Is Unguided Evolution Scientific?
- Thread starter rush1169
- Start date
- Status
Upvote
0
Zosimus
Non-Christian non-evolution believer
The first question to be asked and answered is this: How many people are wrongly convicted? The answer is that at least 4.1 percent of people that have been convicted have been wrongly convicted (see How Many People Are Wrongly Convicted? Researchers Do the Math. – Phenomena: Only Human ). This number is based just on those people on death row whose cases have been carefully looked at and the percentage of exonerations obtained.
It gets worse. Juries often indicate that when they're not 100 percent sure that the person committed the murder, the jury often compromises and convicts the accused, but only sentence him to life in prison. This implies that the percentage of wrongfully convicted murderers who got life in prison is higher than 4.1 percent.
On top of that, 95 percent of felony convictions are plea bargains. These people never get their day in court because a common tactic of US DAs is to accuse people of so many things that if the accused gets convicted of everything, he is looking at 250+ years in prison. The point is obviously to railroad people into copping a plea.
At How Many Innocent People Have We Sent To Prison? | The Nation we read that a massive review of cases in Virginia showed 6 percent wrongful convictions. The number 1 cause of wrongful conviction is perjury.
This, of course, doesn't count the people who are in prison in the USA for things that are not really crimes. Drug possession, prostitution, technical firearms charges (paperwork not properly filled out, etc.), and "felony" tax paperwork screw ups are among those "crimes" falsely so called.
Given that the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, something is clearly rotten in Denmark... er... the USA.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
There's a natural explanation. The laws which govern the complexity of snowflakes and the formation of hurricanes do not have a natural explanation though.
Of course this isn't addressing the creation of humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago.
Upvote
0
So you are saying:
(a) You do not believe in God.
(b) You do not not believe in God.
That's pretty contradictory.
Upvote
0
TheBear
NON-WOKED
You do realize that laws are brief theses, and that laws, together with facts and hypotheses, collectively build scientific theory, and that scientific theories explain laws. Right?
You are assuming that there's a sentient, governing entity, orchestrating everything, down to the subatomic level. That's a bold assumption without anything other than that's what you believe. You're entitled to your beliefs. But at the end of the day, that's all you got, really.
Upvote
0
D
DerelictJunction
Guest
I'm not the one making an all-or-nothing conclusion about complex functional machines. That would be you.
I am saying that complexity and functionality in a machine does not necessarily mean the machine has a designer. You claim that it does mean the machine has a designer. So, show me proof of a designer for the "infinitely more complex" bison.
So, unless an item is a machine, it does not have a designer. I disagree, but if that's how you want to move forward in this discussion, so be it. Then a cube is not designed? What about a marble?
Yes, it is on topic. It is a claim that you have yet to prove except with circular reasoning. I'll let you in on a secret....that isn't real proof.
Still don't believe in black swans, I see.
I didn't have a difficulty with a the biplane or 777. I said they were both designed and I told you how I knew that. It didn't have anything to do with complexity or functionality, but, of course, you ignored my explanation as if I never made it. We're all getting used to your duplicitous ways.
See. Typically, you ignore what is said and then act as if you won a point in the discussion. Pigeon chess at its finest.
Crapping on the board doesn't actually get you closer to a checkmate.
Chemistry can produce extremely complex things without interference by a designer's hand. Bison are extremely complex chemical things. No designer, at least none that leaves any trace of having messed with the bison's development.
Your reasoning is faulty because it relies on same fallacy that eliminates black swans, and it ignores the evidence of the mechanisms of evolution, the genetic record and the fossil record.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
Yes, I'm aware of that.
You believe that the laws which govern all creation was created from nothing by nothing.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Zosimus
Non-Christian non-evolution believer
It's just as plausible as the claim that all knowledge comes empirically.
Really? All knowledge? You've scoured the entire universe, examined all forms of knowledge everywhere, and tracked down all the sources of all knowledge by all beings everywhere in the universe and determined that ALL KNOWLEDGE comes from the senses?
You're entitled to your beliefs. But at the end of the day, that's all you got, really.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
I'm making the claim that thousands of examples can be given for machines which are complex and functional and in every example, there is always a designer, even if we can't specifically identify him/her/them. In the case of the two bison, my conclusion is that because the relatively simple bison is designed, and not the result of random/chance mechanisms, the far more complex and functional bison is designed instead of being the result of random/chance mechanisms.
Your view it seems is that the more complex and funcational a machine, the more likely it is to be created by random/chance impetuses. If that's your faith-based belief, that's nothing more than your personal opinion.
How about life? Humanity?
It's not circular reasoning, it's taking the evidence and making logical conclusions.
You took days and days to determine which was more complex. I'm simply pointing out your usual behavior in discussions.
We do have to know the designer before we can determine if something is deisgned or not? Make up you mind.
Again, your personal opinon of the more complex a machine (in the case of the two bison), the more likely it is to be the result of random/chance mechanisms is simply your personal opinion.
There is no evidence to support your view of increased comlexity and functionality = random/chance creation (in the case of the two bison).
