Evolution is mathematically impossible

[pitabread]

I don't agree with those arguments, but I recognise their value and respect the individuals who make them. Thus I take my hat of to any creationist who says "look, I know the evidence points towards the reality of evolution, but my reading of Scripture combined with my personal experience of God cause me to reject it." Unfortunately what see instead is ludicrous attempts to deny the science, attempts that lack substance and sanity. I cannot respect that approach.

I get the feeling that a lot of creationists don't have strong enough beliefs to hold that position. Which appears to manifest in so many feeling threatened by the existence of science which contradicts those beliefs.

This is why a position held by people like Todd Wood is so refreshing in how rare it is: The truth about evolution

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Your out of your depth

You should have no trouble pointing to a post where you've demonstrated my struggle to comprehend a subject then.

and your ego response is to blame the other guy for his lack of understanding while saying nothing....

The funny thing is, I have supported my claims of your lack of understanding. You haven't even attempted to support your mud slinging, you simply hope some of it will stick and that nobody can see through your empty assertions.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If it’s not random then it’s designed.

I see no other option you presented....

Not purely random? There doesn’t appear to be any randomness at all. The entire universe can be written in mathematical laws that we can rely on day after day after day. What you take for randomness is simply being unable to account for all the variables at work.....

You don’t even really believe it’s random or you wouldn’t try to explain it, as pure randomness has no explanation..... it’s random..... no one really believes it despite their claims to the contrary. It’s pure PR as what good is trying to write laws for a lawless universe.....

Accept it or not but it’s why you have the science we do today, because people expected to be able to explain a designed universe and so looked for the laws governing it.

Not a single scientist sets out hoping he’ll get lucky and all the randomness will just fall together so he can logically explain random illogic..... there exists no pattern to randomness....

Lol. Given our previous posts back and forth this is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate who is actually talking sense and who is in way over their head.

Q: Do physicists really believe in true randomness?

 

[Jimmy D]

I’ll ask again. Do you believe in Yeti’s? Folklore, mythology?????

How do you know what a Yeti looks like except to infer it from your imagination...

It goes along with the abominable snowman and Bigfoot.....

Don’t try to be coy and all of a sudden pretend you can’t comprehend what I meant. Such a sad ploy that should be beneath you, but apparently nothing is...

It was an analogy relating to the Dawkins quote you used, nothing more.

Appearances can be deceptive. That's it.

Just as Dawkins didn't "see design", as you claimed, I didn't actually see a yeti, just something with the appearance of a yeti, the depictions of which I are prevalent in popular culture.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's not a valid dichotomy. Not unless you are redefining "random".



To be fair, we don't have *that* level an understanding of the universe.

That said, just because something isn't purely random doesn't automatically mean it has an intelligent creator. When talking about the universe as a whole, we simply don't have enough information to make that claim.

In your claim which as you say does not have enough information despite all the laws of nature.....

It favors the odds of an Intelligent Creator more than it does the odds of randomness....

But as already stated: scientists do not go looking to get lucky hoping the random events will just fall together into a pattern. They search for patterns because they expect to find them.....

Now you can try the false argument that random events may appear pattern like, and in the very short term this can be the case in a limited subset, but in the long term the randomness would show, and it does not....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It was an analogy relating to the Dawkins quote you used, nothing more.

Appearances can be deceptive. That's it.

Just as Dawkins didn't "see design", as you claimed, I didn't actually see a yeti, just something with the appearance of a yeti, the depictions of which I are prevalent in popular culture.

Oh no, Dawkins “saw” design. He then tried to rationalize to himself why the design he saw was not really design as he was not ready to accept the conclusions of what he saw.

He was ready to concede that perhaps intelligent aliens designed man, as long as he could retain the belief that the aliens were products of chance. It was not the design Dawkins had a problem with, he could readily accept what he saw, just the Designer......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Lol. Given our previous posts back and forth this is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate who is actually talking sense and who is in way over their head.

Q: Do physicists really believe in true randomness?

PR to support their ID.

Yet scientists search for patterns to explain things, not hope to get lucky and that the random events will just fall together while they are searching. Actions speak louder than words.....

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Oh no, Dawkins “saw” design. He then tried to rationalize to himself why the design he saw was not really design as he was not ready to accept the conclusions of what he saw.

