proving evolution as just a "theory"

[pitabread]

so you believe in a designer?

Read what I wrote again: Design via evolution.

The process of natural evolution is the "designer".

 

[pitabread]

actually the creation model predicted it too.

This is just not true.

For starters, there is no rigorously defined "creation model" and consequently never any predictions with respect to chromosomal arrangements of species.

In fact, for a long time creationists would use the difference in chromosomes between humans and chimps as an argument against evolution, since they couldn't fathom how a chromosomal fusion could occur and become fixed in the human lineage. Their argument was that humans were created with only 23 pairs of chromosomes.

The idea that creationism "predicted" a fusion all along is just laughably false.

 

[Kylie]

There is a signature pattern throughout all of creation called the Fibonacci pattern, This spiral is visible in things as diverse as: hurricanes, spiral seeds, the cochlea of the human ear, sea shells, snail shells, fingure print, ram's horn, sea-horse tail, growing fern leaves, DNA molecule, waves breaking on the beach, tornados, galaxies, the tail of a comet as it winds around the sun, whirlpools, seed patterns of sunflowers, daisies, dandelions, and in the construction of the ears of most mammals.

If things evolve randomly, in tandem, then this would rule out the fibonacci pattern, because what has evolved on earth can never be consistently repeated throughout all of creation, without fail, throughout all galaxies.

The mere fact that this pattern existed from time zero, when planets and solar systems and galaxies came into being, then at the beginning, there was the Fibonacci pattern, which defies all evolutionary theories, for the simple fact of the pattern existing from the very beginning, which infers that there was order to begin with.

Evolution theory is order from a chaotic system involving many misses, over millions to billions of years, before order is reached, hence the term evolving into something more substantial and better than previous.

To prove a pattern consistent throughout creation indicates order from the very inception of created things, which proves that there is the Creator. Scientists freely throw out phrases like the finger print of God, when it comes to the Fibonacci pattern, though these scientists don't even believe in God. So go figure!

This is your argument that wins through and through.

For a more detailed study link, please refer below...

Shapes, Numbers, Patterns, And The Divine Proportion In God's Creation | The Institute for Creation Research

Order can happen without a conscious entity causing it.

If you get a big box and fill it with stones from fist sized all the way down to grains of sand and then let it get shaken randomly, the stones will sort themselves by size, with the smallest on the bottom and the largest on the top. This is ordered, but there was no consciousness guiding it.

Besides, if you are going to make the claim that order can only come from a creator, then we have to ask, is the creator ordered or disordered?

If the creator is ordered, then either he had a creator himself (which I doubt Christians will agree to), or we have an example which shows that your original claim - that ordered things need a creator - is wrong.

If we claim that the creator is disordered, then we can show that ordered things can come from disorder, in which case, why do we need a creator?

 

[Kylie]

Everything in its current state is a product of evolution if you believe in evolution.. you can't have it both ways. The caterpillar turning into a butterfly is the current evolved state of the caterpillar/butterfly if you believe in evolution. The catepillar, butterfly, and process are products of evolution of you believe in evolution.

Yes, that is true, but remember, individuals don't evolve. Evolution is how populations change over many generations. It is not a process that individual organisms go through.

And in terms of the evolve process being based on an imperfect process that creates slight changes.. how do you know the process is imperfect vs directed for the purpose of creating variation?

Because there have been many dead ends. Evolution tries something but it doesn't work as well as another variation, so the first group dies out. Pterosaurs dying out because they couldn't cope as well as birds, for example.

If God wanted to populate the earth with different creatures.. using the same material.. what better way than to use this process.

But why would we see all the hallmarks of evolution if that were the case?

And these rules for evolution support many different species developing all at once. Once life decided to happen on earth the variation process was already in effect causes multiple species to show up within seconds of each other. And full blown different animals/mammals and insects within A very short period.

First of all, evolution doesn't decide anything. It's a process, not some conscious thing.

Secondly, we are talking about a very short period of time from a geological point of view. This video of Richard Dawkins talks about a simulation of how the eye could have evolved, and it shows that it could have happened in a fairly short period of time, a quarter million generations. Given that few animals take as long as humans to being reproductively mature, each generation could be as short as a year (or even shorter), which means that eyes could evolve in 250,000 years. And that's a blink of an eye in geological time.

Your evolution could barely show any effects.. seeing that you would have larger items and smaller minute changes for the imperfect practice would have less of an effect.

Not quite sure what you're saying here.

It would seem you'd have an explosion of species.. followed by incredibly slight changes.. and possibly some dying out for what ever reasons.

First, we do see that happening sometimes, such as the Cambrian Explosion, and we also see creatures evolving with only slight changes, such as sharks and crocodiles, which have remained basically the same for millions of years.

But that wouldn't happen all the time. Populations will evolve as the conditions they live in change. If the conditions remain the same, then once the organisms have reached a peak of fitness for those conditions, they are unlikely to change much. But if the conditions change, then a burst of evolution will likely take place.

 

[Kylie]

Yes but.. you are still on the surface. The question is.. what gives everything the properties that it obviously has? It can't get them from itself..

..in all honesty before any of these items could exist.. the thought and laws behind the items properties and interactions had to exist.