Upvote
0
Zosimus
Non-Christian non-evolution believer
All right, now that we have some information to work with on how statistics work from http://www.christianforums.com/t7872120/ let's take a look at your supposed "evidence for" something or other.
The paper you have linked supposedly constructs primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences. Let's start with the basic facts that we need to even start to evaluate whatever it is that you think this study claims:
Those are the conclusions. What has supposedly been demonstrated? It says, "trees that were consistent with the well established phylogeny"
How consistent? What was supposedly demonstrated?
What was the a priori chance that whatever it is that this study supposedly proved was actually true? How was that number arrived at?
What is the power of the study? How often would a study such as this one result in a false positive?
What was the a posteriori chance that whatever it is that this study supposedly proved is actually true? Where are the calculations? Can we run them again to determine that no mathematical error was made?
Okay, even assuming that whatever this study supposedly proved really is true, what does that mean for Darwinism, creationism, or anything else for that matter? What's the significance of the study?
I mean, couldn't any Christian who hasn't even read the study simply say "It's that way because God made it that way?" Could you disprove that claim? I mean, I realize that you have a philosophical bias against claims such as these, but for those of us who don't share your philosophical biases, how would you convince us?
Other than saying, "Zosimus thinks evidence isn't important."
No, what I think is that you have the brains of a [deleted by moderator].
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The problem is that you would refuse to accept the evidence that is exonerating these wrongly convicted prisoners. You have no way of determining if people are guilty or innocent because you reject all forensic evidence as "affirming the consequent". You would take the position that there is a 50% chance that God planted fingerprints and DNA at crime scenes.
Upvote
0
The trees being consistent with established phylogenies is the data, not the conclusion. The chances of the molecular phylogenies matching up to the morphological can be calculated. If we look at the first phylogeny in in Fig 2. there are 18 taxa including both the 3' and 5' LTR's. The chances of matching the molecular and morphological phylogenies with 18 taxa is 1 in 6332659870762851000, and that is just for one of the phylogenies. You can calculate it yourself here:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
With 18 taxa there are 6,190,283,353,629,375 possible trees, but the phylogeny for that ERV just happened to match the 1 tree out of those 6 quadrillion that fits with the morphological phylogeny.
It demonstrates that there is a very real signal of evolution in the data. There is a very real phylogenetic signal that should be there if evolution is true. Creationism, on the other hand, can not explain it other than to say that God made it look like evolution. At that point, you might as well try to get a defendant found not guilty by claiming that God plants fingerprints and DNA at crime scenes. The sad part is that such an argument might actually convince you.
Upvote
0
D
DerelictJunction
Guest
That's your conclusion after ignoring the evidence that supports the theory of evolution. I am not saying there is no designer for the bison. I'm saying that since evolution can increase complexity and function, then complexity and function are not, by themselves, conclusive evidence that there is a designer.
That's not my view and I even denied that it was my view in a previous post. Are you unable to understand English sentences or are you under the impression that you misrepresenting someone else's position is a proper way to conduct yourself in a discussion?
This has nothing to do with what I wrote. Does an item have to be a complex machine in order to have been designed? You seem to be saying that it does, so a marble is not designed.
Conclusions drawn while ignoring the evidence from studying the natural world. Therefore they are conclusions you cannot support.
No, I didn't. I agreed the 777 was more complex. Still doesn't mean that complexity with function requires a designer, and I said that then. You, of course, either ignored what I wrote or misrepresented it. The only reason I continue these discussions it to point out the poor tactics you use.
Another misrepresentation of what I wrote. Read it again or have someone more acquainted with English vocabulary and sentence structure explain it to you.
Again...not what I wrote. This is getting to the point where I am beginning to believe you are being dishonest in this discussion.
This, of course, is completely wrong. It is rather surprising you could say this after being presented with mountains of evidence to ignore. It seems that you would at least acknowledge that biologists knowledgeably accept it as evidence rather than imply that almost every biologist in the world is either stupid or a liar.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
I'm questioning the theory of evolution which concludes that all life we observe today was created by random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanism. Nothing supports that other than guesses and suppositions.
Give an example of evolution creating complexity and function which were not present before.
Either complex and functional machines are indicators of design or complex and functional machines are not indicators of design. You can't have it both ways.
Which bison is designed and why? Which bison is not designed and why?
Conclusions which are based on design inferences. Complex and functional machines cannot be shown to be the product of random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless impetuses. Complex and functional machines can be shown to be the product of purposeful, intelligent, design.
You finally, after much evasion, came to the conclusion that the 777 was more complex. The only reason I continue these discussions is to reveal how baseless atheistic Darwinist creationism is. It's simply another faith-based philosophical belief system.
It was a question. Once more....we do have to know the designer before we can determine if something is designed or not?
You're just as evasive on this topic as you were with the 777 topic. It's not your personal opinion, of the more complex a machine (in the case of the two bison) the more likely it is to be the result of random/chance mechanisms?
You've not given "mountains of evidence", all you've suggested so far is that the more complex and functional a machine, the less likely it is to be designed.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Status
Similar threads
