Debunk evolution once and for all

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
I'm talking about Universal + Biological evolution, I believe non is random, it is absurd to claim it is random because it has been proven that nothing in this universe is random.



The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" thus:
Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard.

Wikipedia

The theory of evolution includes many reasons for some species flourishing and others not; nowhere is it ever suggested that anything about it is random. That doesn't mean there is a guiding hand. Just that the fastest rabbits outran their predators and passed on their genes to the next generation leading to more faster rabbits.

[edit on 8/24/2010 by eNumbra]




posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Thanks for the clarification. I have seen this used a lot in creation/evolution or god/no god debates. To me it circumvents the argument. I feel we are better than this then equating god with such ridiculous concepts, such as "dudes in white robes" or "purple unicorns in the sky" (whatever else take your pick)

For me, I always look at people who resort to this are ones that can't think in such concepts and so they have to dumb it down. I for one, have seen your posts and feel you are of intelligent nature, so let's not resort to these types of tactics in this thread, k? Maybe we can get somewhere for a change. The OP has an argument let's hear it out before we shoot it dead in the water.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra
reply to post by oozyism
 

It was created by a person.

That hardly even suggests that god created the universe, or that he's had a hand in the biological and technological growth of humanity.

You have a belief, not proof: deal with it and move on from this mindset.


It was created by a person>?

That is absolutely false.

In order for that statement to be correct we have to accept everything in this universe was/is created by a person. That the code, the physical laws etc etc was created in this universe by a person or by people.

Why>?

Because a computer is simply manipulation of what already exists.

That is like you, in a computer game creating a house and claiming it is all yours, while forgetting who/what gave you that ability, where you are, what you are etc.

The coding created by the supreme designer of that game allowed you to build that house in the first place, in the end, all rights are reserved to the owner, sustainer and the creator. Not the person you are referring to.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 



I'm talking about Universal + Biological evolution, I believe non is random, it is absurd to claim it is random because it has been proven that nothing in this universe is random.


That may be a theory, though hardly proven. In science, very little is ever proven to be fact. Furthermore, evolution is hardly random and in fact, the theory has a very sensical process, as eNumbra has so elegantly stated.

--airspoon

[edit on 24-8-2010 by airspoon]

[edit on 24-8-2010 by airspoon]

[edit on 24-8-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 




The theory of evolution includes many reasons for some species flourishing and others not; nowhere is it ever suggested that anything about it is random. That doesn't mean there is a guiding hand. Just that the fastest rabbits outran their predators and passed on their genes to the next generation leading to more faster rabbits.


I think you confused that part, we weren't talking about natural selecting, and the survival of the fittest. We were talking about mutation:



The modern evolutionary synthesis ascribes the observed diversity of life to natural selection, in which some random genetic mutations are retained in the gene pool due to the non-random improved chance for survival and reproduction that those mutated genes confer on individuals who possess them.




The characteristics of an organism arise to some extent deterministically (e.g., under the influence of genes and the environment) and to some extent randomly. For example, the density of freckles that appear on a person's skin is controlled by genes and exposure to light; whereas the exact location of individual freckles seems to be random.

Wikipedia



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Whoops, you just jumped tracks on us.

Would you say that there is a differance between the assembly of ingrediants into a composite object and evolution?

When I cook dinner in the kitchen, is that me doing the assembly or God, in you analogy?

From my point of view (I am a pantheist), we are all a part of a sentient universe, thus anything we do is technicall the actions of "god", but I don't think of it in terms of lacking free will or pre-destination. More like a little kid trying to figure out why it has five toes or why it gets dizzy whe it spins around.

So I find your jump from evolution to items designed and assembled by man to be a little unexpected.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism

I think you confused that part, we weren't talking about natural selecting, and the survival of the fittest. We were talking about mutation:


We were talking about evolution.

You made no distinction.

And before I forget I will quote you original post.



The point is, it didn't. The point is, if you examine computers without the knowledge of a creator, you can also conclude that they came to existence without any creator, that they steadily evolved and the other computers became extinct due to natural selection, and the survival of the fittest.

This was actually mentioned as opposed to "random genetic mutation"

[edit on 8/24/2010 by eNumbra]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Okay, thank you for the clarification, although it has confused me. Based on your original post, and the subject of this thread, your aim was to debunk evolution. You stated also that:



GOD takes the idea of evolution as an insult to him.


Based on your subsequent statements, I will assume that you mean random evolution, or mutation, in that quote. Sorry to nitpick. I just want to understand where you're coming from on this subject.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by John_Q_Llama]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Hey Moozi, gotta say cant agree more with your opening statement.
If Darwins theory is the best they can come up with, with science and
technology accelerating at speeds as never before. Well that must be dissapointing to say the least from an athiests view. If anything science
is starting to prove creationism if anything, cracking the gene code
proved we all came from one initial pair. Geneiology can put a date to it
and more and more we hear of scientific speculation of a spiritual realm
or fourth dimension. Gotta say i admire your strength of faith Moozi,
now all you gotta do is find the right path.
Peace...



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by oozyism
 


Whoops, you just jumped tracks on us.

Would you say that there is a differance between the assembly of ingrediants into a composite object and evolution?


No, not much different




When I cook dinner in the kitchen, is that me doing the assembly or God, in you analogy?

You, but you have to remember all your abilities are given to you, it is simply you mixing them. For example, you are given three colors to play around with, you have the choice to do what ever you want with them. You keep experimenting and find out by combining Red and Blue you can make purple, and you like that color. The point is, you didn't make that color, it already existed, you simply ... You find the word ... So yes, you have a part to play for your amusement, but to claim you created it, is absurd the least.