You are begging the question. You are assuming that there had to be something to create these properties in order to show that there was something to create those properties.

Take a piece of paper and mark a single point on it somewhere. Then draw a second point some set distance from the first point. Now draw a third dot, the same distance from the first point. Then keep going, drawing a whole bunch of dots in different positions, all the same distance away from that very first point you made. You'll end up with a bunch of dots that form a circle around the first point. What gave those points the property of making a circle? Was it you? If so, could you repeat the exercise without giving them that property?

 

[Kylie]

There's evidence that God exists, you may not understand it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

None that stands up to any scrutiny...

 

[Kylie]

how it will help you at all? you just have a fossil without any DNA and with a mammal traits. how you can prove that it's the result of convergent evolution?

Did you even read the next part of what I said?

many similar shape suppose to evolved by convergent evolution too. so it will not help. also many different traits suppose to be the result of common descent. so no, it will not help you in this case.

We can tell because there will be differences. Are you not paying attention to my posts? Please, give me an example of something which was formed by convergent evolution in which both traits are exactly identical!

 

[The Times]

Order can happen without a conscious entity causing it.

Your reply with all due respect, I find totally illogical. Please just think for a moment.

Order or should I put it in simple terms the solution, does not use the same embedded algorithmic patterns consistently throughout all of Creation, which encompasses matter from the finite to the infinite (i.e. galaxies), IF and a big IF....

as Evolution theory pundents claim that matter came about by random chaotic processes.

This means that infinite paths to the solutions should be readily and scientifically observed and measured to quantify and qualify an infinite array of random embedded algorithms, to support the Evolution theory.

That is why in my Engineering classes, the teachers always use to say, it is not important how you arrive at the solution (order), as long as you showed how you used your algorithms according to the engineering rules and laws, in how you got there.

The same applies to all of Creation. It is the consistency of the same embedded algorithm used throughout all of Creation. This is no joke!

There is an intellegencia who has used consistently the embedded algorithm throughout all of Creation.

If you get a big box and fill it with stones from fist sized all the way down to grains of sand and then let it get shaken randomly, the stones will sort themselves by size, with the smallest on the bottom and the largest on the top. This is ordered, but there was no consciousness guiding it.

Again your reply with all due respect, I find ill informed and I don't mean it in a condescending way. Rather with utmost respect to you, I urge you to discern the following......

The example you have highlighted doesn't answer how the smallest grains of sand are sorted amongst themselves, nor how the largest grains of sand are sorted amongst themselves. It is in the finer detail of how the smallest finite matter couples itself, which arrives at the solution (order).

Did you know that the sorting that results in order is in how the big grains are sorted amongst themselves and how the small grains are sorted amongst themselves. It is this algorithm that is across board from the finite to the infinite, which highlights the same consistent embedded algorithm.

Did you know.....

Much like snowflakes, no two grains of sand are the same according to Dr Greenberg’s work.

Imagine, what embedded algorithm on a finite level is being used to sort the smaller grains of sand, or the largest for that matter. There is no random chaoctic order, otherwise we will observe and measure infinite embedded algorthimic patterns throughout all of Creation and the fact of the matter is, that we don't. On the contrary, we scientifically observe and measure consistently the same embedded algorthimic pattern throughout.

I recall my engineering teacher, who said you can arrive at the solution (order) using your own algorthimic path, as long as you followed the engineering rules and laws. This means that when there were multiple algorthimic paths presented to the teacher for marking, he knew that they were the working outs of different students and if he saw two the same, he would call that plagerism.

Besides, if you are going to make the claim that order can only come from a creator, then we have to ask, is the creator ordered or disordered?

This reply begs belief. You know if I claimed a solution in my engineering test, by using my own algorthims, then according to you, am I ordered or disordered?

Ordered or disordered in what??? It doesn't make sense what you are saying!

I must have the intellegence to know the engineering rules and laws, that I need to apply to arrive at A solution (order). Other students also apply those same engineering rules and laws to arrive at the solution, using different algorthimic paths. The chances of students in the complex field of engineering arriving using the exact same path or algorithm is next to zero in a classroom of 20 students, so how is it that the infinite material universe, with all of its planets, galaxies, down to the DNA structure, Atomic configuration and chemical molecules are ordered using base algorthims that are all interconnected with one another.

If the creator is ordered, then either he had a creator himself (which I doubt Christians will agree to), or we have an example which shows that your original claim - that ordered things need a creator - is wrong.

I will stop you there. Because this is not a philosophical or religious debate. I have presented in this thread, a purely scientific reasoning with logical observable and measured outcomes and you have sidetracked to another totally different field. Please, let us keep it real and consistent with the topic at hand. Thankyou.

If we claim that the creator is disordered, then we can show that ordered things can come from disorder, in which case, why do we need a creator?

Again, this is off topic. Thankyou.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Ok you have my attention friend. What point are you trying to make?

Faith (as in Religious Faith, or "Absolute Trust without evidence" as you wish to say) is not the same as Trust based on Evidence (as in prior experience, or demonstrated success). My Islamic Friend uses Faith in exactly the same way you do to profess his religion as being the correct religion over yours, just as you profess yours to be correct over his. How do we tell the difference between your claim and his claim without the evidence we take from every day happenstance scenarios?

Please excuse me.