He was ready to concede that perhaps intelligent aliens designed man, as long as he could retain the belief that the aliens were products of chance. It was not the design Dawkins had a problem with, he could readily accept what he saw, just the Designer......

So tell us, what does design look like?

You claim you can see it and that others have seen it so you must know what it looks like. So no dancing, no prevarication - what, specifically, do we see when we see design?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

PR to support their ID.

Yet scientists search for patterns to explain things, not hope to get lucky and that the random events will just fall together while they are searching. Actions speak louder than words.....

If you were to show me I was wrong I would have the good grace to admit it, learn and change. It is a sad reflection on you that you cannot do the same.

 

[Jimmy D]

Oh no, Dawkins “saw” design. He then tried to rationalize to himself why the design he saw was not really design as he was not ready to accept the conclusions of what he saw.

Made up nonsense.


Besides, science is about evidence, not personal beliefs.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You do know that circular reasoning is a fallacy, yes?

IOW, it doesn't actually provide support for what you are claiming.

Back to the duck analogy.

 

[xianghua]

Your claim is that just by looking at something we can tell if it is designed. So tell me, which of these are designed?

Now tell us how you came to the conclusion that design was/wasn't involved.

we cant know for sure which of these structure is the product of design since they arent complex enough to know it for sure ( except for the last image i think). but we do know for sure that some structures are indeed the product of design. like this one:

(image from Alive stone word in the sand - Buy this stock photo and explore similar images at Adobe Stock)

so are you still think that we cant conclude design by looking at this structure?

 

[Speedwell]

we cant know for sure which of these structure is the product of design since they arent complex enough to know it for sure ( except for the last image i think). but we do know for sure that some structures are indeed the product of design. like this one:

(image from Alive stone word in the sand - Buy this stock photo and explore similar images at Adobe Stock)

so are you still think that we cant conclude design by looking at this structure?

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?

 

[pitabread]

Back to the duck analogy.

Wut?

 

[Ophiolite]

Back to the duck analogy.

When pushing Creation you run out of luck
On every occassion you rely on a duck.
It's simplistic and foolish and wide of the mark
And just leaves you floundering out there in the dark.
Evolutionary theory, for which you've no truck,
Consistently shows that we all came from muck.

 

[pitabread]

we cant know for sure which of these structure is the product of design since they arent complex enough to know it for sure ( except for the last image i think). but we do know for sure that some structures are indeed the product of design. like this one:

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.)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When pushing Creation you run out of luck
On every occassion you rely on a duck.
It's simplistic and foolish and wide of the mark
And just leaves you floundering out there in the dark.
Evolutionary theory, for which you've no truck,
Consistently shows that we all came from muck.

You've got talent.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Wut?

If it looks and acts like it was designed, it was probably designed.

 

[Astrophile]

It’s your expert that sees design then claims aliens must have done it, then argues their is no design..... in his mind it’s ok if aliens designed man, it’s not the design he has a problem with..... just the designer..... as long as they came from natural random causes....

No, Dawkins did not say that aliens must have done it. The argument that aliens must have done it comes from pseudo-scientists like von Daniken and the Raelians, and it is as fallacious as the argument that God did it. The logical flaw is that the argument does not explain the origin of the designer; it requires that the designer (whether God or aliens) either is self-existent (an ad hoc assumption, not supported by any observation) or they must have evolved by natural selection. If complex aliens capable of designing man (or any other living thing) evolved by natural selection, there is no reason why we (and all other terrestrial life) cannot have evolved in the same way. You should read Climbing Mount Improbable and Chapter 4 of The God Delusion to have a better understanding of Dawkins's thinking.

 

[Astrophile]

Well supported? The entire fossil record shows every creature doesn’t change for its entire span of existence.

First, this is not true; you should read Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald R. Prothero and Written in Stone by Brian Switek to bring your knowledge of palaeontology more up to date.

Second, even if it were true you would still need to explain the observed changes in the fossil record. What you and Jonathan Sarfati are saying is that a fossil species of animal or plant (call it A) exists for a period of time, perhaps a few million years, and then vanishes from the record, to be replaced by a similar, and presumably closely related, species (call it B). What happens in the interval between the disappearance of species A and the appearance of species B? Do all the members of species A decide to give up breeding ('Get thee to a nunnery. Why, wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?'), or are they wiped out by some natural catastrophe or by divine intervention? Where do the first members of species B come from? If all life comes from life they must have had parents, and what species could these parents have come from except species A?