Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[justlookinla]

The naturalistic mechanisms appear to be sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it today.

Only naturalistic mechanisms appear to be sufficient to explain the incomprehensible complexity and variety of life as we know it today?

 

[bhsmte]

Well, actually, the theory does say that. However, it cannot be proven that only naturalistic mechanisms were ever applied. In the same way, it cannot be proven that the present position of Pluto is only due to natural law. Who can possibly rule out angels pushing it around a few centuries ago?

Of course, there is no reason to suspect anything other than natural law for the present position of Pluto, and there is no reason to suspect anything other than natural law for the evolution of life.

The naturalistic mechanisms appear to be sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it today.

Well, the theory does not state; "only", but you are correct, it only mentions natural mechanisms, because that is what science can examine.

It just so happens, the theory works with those natural mechanisms as well.

 

[Loudmouth]

Only naturalistic mechanisms appear to be sufficient to explain the incomprehensible complexity and variety of life as we know it today?

Only evidence is sufficient. Do you have any?

 

[justlookinla]

Well, the theory does not state; "only", but you are correct, it only mentions natural mechanisms, because that is what science can examine.

It just so happens, the theory works with those natural mechanisms as well.

Science cannot examine the view that only naturalistic mechanisms creating the incomprehensible complexity and variety of life we observe today from a single life form of long long ago.

Those who embrace Godless creationism are embracing a faith based creationist system.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science cannot examine the view that only naturalistic mechanisms creating the incomprehensible complexity and variety of life we observe today from a single life form of long long ago.

Those who embrace Godless creationism are embracing a faith based creationist system.

Science can examine evidence. Have any?

 

[justlookinla]

Science can examine evidence. Have any?

Nothing but pseudo-science guesses and suppositions. That wouldn't qualify as evidence.

 

[HitchSlap]

Some are slow on the uptake, for various reasons.

Yes, we call them "creationists."

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Science cannot examine the view that only naturalistic mechanisms creating the incomprehensible complexity and variety of life we observe today from a single life form of long long ago.

Yes science can. Even with the "only" thrown in, a scientific judgment as to the sufficiency of the mechanism can be made. And the judgement has been made, and the mechanism seems to be sufficient.

Those who embrace Godless creationism are embracing a faith based creationist system.

This statement is empty of useful content. Of course, we all have a little faith in such things as the consistency of experience. It doesn't make much sense to stress the word "faith" to include that. Being skeptical about God is not normally considered an act of faith.

Let us not play word games as a means of winning people to Jesus. It only makes the people on whom you play the word games distrustful of you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nothing but pseudo-science guesses and suppositions. That wouldn't qualify as evidence.

Why should science consider anything you have to say when you have zero evidence to back it up?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, it is. You don't like the evidence, so your only recourse is to pretend that it was magically poofed into being by a deity.

This is not about what I think. I asked you a question about your position.

The same way we know that fingerprints do not just pop into existence.

This has no correlation whatsoever. Finger prints are a known feature of the human being and are a product that needs a human to exist. However, the three domains of life have no dependence on something and there is no evidence of anything prior to them. So please answer my question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ummm....it makes unsubstantiated guesses and suppositions?

Yes, yes... That's how they managed to not only discover atoms, but also managed to split them and harnassing that energy to make that magical device you use to post this nonsense

 

[DerelictJunction]

Well, actually, the theory does say that. However, it cannot be proven that only naturalistic mechanisms were ever applied. In the same way, it cannot be proven that the present position of Pluto is only due to natural law. Who can possibly rule out angels pushing it around a few centuries ago?

Of course, there is no reason to suspect anything other than natural law for the present position of Pluto, and there is no reason to suspect anything other than natural law for the evolution of life.

The naturalistic mechanisms appear to be sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it today.

While I agree that natural mechanisms are sufficient, Just wants to take that to mean that the theory of evolution makes a statement about the non-existence of God. Additionally, while the theory shows the sufficiency of natural mechanisms, it is not taught in school that they are the only mechanisms in the development of life.

Of course, Just states otherwise based on his guesses and suppositions on what the theory of evolution actually states and what is in the lesson plans for U.S. public schools. He cannot be bothered to actually research anything.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No.

Here's your question again:

IF the universe is such that makes life highly improbable according to such highly refined requirements but it has met those highly refined requirements what made that possible?

