Winter Wheat Video Lecture

[Subduction Zone]

They are if they move to America.

No analogy is perfect, but it is rather amazing that you cannot see how bad your argument is.

You are making the mistake of assuming that there is a specific goal to evolution. The only goal is survival of a population.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right ... and i'm Genghis Khan.

How were they refuted?

Absence of evidence?

I though absence of evidence wasn't evidence of absence in the classroom?

But then, the scientific method can take a hike, can't it?

I realize science thinks the Exodus didn't happen because they traipsed all over the Sinai Peninsula and didn't find pop cans, and port-a-potties, and used handkerchiefs, and whatnot.

But what's their excuse today for not going back over there with their updated gizmos?

Would I be correct if I assumed Egypt is tired of scientists moseying around in their yard all the time and won't let them?

No, the evidence that tells us that it did not happen. I would suggest that you watch all of Aron Ra's videos on the subject. You must remember how bad he used to make you look. It will be a blast from the past.

 

[renniks]

No analogy is perfect, but it is rather amazing that you cannot see how bad your argument is.

You are making the mistake of assuming that there is a specific goal to evolution. The only goal is survival of a population.

Totally random? That's what you all always argue against

 

[renniks]

If it happened once, it happened once. Why does that make it inevitable?

It's not happening now. Humans aren't evolving. We adapt as we always did. But we remain human.
Canines adapt but remain canines. Birds are still birds etc.

 

[renniks]

And the ones that don't move to America are still Europeans.

What does that even have to do with the subject?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Totally random? That's what you all always argue against

Of course evolution is not random. That is the claim of those that do not understand it. Tell me, if you roll a tire down the road is its motion totally random or can you predict a rough path that it will follow? In other words, will it suddenly turn around and come back at you for no reason at all?

You should try to understand evolution so that you can make better arguments against it. Ignorant arguments are incredibly easy to shoot down.

 

[Speedwell]

Totally random? That's what you all always argue against

Two different concepts. Evolution is contingent--there is no long-term plan.

 

[Hans Blaster]

More like "Why are they still not evolving into humans? " Good question.

no. no it isnt.

 

[Astrid]

Of course evolution is not random. That is the claim of those that do not understand it. Tell me, if you roll a tire down the road is its motion totally random or can you predict a rough path that it will follow? In other words, will it suddenly turn around and come back at you for no reason at all?

You should try to understand evolution so that you can make better arguments against it. Ignorant arguments are incredibly easy to shoot down.

Asking too much, bud.
Understand? That spoils it.
Destroys Faith ( in the creo- self
as already knowing more than
any scientist)

And it spoils all their creoguments
because, as any educated person knows-
There is no data contrary to ToE.

 

[renniks]

Of course evolution is not random. That is the claim of those that do not understand it. Tell me, if you roll a tire down the road is its motion totally random or can you predict a rough path that it will follow? In other words, will it suddenly turn around and come back at you for no reason at all?

You should try to understand evolution so that you can make better arguments against it. Ignorant arguments are incredibly easy to shoot down.

Only you haven't. And your analogy is terrible as usual. A tire is controlled completely by a driver and then the construction of the vehicle. You are supporting ID with that analogy.

 

[Mr Laurier]

If it happened once, it's inevitable. Why would it not continue?

You seem to be treating evolution as a ladder. A narrow path ever "upwards", as envisioned by medieval clergy in their "Great Chain of Being" model. Worms and lawyers at the bottom. Ignoble wold animals above them. Then livestock, then noble wild animals, then birds, then peasants, then horses, then yeomen, then knights, then barons, earls, and dukes. then kings, then the pope, then angels. With everyone striving ever upwards.
Alas, that model was refuted more than 250 years ago.
Evolution has no goal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only you haven't. And your analogy is terrible as usual. A tire is controlled completely by a driver and then the construction of the vehicle. You are supporting ID with tthat analogy.

Nope, you did not pay attention. Why am I not surprised? Did I say anything about a car? I don't think so. Of course not understanding the obvious is the specialty of creationists. Try again.

 

[renniks]

Nope, you did not pay attention. Why am I not surprised? Did I say anything about a car? I don't think so. Of course not understanding the obvious is the specialty of creationists. Try again.

Lol, you still aren't getting it. If I roll a tire, I'm involved in the process. In evolution there's nothing to roll that tire, there's no tire and no one to make the material to create it.

 

[renniks]

Evolution has no goal.

Then it's impossible. But evolution scientists constantly talk as if it has intelligence.

 

[Speedwell]

Then it's impossible. But evolution scientists constantly talk as if it has intelligence.

It has the capacity to create and process information. But why would it be impossible if it has no long term "goal?" Why would it need one?

 

[renniks]

It has the capacity to create and process information. But why would it be impossible if it has no long term "goal?" Why would it need one?

Oh now we are redefining it as only long-term goals? See what I mean? You can not even talk about this random process without confirming it has to have some kind of goal in and of itself.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Then it's impossible. But evolution scientists constantly talk as if it has intelligence.

no. and no.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Lol, you still aren't getting it. If I roll a tire, I'm involved in the process. In evolution there's nothing to roll that tire, there's no tire and no one to make the material to create it.

Forget the tire.

A rock at the top of a ravine breaks loose and starts to tumble down hill.

If we know the shape of the ravine we can make certain predictions about where the rock is likely to go. The shape of the ravine provides a (natural) guiding channel for the rock. Perhaps the path of any individual rock is not predictable, but the general path of many rocks is. (If you would prefer we can use water droplets landing from the sky instead.)

The shape of the landscape provides a predictive potential surface that can be used to predict or at least understand the overall outcome of a process with a lot of randomness at the individual level.

This is not unlike selection pressures.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh now we are redefining it as only long-term goals? See what I mean? You can not even talk about this random process without confirming it has to have some kind of goal in and of itself.

The only "goal" (if you want to use that term--"function" would be better) in the evolutionary process is to produce a new generation of individuals exhibiting a randomly distributed range of variation to the environment for selection.

 

[renniks]

Forget the tire.

A rock at the top of a ravine breaks loose and starts to tumble down hill.

If we know the shape of the ravine we can make certain predictions about where the rock is likely to go. The shape of the ravine provides a (natural) guiding channel for the rock. Perhaps the path of any individual rock is not predictable, but the general path of many rocks is. (If you would prefer we can use water droplets landing from the sky instead.)

The shape of the landscape provides a predictive potential surface that can be used to predict or at least understand the overall outcome of a process with a lot of randomness at the individual level.

This is not unlike selection pressures.

If I created the rock, and the terrain and rolled it myself at a precise angle and velocity I'm sure it's possible to know exactly where it will fall. Which just confirms that intelligence is needed for the system to work. But the analogy is still totally inadequate to explain complex changes in the structure of DNA.
You could not even have that level of complexity without a designer. And now you are trying to propose a random process to enhance this program that is much more complex than the computer you're working on. And you think we need faith to imagine creation!