Direction of Evolution

[Loudmouth]

Nah. Evolution is just a temper tantrum.

Huh?

I expect atheists to have integrity. If there is no intelligence behind your existence, then stop using language to describe it which implies intelligence.

Where are atheists doing that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sounds like you've got all the jargon worked out.

Looks like you are avoiding the content of my posts.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Can you show where in the theory of weather that there is purpose, meaning, or intent? If not, my point stands.

Yeah, of course. Next time you're enjoying your food, be sure to remember it was the rain that made it possible.

You missed the point.

No, I hit the nail right on the head. It's easy to blame God for the problems you don't feel like dealing with (that is, when you're not busy denying that there's any purpose or reason behind sickness in the first place; random mutations with no intelligence behind it, remember?).

And from you, no evidence that there is any of those things [i.e. purpose, meaning, intent, intelligence...] in the process of evolution.

SFS, you're arguing with the wrong guy. You need to be addressing Loudmouth.

What we really want to know is why you think anyone has to derive meaning or purpose in their lives from the process of evolution.

That you even question where you came from in the first place shows you have a desire for meaning and purpose. Evolution won't provide that for you, which is why people are so keen to use language which implies meaning and purpose to describe evolution.

You can't get away from that, LM.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yeah, of course. Next time you're enjoying your food, be sure to remember it was the rain that made it possible.

Let's just stop right here.

I asked you to show where there is purpose, intent, and meaning in the science that describes the natural process of weather. You have thus far been unable to do so.

Until you do so, can we conclude that our scientific understanding of weather has the same faults as evolution?

No, I hit the nail right on the head. It's easy to blame God for the problems you don't feel like dealing with (that is, when you're not busy denying that there's any purpose or reason behind sickness in the first place; random mutations with no intelligence behind it, remember?).

Are you saying that God intentionally gives children mutations that gives them genetic diseases? Yes or no?

If God is not guiding those mutations, then what is?

That you even question where you came from in the first place shows you have a desire for meaning and purpose. Evolution won't provide that for you, which is why people are so keen to use language which implies meaning and purpose to describe evolution.

Why would I have to use evolution to find purpose and meaning in my life?

 

[Speedwell]

That you even question where you came from in the first place shows you have a desire for meaning and purpose. Evolution won't provide that for you...

And nobody expects it to, neither theist nor atheist. No scientific theory can do that, one way or the other.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Huh?

It's true.

Where are atheists doing that?

Natural selection.

Here's the definition of selection:
1. carefully choose as being the best or most suitable.

And here are the two definitions for "careful"
1. making sure of avoiding potential danger, mishap, or harm; cautious

2. done with or showing thought and attention.

You're saying evolution "carefully" selects organisms to live? It avoids potential danger and shows thought and attention? LOL Right. It also carefully selects organisms to die, too, which means the "selection" becomes completely meaningless.

Whether an organism lives or dies, according to evolution, doesn't have anything to do with selection. It's all based on the random chance that a mutation will happen in an environment where that mutation will prolong life long enough to pass on to their offspring.

If a mutation and the environment are beneficial, then organism is selected to live. If it is not beneficial, the organism is selected to die. There is no selection in evolution. That's just a word that makes the theory sound a little warmer, but a warm lie is still worse than cold comfort.

 

[sfs]

Sure it does. Evolution very clearly states that there was no purpose, intelligence, or meaning behind either the advent of life, or the activities of life thereafter.

And yet you have been unable to provide any evidence that evolution says anything of the sort. Science websites and textbooks don't say that, as you pointed out. My colleagues who are evolutionary biologists don't say that, as I've pointed out. The dictionary -- which you said was where we should look for definitions -- doesn't say that. As far as I can tell, this alleged statement by evolution exists solely in your mind.

 

[Speedwell]

It's true.



Natural selection.

Here's the definition of selection:
1. carefully choose as being the best or most suitable.

And here are the two definitions for "careful"
1. making sure of avoiding potential danger, mishap, or harm; cautious

2. done with or showing thought and attention.

You're saying evolution "carefully" selects organisms to live? It avoids potential danger and shows thought and attention? LOL Right. It also carefully selects organisms to die, too, which means the "selection" becomes completely meaningless.

Whether an organism lives or dies, according to evolution, doesn't have anything to do with selection. It's all based on the random chance that a mutation will happen in an environment where that mutation will prolong life long enough to pass on to their offspring.

