Again, the analogy is moot. Evolution works by have successive generations of inheritance, with random variations in genes being preferentially selected for or against. Over time, traits change. Complexity is no issue to evolution, either theoretically or experimentally. What evolution doesn't say is that something popped out of nothing, that complex systems spontaneously and randomly came together fully-formed, tornado-through-a-junkyard sort of thing.
Evolution explains how imperfect replicators (e.g., living organisms) will, over generations of reproduction, undergo an inexorable march towards complexity and niche-filling. Even if you don't believe it actually happened, it's either ignorant (i.e., not knowing the facts) or disingenuous to compare the probability of evolution with the probability of a computer randomly coming together.
"evolution" is a faith. the chances of it happening are impossible. the proof? since the character limit doesn't allow me to copy and paste the whole thing,
on mathematics of evolution .com on chapter 15 and icr.org article entitled, The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution
Err... the cosmological argument has nothing to do with God, evolution, or even life on this planet. It has to do with causality and the supposition of a 'first cause'. So, I ask you again. You said, "Evolution could have not happened without God" - what's your proof?
The Universe has a beginning(most scientist agree), it is not infinite thus logically something must of brought it into existence that has always existed and is uncaused. logically that first uncaused cause is, God.
The website is simply incorrect. As I said, it's a popular misconception, but a misconception nonetheless. The evidence shows that the universe has been expanding for 13.5 billion years from a small, hot, dense state, and that state is of such high energy that our theories don't work - we need something better in order to probe beyond. So we know the universe is at least 13.5 billion years old, but there's no evidence that it began back then.
The next paragraph is just a series of baseless assertions. "The past cannot go back forever", "the first cause is God", etc.
Perhaps, but whoever said it had to be great? Even if the cosmological argument worked (and it doesn't), that only shows that there was a first uncaused cause - not a great uncaused cause.
Because again, no random act could've created this earth, has to be something intelligent. thus that first uncaused cause is intelligent, thus it is God.
Incorrect. First, the cosmological argument only argues for the existence of a first cause - there is nothing to say that this cause must be eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, perfect, etc. There's nothing to say it must even be concious. You are simply tacking those properties on without justification, because it fits your religious beliefs.
Because again, no random act could've created this earth, has to be something intelligent. thus that first uncaused cause is intelligent, thus it is God. saying that it would happen randomly and accidentally for the sake of it would reply on faith not fact. it is a fact that this earth has intelligent design, and since it has that, logically it must have an intelligent designer, God. to say otherwise would rely on mere faith, that's why "atheism" is nothing but a faith. when it is logically and mathematically impossible for "evolution" to have occurred, and you say otherwise, then that is just relying on faith and not fact.
Whereas God is logically and substantially possible. The evidence leads to a creator, God.
Right, and I want to know exactly logic you're referring to, exactly what data are saying what you think they're saying. If it's a statistically impossibility, then prove it. All you've done here is just repeat the claim.
Explained above.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean everything is designed, or that complexity is always the hallmark of a designer. Evolution explains how complexity can arise spontaneously and without intervention. God may have had a hand to play, but the fact is we can explain biological diversity and complexity by wholly natural processes.
So you admit God's existence is possible. face it, only one and one way only that all those logically and mathematically impossibilities(as explained above) would have occurred is if God made it happen, that is the only way "evolution" can be logical. So again, either God made the earth the way he did in the bible(which is the most logical and possible) or he guided the evolution.(the only logical way evolution happened is with God)
That is why I am a Young Earth Creationist, God creating the earth the way he says in The Bible makes the most logical, possible and scientific sense.
On the contrary, irreducible complexity says that something that's IC loses its specific function. That may well be the case, but that doesn't mean it didn't evolve - the simple fact is, that function can change. What once served one function can get usurped and serve another. This second function may well be irreducibly complex, but the fallacy of IC is that is assumes that there can only be one function.
There's also the telling fact that the various examples put forward by Creationists of IC are, in fact, quite reducible indeed. The eye, the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting cascade... all can be explained quite easily through evolution, despite the Creationist insistence to the contrary.
No, irreducible complexity shows all or nothing. an accident statistically cannot make something so complex and this is common sense.
"evolution" is like saying a pencil can magically scribble itself on a paper until it forms a proper sentence, that would never happen. the only way a sentence can be formed is if someone who has the power, knowledge, and will to write a sentence, wrote a sentence on purpose. nothing more to it. only way one would think those mathematically and logically impossible accidents happened is if they threw all logic out the window and relied on faith.