From my point of view (I am a pantheist), we are all a part of a sentient universe, thus anything we do is technicall the actions of "god", but I don't think of it in terms of lacking free will or pre-destination. More like a little kid trying to figure out why it has five toes or why it gets dizzy whe it spins around.

That's something I have to read more about. I have thought about it, but not as much as other things, but will continue my thought on Pantheism. The message of oneness is an important one



So I find your jump from evolution to items designed and assembled by man to be a little unexpected.

Actually if you read everything I posted, it was replies to other people. Half of the story usually doesn't make sense, like something they call sudden evolution.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
In mathematics there is a rule, if you have something like this 3A + 4A + B = 5B, you CAN'T add A and B, you must add A with the A, and B with the B.

In my country and in spanish we learn that very early, they said to us "no puedes sumar peras con manzanas", is something like "you can't add apples and pears".

Why i say this?

Because you cant compare a natural thing with an artificial one, there are two different things, two different categories, two different everything.

Is just like if i say Ostrichs have two legs, human have two legs, so Ostrichs must be human.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by MonteroReal]


+3 more 
posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


What the hell?

You cant take evolution from one science, being biology and apply it to the progression of technology from inanimate objects.

Technology has nothing to do with evoltuion, natural selection or survival of the fittest

This has to be possibly the worst argument I have ever seen trying to debunk the theory of evolution. Sorry if you're offended by that, but you are talking complete rubbish




posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by airspoon
 




You are arguing that evolution is null and god must have created life (or at least humans) because there is no other explanation. Am I right?


No ..

I'm arguing that evolution does exist, but it is not random as evidence suggests.


REALLY???? It sounds like you agree with DARWIN! You see, Darwin's insight was that there was a distinctly non-random process that drove the evolution of living things; that process is called natural selection.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Tearman
 




REALLY???? It sounds like you agree with DARWIN! You see, Darwin's insight was that there was a distinctly non-random process that drove the evolution of living things; that process is called natural selection.


Nit...

Why do people always say natural selection when we are talking about random?

Mutation..



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Tearman
 




REALLY???? It sounds like you agree with DARWIN! You see, Darwin's insight was that there was a distinctly non-random process that drove the evolution of living things; that process is called natural selection.


Nit...

Why do people always say natural selection when we are talking about random?

Mutation..



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Well, I get what they are trying to say, I think, but I am not sure I am totally on the same page with how they are presenting their argument.


In a sense, it is very Socratic or Platonic.. we can't really know for sure what we don't know. In fact, some may say that it is rather arrogant to think that we know what the world really is,

Still, as much as I have expressed my disdain for the certain population of Scientists that always believe that science is gospel until they are proven wrong, I respect the methodical and disciplined approach for reviewing our world through our five (or 6ish) senses. After all, how else are we supposed to use this rather useful skill we all have for tearing things apart and reassembling them in a differant way?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by Tearman
 




REALLY???? It sounds like you agree with DARWIN! You see, Darwin's insight was that there was a distinctly non-random process that drove the evolution of living things; that process is called natural selection.


Nit...

Why do people always say natural selection when we are talking about random?

Mutation..


Because random mutation is only half of evolution. Evolution is by random mutation and non-random selection. This is in fact what makes evolution POSSIBLE (the product of both of those processes combined).



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Well, that's how the process seems to present itself to us. I work in software design (and business consulting). In my line of work, I see natural selection in all sorts of things from ideas to programming. I can truthfully see the patterns unfolding and it seems very logical and easy to follow to me. Then again, there is a good part of my job that is instinct. I follow my gut. If something just doesn't feel right in a program, even if it is logically correct, I trust my gut.

I have never seen a problem with natural selection through mutation. Of course, I don't believe it is random. I just don't think it is micro-managed. I also have a hard time truely accepting the concept of chaos. I think it actually runs counter to the nature of the universe when looking at things in the ultra-macro and ultra-micro level.

Chaos springs from a lack of understanding. When one understands the process behind a system, the apparent choes vanishes and is replaced by a symphony of synchronicity.

Edited to remove redundant words that repeated themselves.


[edit on 8-24-2010 by rogerstigers]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by Tearman
 




REALLY???? It sounds like you agree with DARWIN! You see, Darwin's insight was that there was a distinctly non-random process that drove the evolution of living things; that process is called natural selection.


Nit...

Why do people always say natural selection when we are talking about random?

Mutation..


Your getting confused here. Evolution is a combination of several things, not just the one.

You have to take into account mutations and adaptation, the chaotic points of the theory of evolution which show randomness does occur in nature. If you combine that with natural selection it actually does work



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Lets put it simple.

We know how computers are evolved...we have a clearcut understanding of the steps

We are unravelling the steps of man and life in general..almost every week a new fossil comes out fitting another slot of evolution...much like your graph..

We evolved...get over it...now, the only question is the spontanious initial spark of self replicating lifeforms...that remains a mystery, a theory, and sure, toss in the word God or Magic if you don't like not having the answers just yet.

incidently, your graph is another proof of evolution...computers evolve based on necessity, but they lack the self replicating and mutations to evolve on their own...we dont..everytime you see a mutation in a human being, that is proof enough..eventually someone will be born with some really beneficial attribute as a random mutation and will perhaps breed, spreading the mutation/attribute further and voila, a new chapter in the history of humanity.





top topics
 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join