My original post was to do with times when faith is acceptable and faith being rewarded. The substance here is an appeal to authority. Mother says to the child dont touch the stove. Child has faith in mother, does not get hand burnt.

Obviously reason and experience are important to any human but i was not debating that.

I hope you and your family are safe and healthy.

Of course they are safe and healthy, thank you! - Again though, as an Atheist discussing the topic with Theists of various stripes, I speak about Faith in its religious form because this is how Theists generally use the word in relation to their Religion. It is different to how you use the word in the above example because the child has prior experience or evidence (no matter what it is) to justify obeying a parent, or any authoritative figure. So your use of Faith is what I would define as Trust (i.e. evidence or experience based) and not Religious Faith (as in Unevidenced). Your child example is different to your Religious example, the two are not the same. My reasoning will follow below.

The reason why i gave the first definition is because that is the defintion im discussing in relation to an appeal to authority. Thank you for being so kind to go back. I think you will need to go back further.

This is fine if, as I said, you're using it in the evidence based form of "Faith" and not as the religious version of "Faith"

That is a declaration of faith. A statement of faith, not a dictionairy definition my dear

My favourite version is KJV and I use niv.

You can have faith with evidence and faith without evidence. Faith = total trust in someone or something.

What evidence would you accept then my friend?

Of course I would consider any and all evidence, which would be how I proportion my Trust in a person, process or thing. and Sure if you consider that statement from the Bible as a Declaration of Faith as opposed to a description of Faith, many believers and non-believers alike take it as a description to justify why they take their religious belief without evidence, so then I have to ask, why do you believe if that Bible quote is a declaration and not your justification for evidence free and absolute trust in your God?

Also, for clarity in our conversations, I'll use "Trust" to indicate "Faith with evidence" and "Faith" when I referring to "Faith without evidence" - this will save any confusion from here on I hope...

I'm not sure what I'll accept, but claims aren't acceptable. I would require an appropriate level of evidence to support the claim (i.e. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -Carl Sagan)

Would you say you have a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values

Again what constitutes evidence for you re a belief in God?

Not sure what material possessions and physical comfort have to do with Trust, but these things are tangible, I suppose (?) - Also, what are "Spiritual Values" and how do they differ from "Values"?

Explained what constitutes evidence as above...

You have accepted a thing as true or as certain to happen, without first proving it. It worked for someone else so therefore it will work for you. You put trust into seeing someone sit on the chair so therefore it is safe. That is your reasoning.

Nothing wrong here. We all do it.

Great! so now you understand why I don't have "Faith" then.

On a site once. I saw people walking along a wood plank over a trench. Someone placed it there and everyone used it. The plank was old and after a period of time, someone fell through it. No one was fatally hurt but the victim assumed that everyone else was using it so therefore it must be safe.

I sat on a chair at a friends house once. It seemed fine for some time. One day it broke while someone attempted to sit in it.

What u think?

Well, of course I think this is all reasoned "Trust", as I mentioned before, 100% certainty is not a requirement (and in fact is an impossible position to hold).

Certainty - firm conviction that something is the case. This is linked to confidence, assurance, truth and fact.

What happens when you have a firm conviction that something is the truth but have misconstrued the facts?

So you would not trust a doctor to perform on you unless you certified his qualifications?

"We deal in degrees of certainty"

What do you mean by the above statement, do you mean we reason the facts?

If I have a "firm conviction that something is the truth but have misconstrued the facts" - then I guess I wouldn't hold a firm conviction any longer. If the evidence is not in support of the conviction I hold, then I would change my level of confidence in that position accordingly. Whether I'm less convinced, or no longer convinced at all in a position is dependent on the evidence available to me.

I have reasoned trust in a Doctor because I have trust in the system that allows him to operate as such. I know that my society protects me as a consumer and patient by requiring this person to go through a stringent and comprehensive six year medical degree at a university that ascribes to the standards set out by my government on evidence based medical science, I know this person also had to intern and be supervised at a medical facility for at least another year of further medical training before they can register with the medical board to even be able to practice in the first place. I also know that the system has a backup recourse should all of this fail (whether through medical neglect, or malpractice) in a legal system that could ascribe civil damages if not delisting from the medical board and even criminal charges in the more extreme cases. - Contrast this with "Faith Healers" (as in unevidenced trust) for example where there's no checks and balances in place to support anyone! No study has ever supported the efficacy of these faith healers, or for that matter, intercessory prayer.

Degrees of Certainty is literally as implied. That is, I can never be 100% sure of anything. Nobody can. That aside, I can be reasonably sure the plank set up over the trench was likely to support the traffic as intended, and the chair that broke was known to have supported your own & the ample posteriors of those who used it with you til it broke - but in both cases, nobody could be 100% sure this would continue to be reliable. We only have all the supporting evidence of it working for us beforehand, and therefore a justified reason to tentatively trust it would continue to do so.

I do not demand anything forcefully. Faith is a complete trust in someone or something. I did not make up the word my friend. Words describe words and we use many words to define one word.

Sure, but again to save on confusion, I consider "Faith" to be unevidenced trust, and "Trust" to be based on evidence and reason. Just so there's no confusion conflating the two positions - which I still think you're trying to do...

