Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Only if they evolve independently of each other. It also helps in this case that the creature in which they evolved was possessed of an inherited bilateral symmetry.but the chance that two parts will evolve simultaneously is very low.
OK fine, statistics and probability.
Two points:Even in quantum mechanics, probablity can be determined with a high level of accuracy. Probability isn't really probability. The only reason we still call it probability is because the "universe" seems to have a mind of its own, and scientists don't know the mechanism behind this driving force that causes particles to act one way or another. For instance we know that a particle might show up in one place or another at a specific point in time, but we don't know for sure until "chooses". Since all things are made up of particles, we could say that there is a mind, or driving force behind all motion in the universe. No luck, and only an illusion of probability and chance, just like evolution. The entire universe is a like a clock with gears in motion. To say that the universe and everything in it was an accident, without any mind behind it, and that we are an accident is insane. It would even be unreasonable to say that maybe a very basic life form, like a bacteria, came about by accident. Mathematically it would be a miracle. The process for proteins to form one bacteria is very complex, and for them to form in a way so that the bacteria could reproduce also shows that the is a "mind" behind the creation and structure of living organisms. And Darwinists still beleive all this is by accident. Even if one bacteria were created, it is illogical to think that by accident we evolved into what we are today, on a planet with an abundance of resources that we can exploit. That we can drive 30 minutes to a store to buy a tv dinner, microwave a frozen meal, sit down on our smart phones, and debate about wether life came about by accident with someone on the other side of the planet. Or that we have created small worlds of our own with video games where we ourselves can live outside of, but can create an avatar to substitute ourselves within the game that we control. Games that we coded. Games with laws and boundaries, and NPCs that have to follow the rules of their codes. Games that have their own time lapses of day in night. Games that can be modified, and recoded, to make our charaters imortal, or to modify the laws of the game. We are getting even more advance dwith VR and it won't be long until you can virtually immerse yourself into your own world that you have created. No one can ever say that God does not exist, because we have already played God by creating video games with AI. We are still very primative, and have not even been doing this for 100 years. Can you imagine what kinds of worlds we will "create" within the next 100 years? I wonder if the AI in these games will doubt our existense. Yet, this is all an accident that started with "lucky" evolution.
In that you are correct: The existence of God is an unfalsifiable proposition. Nothing that science has discovered or in principle could discovered can disprove it. The IDist, however, is in a difficult position. He must make it a falsifiable proposition in order to advance his religious agenda using science.No one can ever say that God does not exist...
Even in quantum mechanics, probablity can be determined with a high level of accuracy. Probability isn't really probability. The only reason we still call it probability is because the "universe" seems to have a mind of its own, and scientists don't know the mechanism behind this driving force that causes particles to act one way or another. For instance we know that a particle might show up in one place or another at a specific point in time, but we don't know for sure until "chooses". Since all things are made up of particles, we could say that there is a mind, or driving force behind all motion in the universe. No luck, and only an illusion of probability and chance, just like evolution. The entire universe is a like a clock with gears in motion. To say that the universe and everything in it was an accident, without any mind behind it, and that we are an accident is insane. It would even be unreasonable to say that maybe a very basic life form, like a bacteria, came about by accident. Mathematically it would be a miracle. The process for proteins to form one bacteria is very complex, and for them to form in a way so that the bacteria could reproduce also shows that the is a "mind" behind the creation and structure of living organisms. And Darwinists still beleive all this is by accident. Even if one bacteria were created, it is illogical to think that by accident we evolved into what we are today, on a planet with an abundance of resources that we can exploit. That we can drive 30 minutes to a store to buy a tv dinner, microwave a frozen meal, sit down on our smart phones, and debate about wether life came about by accident with someone on the other side of the planet. Or that we have created small worlds of our own with video games where we ourselves can live outside of, but can create an avatar to substitute ourselves within the game that we control. Games that we coded. Games with laws and boundaries, and NPCs that have to follow the rules of their codes. Games that have their own time lapses of day in night. Games that can be modified, and recoded, to make our charaters imortal, or to modify the laws of the game. We are getting even more advance dwith VR and it won't be long until you can virtually immerse yourself into your own world that you have created. No one can ever say that God does not exist, because we have already played God by creating video games with AI. We are still very primative, and have not even been doing this for 100 years. Can you imagine what kinds of worlds we will "create" within the next 100 years? I wonder if the AI in these games will doubt our existense. Yet, this is all an accident that started with "lucky" evolution.
In that respect it is interesting to consider that the vast majority of species which have inhabited the Earth are now extinct.You could have just said that you don't believe God plays dice with the universe.
I, on the other hand, have seen enough dice roll to not rule out chance. The mechanism behind mutation is complex, and what stays in the genome is not that straight forward as what works and does not, but chance is the best way to look at it.
In that respect it is interesting to consider that the vast majority of species which have inhabited the Earth are now extinct.
No, you didn't. As evidenced by the text of your OP, where you only talked about "feces + time".true. this is why i add "a part of".
No.so a gear isnt evidence for design?
2. Arguments expressed within the confines of a single long paragraph are never convincing.
You're talking sh*tbut science prove that such a thing is impossible by experiment. since we know that feces+time= non supermodel.
no problem. i changed it. so according to evolution a part of a feces can evolve into a supermodel. right?No, you didn't. As evidenced by the text of your OP, where you only talked about "feces + time".
But then again: your story doesn't say anything about "design".
You don't know how the designer made nature and you don't care because all you really care about is proving evolution wrong, right?i actually dont know how the designer made nature and its irrelevant. i only discuss about design vs natural process.
It's really cute how you try to evade this.no problem. i changed it. so according to evolution a part of a feces can evolve into a supermodel. right?
Nope. Sorry, try again.if a gear isnt evidence for design then what about a watch or a robot?
Really? Irrelevant? Is it?i actually dont know how the designer made nature and its irrelevant. i only discuss about design vs natural process.
No. I could explain to you the reason for that, but somehow I don't think you would even listen.so a watch isnt evidence for design?
So, basically: it is only evidence for design if you know a priori that it has been designed. If you don't know that, it isn't.
No, I am not saying it. I am saying exactly what I said in my last post, and it should be quite clear. I phrased it in exactly that way to make clear what I was saying.but i didnt seen that someone made my watch. are you saying that i cant conclude design?
But is there evidence that someone made it? Tool marks? Mold lines? Refined or non-natural materials? Otherwise, you may not be able to tell. Remember, design may never be absolutely ruled out, but it may not always be possible to prove it is there.but i didnt seen that someone made my watch. are you saying that i cant conclude design?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?