If a mutation and the environment are beneficial, then organism is selected to live. If it is not beneficial, the organism is selected to die. There is no selection in evolution. That's just a word that makes the theory sound a little warmer, but a warm lie is still worse than cold comfort.

That's an old trick Endtimes, we've seen it before. Using non-scientific definitions of words from popular speech equivocally in a discussion of science is a logical fallacy; doing it intentionally as you are doing here is sophistry, a form of lying.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's true.

What is true?

Natural selection.

Here's the definition of selection:
1. carefully choose as being the best or most suitable.

And here are the two definitions for "careful"
1. making sure of avoiding potential danger, mishap, or harm; cautious

2. done with or showing thought and attention.

You're saying evolution "carefully" selects organisms to live?

Selection does not imply intelligence. Only you are giving it that connotation. You are projecting your own biases onto the word.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

I asked you to show where there is purpose, intent, and meaning in the science that describes the natural process of weather. You have thus far been unable to do so.

Until you do so, can we conclude that our scientific understanding of weather has the same faults as evolution?

No, you're just being stubborn. You don't see any purpose in the rain which waters crops, gives animals water to drink and makes life generally livable for us? You see no purpose there? Really? That's just plain stubbornness.

Are you saying that God intentionally gives children mutations that gives them genetic diseases? Yes or no?

If humans aren't helping one another, it's not God's fault. We're always looking for someone else to blame...

 

[Endtime Survivors]

What is true?

What comment of mine you were responding to. XD

Selection does not imply intelligence

Yes it does. Read the definition.

 

[Jimmy D]

Natural selection.

Here's the definition of selection:
1. carefully choose as being the best or most suitable.

The clue is in the word "natural".

Are you really trying to dismiss a scientific theory with semantic games?

 

[Endtime Survivors]

we've seen it before.

You and the Atheists, eh? Thick as thieves? XD

 

[Loudmouth]

And yet you have been unable to provide any evidence that evolution says anything of the sort. Science websites and textbooks don't say that, as you pointed out. My colleagues who are evolutionary biologists don't say that, as I've pointed out. The dictionary -- which you said was where we should look for definitions -- doesn't say that. As far as I can tell, this alleged statement by evolution exists solely in your mind.

As an atheist, I concur. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Theists believe there is purpose in nature through faith. Atheists don't believe there is purpose or intent in evolution because there is no evidence for such purpose or intent. A lack of belief is not the same as a belief it doesn't exist.

Where the Venn diagram of atheist and theist conclusions overlaps is where there is evidence, and evolution happens to be in that overlap.

 

[Jimmy D]

No, you're just being stubborn. You don't see any purpose in the rain which waters crops, gives animals water to drink and makes life generally livable for us? You see no purpose there? Really? That's just plain stubbornness.

Where is the intent?

 

[Speedwell]

No, you're just being stubborn. You don't see any purpose in the rain which waters crops, gives animals water to drink and makes life generally livable for us? You see no purpose there? Really? That's just plain stubbornness.

Whether one sees purpose in the rain or not is one thing. Whether one expects the theory of the hydrological cycle to express that purpose is another. Further, to say that if the theory does not express that purpose it denies it is just more of your sophistry.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

The clue is in the word "natural".

Nah, even if you dress it up with adjectives, it's still inappropriate for you to use words which imply meaning to define a theory which is meaningless.

Are you really trying to dismiss a scientific theory with semantic games?

Nope, I'm not dismissing anything. The theory of evolution is a real theory. I'm only suggesting its adherents be true to what the theory actually teaches when describing it.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Where is the intent?

Sometimes I forget there are people in the world who don't know what it's like to be thirsty.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you're just being stubborn. You don't see any purpose in the rain which waters crops, gives animals water to drink and makes life generally livable for us? You see no purpose there? Really? That's just plain stubbornness.

You are changing the meaning of purpose from earlier posts. That is an equivocation fallacy.

Using your new definition, the purpose of evolution is to produce biodiversity and to weed out negative mutations. Therefore, using your new definition there is purpose in evolution.

If humans aren't helping one another, it's not God's fault. We're always looking for someone else to blame...

Is God intentionally and purposefully giving children that causes genetic diseases? Yes or no?

 

[Loudmouth]

What comment of mine you were responding to. XD

"Nah. Evolution is just a temper tantrum."

How is evolution a temper tantrum?

Yes it does. Read the definition.

The scientific definition does not include intelligence. Chemists talk about selectivity in chemical reactions, and no one is indicating that atoms are intelligent. The term is used throughout science, and it doesn't carry the connotation of conscious choice.