Are you suggesting here that you are open to God but it has to be on your terms?

Of course I'm always open to the possibility, Sure! Remember, I can't be 100% sure of anything if I'm to be honest. If I want to accept as many true things as possible while rejecting as many false things as possible, then I have to be as diligent as I can in ensuring the method I use affords me the most success here. The Scientific Method and an understanding of what evidence is, are paramount to that process, and any God will understand (and in fact would support) such a stance - after all, wouldn't God be disappointed were I to accept the unevidenced claim of the wrong religion based on authority, or culture I happen to be born into?

Much of the folklore about fairies revolves around protection from their malice, by such means as cold iron or charms of rowan andherbs, or avoiding offense by shunning locations known to be theirs.[42]

Some pranks ascribed to them, such as tangling the hair of sleepers into "Elf-locks", stealing small items or leading a traveler astray, are generally harmless. But far more dangerous behaviors were also attributed to fairies.

Any form of sudden death might stem from a fairy kidnapping, with the apparent corpse being a wooden stand-in with the appearance of the kidnapped person.[43]

Consumption (tuberculosis) was sometimes blamed on the fairies forcing young men and women to dance at revels every night, causing them to waste away from lack of rest.[44] Rowan trees are considered sacred to the fairies

I could not find any info on fairies answering prayers and performing the miraculous ie healing, casting out demons etc.

Of course, I have no doubt that you couldn't find anything on Fairies answering prayer, just as you'll probably find success of prayers to a desklamp or a magic 8 ball light on substance too, but they all answer prayer just as well as religions do. So by that extension, I'm as certain that fairies answer prayers to them at least as good as any God answers prayer because all the studies on the efficacy of prayer are no better than chance either.

Wbat point are you trying to make?

The point of the exercise is that their "Faith" in their religion which has as much evidence for it as your religion's Faith has, gives them no better reason to make decisions that affect you as your decisions ought to affect others. I understand that you personally don't think you affect others, but I imagine you have positions on gay marriage, abortion, evolution & the sciences that underpin it, rational thinking, etc. and you vote?

If yes to any of those, then your "Faith" based beliefs affect those around you, including those that don't share your beliefs, some of them are the very subject of those beliefs - your beliefs and decisions based on them don't operate in a vacuum... You make unevidenced "Faith" based decisions that impact others in exactly the same way that an Islamic Administration of a country you might be in, could very well affect you.

Im not american. This is a statement about the 'mormon war'. What does this have to do with me?

It's a demonstration of how an unevidenced "Faith" based belief can be destructive in a bad way to the people who don't share those beliefs. Whether you believe yourself to be right or not, you don't seem to appreciate how your potentially incorrect beliefs could be damaging to others and the society you live in. So for this reason alone, you ought to care about having evidence for your beliefs, and not to just take it on "Faith".

Ppl make all sorts of decisions based on what they know. The groups you may be referring to sound like cults.

My dad suffered through chemo and died in pain. Death can be suffering with evidenced medicine!

Please watch out. This line of thought is an appeal to emotion.

Sure it can. That said though, your Dad likely lived longer than he would've otherwise, and likely benefited from palliative care borne from the medical sciences that wouldn't have been possible if it weren't for the progress of technology and medicines due to science and the scientific method.

Buddhism teaches no action, no desire and no attachment. Islam teaches you to submit to allah ( u cannot have a relationship with God), hindu teaches reincarnation.

Christianity teaches salvation and atonement for sin (u can hab a relationship with God)

It also teaches that we are born in sin and are sinful ourselves by default and our very distant ancestor did something so evil that God had to sacrifice himself to himself in bloodlust to create a loophole in the rules he made so we could go to heaven by believing in him.

I have no reason to think "sin" is a thing either, btw...

Atheists have faith in the thoughts of men who observe facts and descern them with the knowledge they have at that moment.

Apart from the fact that Atheism addresses no such point, I can tell you my personal position on this point (which has nothing to do with Atheists) - I have trust that I proportion to the claim and the evidence in support of it. The scientific method, which I think is the process you describe here, is the single most reliable method by which we have all the technology and progress we enjoy in our modern lives.

We didn't come upon computers by faith, we don't qualify doctors to practice medicine on faith, we don't communicate with people from around the world on faith, we don't fly anywhere on the planet in 24 hours on faith, and so on... None of these things we take as granted are a product of Faith.

All roads do not lead to rome my friend.

But all roads need trust. You dont follow something unless you have a firm conviction that something is the case and trust what you hear or read first. Acceptance.

Of course, that's why I require Evidence and/or reasoned thought before I accept a position of Trust (and not Faith) in a thing.

This is my opinion. Therefore i think im right. I do not go down the street saying 'hey everyone i believe in lies'. It is my opnion therefore i am correct. Just like it is your opinion, therefore you are correct.

Ask them friend, you do not need my permission?

I do not know what they will say

They say to me exactly what you say to me, and all of you have the same amount of evidence for your claims.

Ill refer to something you said.

"A 3 year old doesn't know any better let alone realise the correlation between not touching the stove because a parent said so, and an unburnt hand being a reward for not doing so"

You being a father. If a 3 yr old child was about to stick a knife into a power socket.

Would you let him learn from his experience or would you tell him not to do so - appeal.to authority?

