Evolution is mathematically impossible

[Astrophile]

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.....

Perhaps you should consider Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and quantum theory.

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.....

The odd thing is that I could make the same accusation about 'scientific creationists', that they don't really believe in their own hypothesis. If they did believe it, they would set out both to learn everything they could about biology and geology and to make all the observations and experiments that they could, because they would expect their findings to provide evidence for creationism. The fact that they remain ignorant of these subjects, and rely on misrepresenting the findings of real scientists rather than doing any research of their own, shows that they know that the evidence is in favour of evolution and against creationism, and that they dare not risk facing this evidence.

 

[pitabread]

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

Which only begs the question of why you think it looks designed. And we've already established you're going by circular logic in that regard.

Basically there's no argument for design here.

 

[pitabread]

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

We don't have complete information about the universe nor even enough to conclude it is the product of design. I get that some people believe it is designed, but that's a far cry from demonstrating that that belief is a valid conclusion.

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

There are no "odds" here. This is just empty rhetoric.

Now you can try the false argument

I'm not making that argument at all.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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).

Very good. Now please please respond to this request that you ignored:

"Now tell us how you came to the conclusion that design was/wasn't involved." What I'm looking for is how you decided "they arent [sic] complex enough". And I'll give you a clue - the answer has nothing to do with complexity

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

When you've responded as requested above, you tell me what the answer is.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Which only begs the question of why you think it looks designed. And we've already established you're going by circular logic in that regard.

Basically there's no argument for design here.

Until you learn how it operates, then you see design.

 

[pitabread]

Until you learn how it operates, then you see design.

And how does learning how it operates make one "see" design?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And how does learning how it operates make one "see" design?

An organ or organism either functions by accident or design. The marvelous function of the human brain is hardly an accident, imho.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

An organ or organism either functions by accident or design. The function of the human brain is hardly an accident.

No-one says it came about by accident.

 

[VirOptimus]

An organ or organism either functions by accident or design. The function of the human brain is hardly an accident.

Its the result of the evolutionary process, not ”an accident”.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No-one says it came about by accident.

Then we agree.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then we agree.

You accept the ToE?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Its the result of the evolutionary process, not ”an accident”.

So evolutionary changes are deliberate...by design?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You accept the ToE?

Er, no.

 

[Ophiolite]

An organ or organism either functions by accident or design.

That is an supported assertion.
There is little or no significant evidence suggesting that any organ, or organism, functions by accident.
There is little or no significant evidence suggesting that any organ, or organism, functions by design.
There is substantial evidence that organs, or organisms, function through the selection of chance (accidental) biochemical events (mutations).

 

[VirOptimus]

So evolutionary changes are deliberate...by design?

No, and you know that. So why the delibaretly obtuseness?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then we agree.

Not really, since you believe it came about by divine creation. I don't... in full.

 

[VirOptimus]

Er, no.

Then you are wrong, as usual.

 

[pitabread]

An organ or organism either functions by accident or design. The marvelous function of the human brain is hardly an accident, imho.

Okay, so we have your opinion. But how would you objectively determine the brain is deliberately designed? What is your specific criteria for determining design in this case?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The ToE has the problem of no soft tissue evidence. All they have is bones.

 

[VirOptimus]

The ToE has the problem of no soft tissue evidence. All they have is bones.

Lol, wut?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then you are wrong, as usual.

Not liking my positions doesn't make me wrong. Heck, you might be wrong.