Several things here. First, it is a matter of long philosophical debate as to whether morals are objective or subjective - you, in simply asserting objectivity, have by no means settle the debate. Second, morals have everything to do with survival of the fittest - those close-living organisms which operate in a cohesive and mutually beneficial society thrive, while those which decimate each other don't.
Me sacrificing myself for a loved one, for love doesn't have anything at all to do with survival of fittest. that would actually be the complete opposite, in no way would that keep us surviving. to deny that we all have obligated objective morals and love that we live by and to say that they evolved from "survival of the fittest" when they in no way help us survive is illogical and relies wholly on faith. again "atheism" and "evolution" is nothing but a faith.
Rape can cause pregnancy, but it destroys any bond between parents - in human society, children are raised best by two loving parents. Rape destroys that, hence our evolved instinct to abhor it.
Still, you fail to say why rape is
wrong, that doesn't give any logical explanation to why it is wrong. someone can get raped and not get pregnant and it is still wrong and traumatizing. rape isn't wrong because it destroys parent bond, it is wrong because it is sick and takes advantage of another person. evolution cannot explain evil. evolution cannot explain love and unselfishness. love isn't selfish and it isn't in anyway for survival.
see this is where you rely on faith to imply that the reason rape is wrong is because it "destroys parent bond" , that is not why it is wrong and you know it. I assume you have morals, so i ask you, do you feel rape is wrong? and if you do(hopefully you do because it is wrong) why is it wrong to you? if you think morals aren't objective and that nothing matters, what prevents you from not breaking morals?
If you say you think rape is wrong because of "evolution" and "destroys parent bonds" then I would be really shocked. I'm sure you know better than that, I'm sure you know rape is wrong because it's sickening, abuse, traumatizing, and just pure evil.
No, and nothing in evolution says that it is.
That was an example. the "evolution" theory is that the fit survive and "evolve" and that that the weak die off. so if evolution happened there would be no problem with killing or raping to "evolve" or get rid of 'weak'. but no there is a problem with killing and raping, killing IS wrong, rape IS wrong. "evolution" doesn't explain why at the heart rape, killing and violence are wrong and sickening, it just comes up with illogical excuses.
The sheer existence of society, for one thing. Evolved morals are there for a reason, and unless humanity evolves to become isolated individuals, those same reasons will keep those moral instincts in check. Cultural morals are also there, and society, through education, will keep those in check too.
So you're saying we have morals because society says so and keeps in check? sorry but that fails, when we feel compassion or love we don't think about what society thinks or "survival".
If someone were to rape a loved one, I would get sad because the person I love was violated, hurt, abused, and I wouldn't want to see anyone suffer that. not because it "decreases parent bond" or because society says so but because plain and simple, it is sick. no way anyone can defend rape and murder unless they are twisted.
That's a naive conflation of two different philosophies of ethics.
How? that's actually true. as explained, "evolution" doesn't explain morals. the facts are morals go beyond us, we don't control them. if I felt regret for doing something wrong, "evolution" would not, and could not explain it. the fact would be, I feel bad for doing something wrong because I knew it was wrong, you rely on faith, that takes all logic out the window, that "evolution" would explain morals when it simple cannot.
That is incorrect, but you defeat any hope of discussion by putting fingers in your ears and going, "LALALA IF YOU DISAGREE YOU'RE JUST LYING TO YOURSELF". There is no hope of civil discourse with that attitude.
That is just a fact, unless someone is a sociopath with no understanding of morality, they are lying. if you were to tell me that "killing is right" or that "rape is right", then you are either a sociopath or lying because you know that it is wrong.
Your naive dichotomy belies more about you than you think it does about me. There are good, well-understood reasons for why we behave morally, for why we consider rape and murder to be wrong, etc. That you've closed your mind to it is your own problem. The answers are there, but you've dogmatically removed them from your vision.
Sorry but "evolution" doesn't have any logical explanation on morality, none. doesn't explain where morals come from, doesn't explain why there are objective morals. they only assume that morals aren't objective or created for survival (which they are not as I explained)
It is impossible to be an "atheist", "atheism" does not exist. you cannot prove it, there is no evidence to completely not believe. when it is shown that it is impossible for an intelligent creator not to exist from an evolutionary standpoint, it is then completely impossible for God not to exist. either a person acknowledges God, doesn't know, is unsure, or blatantly denies him.
I am a Christian because of my personal experience, and because the scientific, historical, and logical evidence all points to Christianity, to The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit... God.
God Bless!