Of course I wouldn't, the child has no prior experience (i.e. Evidence) with a power point, and may not even survive the process of coming about the evidence in this case, so yes, this is going to come down to the child's experience of having to obey my authority on the knowledge it will be in lots of trouble otherwise... This is still experience, even though I am its authority figure. The child knows to obey when I say something in no uncertain terms, otherwise it will suffer my punishment. It knows that its reward will be not getting in trouble through an established history of such events.

My dear this is why you have ppl like me trying to get you on the right track!

But again, how do you know your track is the right one without evidence? If you invoke "Faith", then I can take anyone's position of "Faith" in their religion just as easily.

It does not mean He isnt trying friend

Do you want Him to get through to u?

Well, if he is real, then Sure I want him to get through, this would be a point of fact I NEED to know in order to be accurate in my world view. The point still remains though, I have no reason to believe your particular version of this God is in fact real, and plenty of reasons not to believe he exists. If there is a God, any God let alone a Christian God of some type, then that God derived us through billions of years of evolution on a 4.5 billion year old planet in a 13.8 billion year old universe. All the evidence this God has left us through his creation contradicts your version of God. I go back to the degrees of certainty based on the evidence at hand to tell you that I'm quite certain that your version of God in your version of reality doesn't exist.

 

[The Times]

If Evolution theory pundents can prove that order came out of random chaos, then they have to present cases in real life that highlight different embedded algorthimic patterns being used throughout the universe, that result in physical matter, that describes how matter functions, that explains matter's behaviour, both observable and measured, both qualified and quantified.

We know that the laws governing the universe are only laws on their own. When we talk of embedded algorthims, like the Fibboncci pattern, we are presenting a real life observable and measured, quantifiable and qualifiable algorthim or should I say path resulting in order.

Note: The Fibbonicci algorthimic pattern or path that is used by the SINGLE INTELLEGENCIA to arrive at the solution (order) is not the law that governs the universe, for this is the misconception amongst Evolutionists, because it is only a path taken to arrive at order (solution). Fibbonicci embed algorthimic pattern uses the universal governing laws to arrive at the solution (order), so why must it be consistent throughout the universe, from the finite to the infinite?

Because....because......

Of the unseen SINGLE INTELLEGENCIA

 

[Kylie]

Your reply with all due respect, I find totally illogical. Please just think for a moment.

Of course, that musty be why I disagree with you, I'm just NOT THINKING!!!!!

Order or should I put it in simple terms the solution, does not use the same embedded algorithmic patterns consistently throughout all of Creation, which encompasses matter from the finite to the infinite (i.e. galaxies), IF and a big IF....

You have not shown that your ideas are any different to my ideas in where they come from. You are just saying that your ideas are special without justifying why they are special.

as Evolution theory pundents claim that matter came about by random chaotic processes.

Evolution does not describe where matter came from.

This means that infinite paths to the solutions should be readily and scientifically observed and measured to quantify and qualify an infinite array of random embedded algorithms, to support the Evolution theory.

Why does it mean this? Shouldn't we see only the best and most efficient paths to the solution? Any organism which takes a non-efficient path will lose out to those organisms which can reach the same goal more efficiently.

That is why in my Engineering classes, the teachers always use to say, it is not important how you arrive at the solution (order), as long as you showed how you used your algorithms according to the engineering rules and laws, in how you got there.

Yeah, but the real world isn't an abstract of numbers. If you had to hire an engineer and you had two people, and the first could get the right result in five minutes, but the second person took a week, who would you hire?

The same applies to all of Creation. It is the consistency of the same embedded algorithm used throughout all of Creation. This is no joke!

Begging the question again!

There is an intellegencia who has used consistently the embedded algorithm throughout all of Creation.

No there isn't.

Again your reply with all due respect, I find ill informed and I don't mean it in a condescending way.

Please tell me how that could ever be taken in a non-condescending way.

Rather with utmost respect to you, I urge you to discern the following......

You have claimed that I am wrong, but offer no actual evidence to back up your claims. You are not conducting this discussion with respect.

The example you have highlighted doesn't answer how the smallest grains of sand are sorted amongst themselves, nor how the largest grains of sand are sorted amongst themselves. It is in the finer detail of how the smallest finite matter couples itself, which arrives at the solution (order).

Would you like me to explain how my example actually accomplishes the sorting? Okay.

As the box is randomly jostled, the different stones all move around. As they move, holes will open up. Each hole starts off as small, but can increase in size. Since 100% of all holes start of small but only a small amount of the holes will get large, there will be many more small holes than large holes. This means that the smaller a particle is, the more likely a hole will open up for it to fall through. And since few holes will open up to a large size, there won't be many holes for the large stones to fall through. Thus, the smallest stones will fall more than the larger stones, and so the smaller stones will end up at the bottom while the larger stones will remain at the top.

You can see it inside every box of breakfast cereal or chips (crisps for those in the USA). You always get the little broken bits at the bottom, doncha? That's because the contents of the package have been sorted exactly the way I described.

Now, you will no doubt tell me why I am wrong...

Did you know that the sorting that results in order is in how the big grains are sorted amongst themselves and how the small grains are sorted amongst themselves.

Did I know that sorting results in big and small grains are sorted?

