Evolution is mathematically impossible

Justatruthseeker · Mar 7, 2019

VirOptimus said:
In all the living birds for starters.

Based upon all those missing common ancestors that cant be found?

Ophiolite · Mar 7, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
You have no ancient soft tissue to compare today's tissue with. You can't track the evolution of internal organs. All you have is bones.

I get it. You have inadequate background in these subjects and consequently no understanding of them. To those who have studied them your objections are nonsensical, unducated, ludicrous, stupid, empty and erroneous. And these are their strong points.

You have your faith. Go with that. Leave the science to people who actually understand it.

Justatruthseeker · Mar 7, 2019

Ophiolite said:
I get it. You have inadequate background in these subjects and consequently no understanding of them. To those who have studied them your objections are nonsensical, unducated, ludicrous, stupid, empty and erroneous. And these are their strong points.

You have your faith. Go with that. Leave the science to people who actually understand it.

Says the guy who cant show any change in any fossil creature over its entire existence without claiming imaginary missing ancestors, then claims science is on his side with his imagination....

pitabread · Mar 7, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
It can study it's own design.

And? How does that tie into the brain being the product of deliberate design?

(Maybe take some time to really think about what you wish to present. These one line responses aren't getting us anywhere. Give us an argument with some meat to it. )

pitabread · Mar 7, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
Illustrations show how organs function, and thus reveal design. Organs and organisms do what they were designed to do.

This is just another circular argument.

You have yet to necessitate deliberate design in these instances.

xianghua · Mar 7, 2019

pitabread said:
Do you know *why* you think that picture of the stones is perceived as being designed?

Because for all this talk about detecting design, you never seem to acknowledge how people detect design. And I think once you learn how design is detected, you'll come to realize why we don't detect design in the same manner with biological forms.

(Hint: It has nothing to do with complexity.)

as far as i remember you said that its because of "pattern recognition". so why this will not work with a biological system? for instance: we have sonar systems in both biological world and non biological world. so according to your criteria (if i got it right) we need to conclude that a biological sonar was design as well.

Justatruthseeker · Mar 7, 2019

pitabread said:
This is just another circular argument.

You have yet to necessitate deliberate design in these instances.

One might say you have even less yet to necessitate randomness in these instances....

pitabread · Mar 7, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
One might say you have even less yet to necessitate randomness in these instances....

Don't twist this around. I'm not making the argument here. I'm asking those claiming biological forms are designed to substantiate theirs.

If you want to help OldWiseGuy out, then do so.

xianghua · Mar 7, 2019

Bungle_Bear said:
Very good. Now please please respond to this request that you ignored:

"Now tell us how you came to the conclusion that design was/wasn't involved." What I'm looking for is how you decided "they arent [sic] complex enough". And I'll give you a clue - the answer has nothing to do with complexity

When you've responded as requested above, you tell me what the answer is.

you should tell me since you are the one who claimed that we cant detect design by looking at the object. i do conclude design base on the fact that such an object cant evolve by a natural process.

Speedwell · Mar 7, 2019

xianghua said:
you should tell me since you are the one who claimed that we cant detect design by looking at the object. i do conclude design base on the fact that such an object cant evolve by a natural process.

But it is not a fact. Nothing prevents natural forces from arranging those stones that way. It's not very likely, but not impossible.

Speedwell · Mar 7, 2019

xianghua said:
you should tell me since you are the one who claimed that we cant detect design by looking at the object. i do conclude design base on the fact that such an object cant evolve by a natural process.

But it is not a fact. There is nothing which would prevent natural forces from moving those stones into that arrangement. It's not very likely, but not impossible.

I notice that you avoided my previous question:

Speedwell said:
I know English isn't your first language, so be sure to ask questions of you don't understand me.

Consider the following statements:

1. I cannot conclude design from that picture.

2. I conclude from that picture that there is no design.

Do you think those two statements mean the same thing?

Consider the following statements:

1. I cannot conclude design from that picture.

2. I conclude from that picture that there is no design.

Do you think those two statements mean the same thing?

xianghua · Mar 7, 2019

Speedwell said:
But it is not a fact. There is nothing which would prevent natural forces from moving those stones into that arrangement. It's not very likely, but not impossible.

we can say the same for a watch you know.

Speedwell · Mar 7, 2019

xianghua said:
we can say the same for a watch you know.

But then you would have to account for the evidence of non-natural forces at work.

But once again you ignored my question. Are you afraid of it?

xianghua · Mar 7, 2019

Speedwell said:
But then you would have to account for the evidence of non-natural forces at work.

how do you know that a natural process cant make a watch part?

as for you question- i dont think that they are the same.

OldWiseGuy · Mar 7, 2019

pitabread said:
This is just another circular argument.

You have yet to necessitate deliberate design in these instances.

That's my observation. The problem science has with design is that it implies a designer. And I understand that.

Speedwell · Mar 7, 2019

xianghua said:
how do you know that a natural process cant make a watch part?

as for you question- i dont think that they are the same.

Well, that's good, but I still don't think you understand the difference or you wouldn't have asked that last dumb question.

pitabread · Mar 7, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
The problem science has with design is that it implies a designer.

That's not the problem at all. Science is about gaining the best understanding of our universe as possible. There is no reason to preclude a designer if that is really what everything pointed to.

The actual problem is that that's not what things point to; but some people don't want to accept that.

I mean, I asked you to explain why you think biological forms are designed and you kept giving me circular arguments in response. Why would you think that is an acceptable form of reasoning? There are higher standards for scientific inquiry.

Bungle_Bear · Mar 7, 2019

xianghua said:
you should tell me since you are the one who claimed that we cant detect design by looking at the object. i do conclude design base on the fact that such an object cant evolve by a natural process.

So you're saying you conclude design because a pile of rocks cannot evolve? I'd say that's not how you conclude design for a pile of rocks.

But what about the rocks in the sand? They can't evolve either, but you're not sure if they're designed. If your yardstick is the impossibility of evolution, why don't you conclude design?

OldWiseGuy · Mar 7, 2019

pitabread said:
That's not the problem at all. Science is about gaining the best understanding of our universe as possible. There is no reason to preclude a designer if that is really what everything pointed to.

The actual problem is that that's not what things point to; but some people don't want to accept that.

I mean, I asked you to explain why you think biological forms are designed and you kept giving me circular arguments in response. Why would you think that is an acceptable form of reasoning? There are higher standards for scientific inquiry.

Why does something so obvious require scientific inquiry?

pitabread · Mar 7, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
Why does something so obvious require scientific inquiry?

"It's so obvious" sounds like an emotional argument. Science is about examining things objectively.

And if you can't make a case for something in an objective manner, then it's probably not so obvious after all.

Evolution is mathematically impossible

Newbie

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Whoot!

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads