according to evolution a part of a feces (bacteria) can evolve into a supermodel (human)

[Speedwell]

but the chance that two parts will evolve simultaneously is very low.

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.

 

[Justaman0000]

OK fine, statistics and probability.

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.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

Two points:
1. Arguments based upon personal incredulity are rarely convincing.
2. Arguments expressed within the confines of a single long paragraph are never convincing.

 

[Speedwell]

No one can ever say that God does not exist...

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.

 

[Paulos23]

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.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

 

[Paulos23]

In that respect it is interesting to consider that the vast majority of species which have inhabited the Earth are now extinct.

Yup, and some of them have been successful for a long time, longer than humans, and are still not alive today. It is humbling to think that we are 'lucky' to be here now. So much so that it is tempting to think that we are the end product, when we could just be a short stretch of the road.

 

[Freodin]

true. this is why i add "a part of".

No, you didn't. As evidenced by the text of your OP, where you only talked about "feces + time".

What you did was to use something that most people consider repulsive and try to connect it with something you consider wrong. There was absolutely no need to bring in "feces" at all.

But you chose to do that. "Feces + time" does not equal supermodel. Why, yes, that is true. It is also irrelevant. And it can also be interpreted as rather offensive.

You knew that. You knew that well... and that is exactly why you wrote it in this way.

I dare say your intention was not very pure here.

so a gear isnt evidence for design?

No.

But then again: your story doesn't say anything about "design". Your story says that a bunch of earth (or "dust") was shaped like a human and breathed on... and that is how humans are made.

For some reason, it seem you want to distance yourself from this story.

I wonder why...

 

[Occams Barber]

2. Arguments expressed within the confines of a single long paragraph are never convincing.

Thank you for this. I was on the verge of pulling the 'Enter' key off one of my old keyboards and posting it to him. Either that or a tube of White Space.
OB

 

[Bungle_Bear]

but science prove that such a thing is impossible by experiment. since we know that feces+time= non supermodel.

You're talking sh*t

 

[xianghua]

No, you didn't. As evidenced by the text of your OP, where you only talked about "feces + time".

no problem. i changed it. so according to evolution a part of a feces can evolve into a supermodel. right?

No.

if a gear isnt evidence for design then what about a watch or a robot?

But then again: your story doesn't say anything about "design".

i actually dont know how the designer made nature and its irrelevant. i only discuss about design vs natural process.

 

[Speedwell]

i actually dont know how the designer made nature and its irrelevant. i only discuss about design vs natural process.

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?

 

[Freodin]

no problem. i changed it. so according to evolution a part of a feces can evolve into a supermodel. right?

It's really cute how you try to evade this.

if a gear isnt evidence for design then what about a watch or a robot?

Nope. Sorry, try again.

i actually dont know how the designer made nature and its irrelevant. i only discuss about design vs natural process.

Really? Irrelevant? Is it?

Well, in this case this whole conundrum should be resolved. i actually don't know how nature made supermodels and its irrelevant.

Case closed.

 

[xianghua]

Nope. Sorry, try again.

so a watch isnt evidence for design?

 

[Freodin]

so a watch isnt evidence for design?

No. I could explain to you the reason for that, but somehow I don't think you would even listen.

Ah, who cares...

... no, a "watch" is by itself not evidence for design. The only reason why we can use something like a "watch" or a "robot" or anything else as evidence for design is when we come to the conclusion that this item has come into existence by a process we know is based on 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.

 

[Speedwell]

so a watch isnt evidence for design?

Maybe. Is there evidence that it was manufactured rather than occurring naturally?

 

[xianghua]

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.

but i didnt seen that someone made my watch. are you saying that i cant conclude design?

 

[Freodin]

but i didnt seen that someone made my watch. are you saying that i cant conclude design?

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 was right: you don't even listen.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

 

[Ophiolite]

What I think is being ignored by both sides in this discussion is this: why was the watch discarded? And what was the discarder doing on the heath? Up to no good, I'll wager! Planting evidence!!