Well, yeah, this is like asking if I understand that wetting something makes it wet...

It is this algorithm that is across board from the finite to the infinite, which highlights the same consistent embedded algorithm.

Ah, you mean the one you said didn't apply to my example?

Did you know.....

Much like snowflakes, no two grains of sand are the same according to Dr Greenberg’s work.

So? No two snowflakes form under exactly the same conditions, and no two grains of sand are weathered of a larger rock the same way. What's your point?

Imagine, what embedded algorithm on a finite level is being used to sort the smaller grains of sand, or the largest for that matter. There is no random chaoctic order, otherwise we will observe and measure infinite embedded algorthimic patterns throughout all of Creation and the fact of the matter is, that we don't. On the contrary, we scientifically observe and measure consistently the same embedded algorthimic pattern throughout.

Wow, dude, if you can use just one single algorithm to describe everything in the universe, write a paper and go collect your Nobel Prize!

I recall my engineering teacher, who said you can arrive at the solution (order) using your own algorthimic path, as long as you followed the engineering rules and laws. This means that when there were multiple algorthimic paths presented to the teacher for marking, he knew that they were the working outs of different students and if he saw two the same, he would call that plagerism.

So what?

Are you saying that everyone must find their own unique path or it's fake?

This reply begs belief. You know if I claimed a solution in my engineering test, by using my own algorthims, then according to you, am I ordered or disordered?

I dunno, are you claiming to be God? If the answer to that is no, then my answer to your question is that it doesn't matter.

Ordered or disordered in what??? It doesn't make sense what you are saying!

Is God ordered or is God disordered? I can't make it any more simple than this. If the question is still confusing to you, I would suggest that it is because you do not have a sufficient understanding of the topic to be involved in a discussion about it.

I must have the intellegence to know the engineering rules and laws, that I need to apply to arrive at A solution (order). Other students also apply those same engineering rules and laws to arrive at the solution, using different algorthimic paths. The chances of students in the complex field of engineering arriving using the exact same path or algorithm is next to zero in a classroom of 20 students, so how is it that the infinite material universe, with all of its planets, galaxies, down to the DNA structure, Atomic configuration and chemical molecules are ordered using base algorthims that are all interconnected with one another.

So you are saying that in a class of twenty students, if they are assigned a problem, then it is highly unlikely that any two of the students will reach the conclusion by the same method?

Okay then. I will give you a sample engineering question:

You are a civil engineer who is responsible for building a new road. As a part of the road-building project, you must construct a concrete intersection where the new road will cross an existing road. Concrete can be made by mixing cement, sand, and gravel in the ratio 3:6:8. How much gravel is needed to make 850 cubic meters of concrete?
​

Please describe twenty different ways to solve this problem. The problem is from THIS page. If you don't like this question, I will be happy to give you a different question.

I will stop you there. Because this is not a philosophical or religious debate. I have presented in this thread, a purely scientific reasoning with logical observable and measured outcomes and you have sidetracked to another totally different field. Please, let us keep it real and consistent with the topic at hand. Thankyou.

No. You have not provided anything scientific or logical. You have simply made claims and asserted them to be true. You have given no evidence to back them up.

 

[Ophiolite]

If Evolution theory pundents can prove that order came out of random chaos,

Easily done. A chaotic silicate melt cools to produce an ordered association of minerals consistent with its cooling history and environment. There are thousands of such examples available.

(By the way, is a pundent an impression made with paronomasia?)

then they have to present cases in real life that highlight different embedded algorthimic patterns being used throughout the universe,

No they don't, since evolutionary theory does not include embedded algorithmic patterns.

. . .that result in physical matter, that describes how matter functions, that explains matter's behaviour, both observable and measured, both qualified and quantified.

Yet we can account rather well for all of this, with little or no reference to algorithmic patterns other than occassional one you have purloined.

 

[Tayla]

Except that nobody thinks that everything is purely "random".

I'm curious why you state nothing is truly random. I was under the impression that the state of the system after the quantum mechanics wavefunction collapses is truly random.

 

[Tayla]

Even today's engineers know that nothing is random.

I'm curious why you state nothing is truly random. I was under the impression that the state of the system after the quantum mechanics wavefunction collapses is truly random.

 

[Tayla]

iam trying to prove to a friend that the christian way is the true way but he tells me to give an explanation of evolution and dinosaurs.

Christianity and evolution are not incompatible. (I believe both.) And why are dinosaurs problematic? They went extinct long before the first modern humans appeared (evolved) 200,000 years ago in Ethiopia.

 

[AV1611VET]

Christianity and evolution are not incompatible.

We're mutant copy-errors made in the image & likeness of God, are we?

Jesus in the flesh was a glorified ape, was He?

 

[HiEv]

so you are saying that a spinning motor isnt evidence for design basically?

A spinning motor in a self-replicating organism that evolved it from other analogous structures is not evidence of a top-down designer, like a deity; it's only evidence of a bottom-up "designer", like evolution.

Remember, your whole argument is: I don't know how it could have evolved, therefore it couldn't have evolved, therefore magic/deity/elves/time travelers/or whatever did it. It's a massive argument from lack of imagination and ignorance, and it doesn't actually explain anything, it simply pushes it on to a bigger mystery. What did it? How did it do it? When did it do it? Why did it do it? It just raises numerous unanswered, and possibly unanswerable, questions, rather than explaining anything.