Notice the bolded part? That's where your assumption is embedded.
You assume that the reason for the universe to be the way it is, is to make life possible. And as formulated, you are asking me why that is the case.

It's just an obfuscated variation of "why do you hit your wife"?

Here's the question formulated so that it doesn't make such assumptions:

Why is the universe the way it is and could it have been any different?

And the answer to that is: we don't know, cosmologists are trying to find out (and priests pretend to know already before asking the question).



You can't calculate the probability of something if you only have a set of exactly 1 example. You also can't calculate the probability of something if you don't know the initial conditions of the system.

Whenever you argue that "chance couldn't have done it", you are by definition appealing to ignorance. Because it's impossible to properly calculate those chances for the reasons I just gave: your sample is to small and you have no idea what the initial conditions are.

As I've said so many times, for all you know, the probability of the universe to be the way it is is exactly 1 in 1.

You show your ignorance by the argument you are using. If you would actually research this you would find out that your arguments are not valid.

We know next to nothing about the origin of the universe.

Astrophysicists don't agree. We know quite a lot about our universe. We know that the physical constants are at a set level that allows our universe to exist and the life therein. We know this due to experiments and testing using the scientific model.

...while appealing to what isn't known. Appeal to ignorance.

False accusation.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...
Those who embrace Godless creationism are embracing a faith based creationist system.

Actually the complete opposite is true.

The Theory of Evolution is based on evidence, not faith.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is not about what I think. I asked you a question about your position.

And I gave you an answer. The reason that you don't think fingerprints just pop into existence at crime scenes is the very same reason I don't think the three domains of life just popped into existence. I have also discussed on several occasions that if the three domains of life had separate origins then we should see three different sets of genetic characteristics, such as different codon usage. We don't see that.

This has no correlation whatsoever. Finger prints are a known feature of the human being and are a product that needs a human to exist.

Shared genetics are a known feature of common descent.

 

[Davian]

...
Let us not play word games as a means of winning people to Jesus. It only makes the people on whom you play the word games distrustful of you.

 

[Dizredux]

Let us not play word games as a means of winning people to Jesus. It only makes the people on whom you play the word games distrustful of you.

And unfortunately, when seen often, it makes them also distrustful of Christianity. How valid is the message of Christ if his followers have to resort to dishonesty to support it?

I think the message of Christ can stand on its own when presented with honesty and integrity. Obviously not all agree but it is what I think.

Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

Yes science can. Even with the "only" thrown in, a scientific judgment as to the sufficiency of the mechanism can be made. And the judgement has been made, and the mechanism seems to be sufficient.

No, nothing has demonstrated, 'scientifically' or otherwise, that only naturalistic mechanisms is the source, or capable, of producing the incomprehensible complex and varied life forms of today.

Moths producing moths, bacteria producing bacteria and slight changes in beak sizes offers nothing of the sort.

This statement is empty of useful content. Of course, we all have a little faith in such things as the consistency of experience. It doesn't make much sense to stress the word "faith" to include that. Being skeptical about God is not normally considered an act of faith.

Let us not play word games as a means of winning people to Jesus. It only makes the people on whom you play the word games distrustful of you.

This isn't playing word games, this is pointing out that absolutely no evidence, scientifically or otherwise, is offered that only naturalistic mechanisms created you and me, and everyone participating on this forum, from a single life form of long long ago. Neither is there evidence that the same mechanisms also produced a pine tree while creating humanity.

Those who embrace such atheistic creationist views are doing it by faith, there's no evidence. You and I also embrace a creationist view by faith, ours is a theistic view though. Don't try to suggest that both the atheistic and theistic views are compatible for they're not. That will deceive and lead people astray.

 

[justlookinla]

And unfortunately, when seen often, it makes them also distrustful of Christianity. How valid is the message of Christ if his followers have to resort to dishonesty to support it?

I think the message of Christ can stand on its own when presented with honesty and integrity. Obviously not all agree but it is what I think.

Dizredux

The message of Christ, concerning creation, is in my sig line. One either accepts it or rejects it, but it does not include the impetus of only naturalistic mechanisms creating humans and pine trees from an alleged life form of long long ago.

 

[justlookinla]

Actually the complete opposite is true.

The Theory of Evolution is based on evidence, not faith.

There's no evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms produced the incomprehensible complexity and variety of life we observe today.