue your point with a single quote one scientist made 35 years ago


Do we really have to start arguing about the definition of evolution again when you can just google it? I know you'd love to group abiogenesis with evolution in your hilarious to then state "oh look, they're unsure about abiogenesis, that means they're unsure about evolution too". In reality, those are 2 different fields where evolution is the one comparable to gravity, circuitry theory, thermodynamics, the fact that the earth rotates around the sun, and other theories...while abiogenesis is still largely based on different hypotheses that are still being tested.

Look, the earth turns around the sun because we have actually observed it...just like we've observed speciation and have a ton of DNA/fossil evidence to back up the theory...to the extent where only religious brainwashed pseudo-scientists try to argue against it because they fear for their little fantasy world.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by ELahrairah
 


Hey Elahrairah, - thanks for the post - interesting video.


'Just curious - in your own understanding, can you please explain how fish scales 'evolved' into shells - as in crab shells? Logically of course to stay on topic.

In other words - what would it take to convert (evolve) a fish structure into a crab structure?

ciao,
edmc2





I was only using the crab example as a water dwelling crustacean that took to land. Fish do not descend from
Crabs or any Arthropod they are on a completely separate branch of the tree of life. I only used fish amphibians and crabs to illustrate different water dwelling species that have taken to land. Oddly enough fish are more closely related to star fish and other echinoderms like sea urchins then they are to crustaceans like crabs and lobsters.
I know all these things because when I was younger I wanted to be A marine biologist so I read many books on ocean life. For the fields of biology botany and zoology the theory of evolution is indispensable in explaining that world. I believe in evolution because it simply works in the field of biology. I am not interested in evolution in order to claim that I am an atheist. I had simply taken an interest in science from a young age and learned how
science works in things. I guess you could say I was a real bookworm. Evolution has helped me understand the natural world that the human species shares this earth with. I'm sure that any one else who is a naturalist biologist or zoologist would agree that evolution is an essential key to understanding their field of study it simply works.


Here is another marine biology factoid jelly fish and coral are closely related.
cheers



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
OP, how then do you explain.... the origin of feces?


Is it man made or does god play a role in every dump I take?

Do you feel the power of god's creation every time you drop a brown bomb??


I'm guessing you've never seen a cell divide under a microscope?
edit on 3-1-2011 by RestingInPieces because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join