It reminds me of another (supposed) J. B. S. Haldane quote, where he was asked what he could conclude about the nature of the Creator from his studies, and he reportedly responded that if a Creator exists He must have "an inordinate fondness for beetles." While there are a bit over 5,000 species of mammals, there are over 350,000 species of beetles. Not insects, just beetles. Around 70 times more species of beetles than species of mammals. Why would an "intelligent designer" need to make so many species of beetles? Evolution can explain this, but I'd love to hear a creationist try to explain the need for that many species of beetles.

actually this trait improve vision:

Evolution gave flawed eye better vision

"IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision."

Here’s Why Your Eyes Seem to Be Wired 'Backward' | Smart News | Smithsonian

"So there must be a good reason for the "backwards" structure, Ribak thought.And there is. It helps us see in color better"

so this suppose "flaw" isnt a flaw at all.

You seem overly proud of this, as though I didn't know this was exactly where you were heading.

Nothing there changes my argument that the eye is still unnecessarily flawed if it was supposedly "intelligently designed". You addressed one point, and ignored all of the other points I made. The backwards retina still causes the eye to have blind spots, so all you've pointed out is a trade-off from the different layout. Whoop-de-do.

What about all of the other problems?

as we can expect under the design model and not at all under the evolutionery one.

What? How exactly is life ending up with one model in one organism and different models in other organisms, some good, some bad, something you would expect under a design model, but not under evolution? That looks exactly like what one would expect under an evolutionary model. Evolution doesn't work with a plan, it's simply chance followed by natural selection. If an imperfect improvement happens to be stumbled along before a better potential improvement, evolution could end up building off that imperfect improvement, or the better improvement may happen to occur later, leading to a better structure. The fact that some parts work well sometimes in some organisms is not evidence of an intelligent designer, it's evidence of evolution. It would only be evidence of a designer if it got it right all the time. This is why we see both good and bad "design" from evolution, because it's a bottom-up process.

You're going to have to explain your claim that creationism somehow explains all of the many types and flaws of eyes we find in various living organisms, and why you think evolution can't explain that, rather than merely asserting such a claim. The facts I'm aware of don't seem to support that argument.

it's also falsified the claim about the laryngeal nerve, since this claim base on the lack of knowledge and prove that no one can detect "bad design". we also know that this nerve may have several functions. we also need to consider that this structure may help during embryo developmant (internal organs need space to move and develop).

No one can detect bad design? What kind of nonsense assertion is that? If something does something it doesn't need to do and/or shouldn't do, and it could easily be fixed and/or greatly improved if it were intelligently designed, then that's a clear example of "bad design". Furthermore, the fact that sometimes some things may turn out to have an advantage we were unaware of earlier does not mean that there will always be such an advantage.

Also, you assert that the nerve "may have several functions", but it doesn't and can't. It's a nerve. It transmits a signal from A to B. That's what a nerve does. Nerves evolved so that they don't interact with what they pass through, much like an insulated wire, because that would make them work worse or interfere with other structures. The myelin sheath that coats our nerves not only helps the signal in the nerve, but acts like the rubber insulation of a wire to insulate it from the outside. If you think the recurrent laryngeal nerve serves another function, don't merely hand-wave and pretend it might, actually prove it. Claiming it might help during embryo development is ridiculous, since, not only is there zero evidence of that, but if it were intelligently designed you wouldn't need to make a nerve go out of its way to help with something, you could make something far more efficient to do that instead.

So, no, the recurrent laryngeal nerve is still an excellent and obvious example of evidence for unintelligent, bottom-up design, common descent, the flaws that can be caused by evolution, and evidence against an intelligent designer.

so what model predict this wrong place fossil?:

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland : Abstract : Nature

This is not evidence against anything I said. You do understand that, right? Throwing out red herrings isn't evidence against the fact that the evolutionary model both can and often does make successful predictions about the location and type of fossils we can find.

Regarding the article, it's totally irrelevant. Science is based on known data. Sometimes we find new data. So what? Nothing there disputes anything I said. Honestly, it would be more shocking if we never again found anything that modifies our current understanding.

So, do you have an actual argument about the examples that demonstrate the veracity of the theory of evolution, or just more red herrings?

actually the creation model predicted it too. since we already know that both chimp and human shared about 98% of their genome, the only explanation for those missing chromosomes is a fusion event.

Please show me the creation model that predicts this.

Most creation models I'm aware of assert that humans were a special creation, and aren't actually related to apes, and I've never met anyone who actually believed the creation models that supposed otherwise, they were merely brought up for sake of argument.

Also, as I explained, fusion wasn't the only possible explanation, it was merely the most likely one under the evolutionary model and it turned out to be true.

we actually do find complex creatures (not less then a rabbit) in those old layers:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/25223/title/Surprises-in-sea-anemone-genome/

"contradicting the widely held belief that organisms become more complex through evolution. The findings suggest that the ancestral animal genome was quite complex"

The argument wasn't that we shouldn't find complex creatures in old layers, it's that we shouldn't find complex creatures with no ancestors that it could have evolved from suddenly appearing in the fossil record. You haven't satisfied my actual criteria with that, all you did was attack a straw man version of what I said.

