Kalaam Cosmological Argument (philosophy of evolution)

Originally posted by Lanakila
And by the way, to speak of Hume and Aristotle in the same sentence without qualifying their distinct and contrasting ideologies is not only incorrect its downright dangerous!

Hume was solipsistic skeptic not even believing in his own existence

and Aristotle's Unmoved Mover is almost exactly who we are arguing for--Yes we've read them.

The slow to speak advice applies here, too.

Originally posted by chickenman
you still haven't demonstrated that functional design requires conceptual thought, the evolution of new functional enzyme systems in bacteria seems to throw that argument out of the window.

Originally posted by Lanakila
A very good question; they're rare on this board. Just think, something that has a functional design--for example a mousetrap--has several constituent parts that are both interdependent and systemically necessary. This comprises, what has been lately termed "irreducible complexity"; the system itself cannot function at all without each and every constituent part. (see Michael Behe's--associate professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University--book, Darwin's Black Box) Interestingly Darwin himself said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Origin of Species 6th ed.[1988], p. 154).

An interesting example of just such irreducible complexity in nature is that of bacteria that propel themselves using flagella which are distinctly analogous to a rotary motor. As a mousetrap cannot function without its constituent parts (platform, holding bar, mainspring, hammer,and catch), so also a flagella cannot function without its constituent parts.

Take for instance E Coli bacterium which has a DNA molecule of approximately 4 million nucleotides. The statistical probability of constructing all of these in perfect sequence has been estimated by Guy Cramer (whyfiles #114) as 10 to the 2,300,000 power. This has been estimated by several mathmeticians to be synonomous with impossibility.

Don't be caught up in the convoluted--not to mention counterintuitive--diatribe of popular evolutionary theorists; such is mythology not science. [/b]

This principle is used in cosmology to disprove the evolutionary concept of spontaneous generation:

Hypothetically speaking, to regress chronologically through all the cause and effect transactions we would work our way to the big bang.

Given that, for the sake of argument, that matter has pre-existed within the dimension of our universe, "rock" (planets, moons--ect) would have been all that existed.

Now it is counter-intuitive to presume that rocks somehow "desired" to have water and gas condense for "life" to emerge. "Why" is life necessary in this universe after the big bang? Why not, assuming no divine intelligence exists, just have rocks floating around in space?

You see, those who push the evolutionary theory are beginning their argument with a fallous "a posteriori" argument that life is good and desirable.

However, this is a classic example of "begging the question." That is, the existence of life is exactly what we are trying to prove in the first place.

Furthermore, the "Modus-Operatum" of evolution is purely "mystical"--it doesen't and cannot, exist! For instance, why must we ask, does upward evolution have to occur? It most certainly is just as plausible, hypothetically speaking again, for downward and no evolution at all to occur. Since no one is around to care anyway, what's the difference one way or the other?

Now what we must determine is-- "Do rocks desire to become frogs, horses, and even humans?" That is, did the elements in the "primordial soup" somehow spontaneously generate desires to chemically synthesize and begin to process elements from its environment for survival?

For sake of argument, lets assume that this occurred. The next question must be "WHY"? Why survive! What difference does it make?

You see existence must have a purpose--there is no such thing as a non-directive existence.

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti


Yes, apparently "Lanakila" has abandoned the rest of "her" unsupported assertions in the other threads related to genetic "information" and is off on yet another absurd tangent.

Originally posted by Lanakila
To properly understand the evolutionary argument, one must look beyond the data to the philosophy behind such.

In this case the classic evolutionary argument assumes inappropriately that in the proverbial "primordial soup" life was necessary to be desired, pursued, and experienced.

Thus, common renditions of abiogenesis usually portray an original single celled organism developing without any intelligent guidance, replicating ad infinitim, into dogs, horses, pigs, sheep ect..

Now, the falacy here--if you are inquisitive and honest enough to perceive it--is that in this primordial scenerio no such desire exists at all.

Originally posted by chickenman
this is quite possibly the worst argument against evolution i've ever heard. Evolution doesn't require the ridiculous notion of desire - it is a natural consequence of replicating life.