Also, that line you quoted is really terrible. You can tell it wasn't written by a scientist in the field of evolution, since that "widely held belief" is only "widely held" by laypeople, and not the scientists in the field. (If you're curious, the author is a science writer with a BS in cognitive science from 2000, so not even a biologist.) Scientists in the field are well aware that evolution isn't about complexity, it's about fitness, and if less complexity means greater fitness, then that's what will happen. It's why, for example, cave fish are gradually evolving away from having eyes.

Regardless, the fact that the ancestral animal genome was quite complex in no way satisfies the criteria I gave you. What you provided fits perfectly within the evolutionary model.

Got anything else?

as you can see- evolution is still just fine. so evolution have no problem to explain any fossil. even your own source admit it:

" From the perspective of the philosophy of science, it is doubtful whether the genuine discovery of mammalian fossils in Precambrian rocks would overthrow the theory of evolution instantly"

You don't need to quote that at me, I said as much myself. That's why I went on to give a separate example that would overthrow the theory of evolution. Did you actually read my reply? Because it looks like you simply moved on to your next talking point without actually reading or addressing what I said, much as you did with the eye conversation.

Also, I see you utterly neglected to return the same courtesy I extended to you when I answered your question, so I'll ask again: What would disprove ID/creationism to you?

you are talking about speciation or variation. the bacteria is still a bacteria and did not evolve a new complex system.

Ugh. You sound like Kent Hovind. He makes that same mistake.

The fact that bacteria are still bacteria when they evolve antibiotic resistance is not an argument against it being evolution. The fact is, "bacteria" is one of only three domains of life: bacteria, archaea, and eukarya. In the entire ~3.5 billion year history of life, as far as we can tell, only twice (maybe three times) has something evolved into a whole new domain. If you insist that a brand new domain of life appear before you admit to evolution being real, then you've set the bar impossibly high, literally impossibly high. Regardless, evolution isn't claiming that bacteria only evolve if they become not-bacteria anyways, so that's just a silly argument.

Pretending "the bacteria is still a bacteria" line of argument is somehow evidence against evolution, only demonstrates that you don't understand what evolution is.

Again, evolution (not the theory of evolution by natural selection, just evolution) is simply a change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. That's all it is. If you think it's something more than that, then you're simply misinformed.

If the frequency of traits within a population of bacteria change to make them more antibiotic resistant, then that's an example of evolution. Whether or not it "evolve(d) a new complex system" is utterly irrelevant.

That isn't merely "variation" either, because variation could exist without evolution. Evolution is a change in the frequency of those variants within a group. And that isn't necessarily speciation either. Evolution may lead to speciation, but it may not. So no, I wasn't "talking about speciation or variation", though they are related topics, I was just talking about evolution.

The point remains, bacteria developing antibiotic resistance over generations is a perfect example of evolution, because it's well known, it verifiably happens repeatedly in our lifetime, and it's simply a change in the frequency of traits within a biological population. That's exactly what evolution is.

If you want to understand why that happens, then the theory of evolution is what explains it, and intelligent design/creationism does not. All ID/creationism does is try to poke holes in evolution and then vainly pretend it's the only alternative, instead of actually presenting evidence supporting its claims.

That said, let me remind you, so you don't forget again: What would disprove ID/creationism to you?

I answered that question when you asked me, so it's only fair you answer in return. If there's nothing that can disprove ID/creationism, then it's not science, because it cannot be tested or proven. Actual science requires falsifiability.

 

[Tayla]

The question is.. what gives everything the properties that it obviously has? It can't get them from itself..

..in all honesty before any of these items could exist.. the thought and laws behind the items properties and interactions had to exist.

This reminds me of the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, of matter (a nonsensical idea in my opinion). Something new can spring out something existing. (I think non-dualist materialists like this idea because they have only worse ideas to choose from.)

So I agree; something has to already exist before you can build things out of them.

 

[The Times]

Easily done. A chaotic silicate melt cools to produce an ordered association of minerals consistent with its cooling history and environment. There are thousands of such examples available.

Good try and good effort my friend I must say!

An apparatus used within a controlled environment that has controlled starting conditions and chaoctic inputs that give weight to the initial condition, therefore resulting in anticipated layering of minerals for the purpose of finding iron, copper, silver, gold, oil or what ever.

This further emphasises that those research geologists who performed these experiments, under controlled conditions, came at the same answer/solution/order that is found naturally in the environment.

So how do we interpret this is the question that begs answering.....right?

Well, as I said previously to our friend @Kylie, with whom I was in dialogue with, that the solution/order, using natural universal laws is the same, however the path/algorithm to get to the order is immensely different.

What the geologists were able to do is to use a path from many paths that could have been used to arrive at the solution. The geologists used a specialised apparatus, used controlled starting conditions, used controlled chaoctic inputs into the plant.

The intelligence behind natural molten lava rock formation and the layering of mineral deposits is uniquely different to the geologists who performed a controlled lab experiment. There is astronomical processes and interconnected patterns that are found not only on our planet, but on asteroids and other composite space rocks that have the same layering.

My arguments are related to the one intellegent being who uses the same embedded pattern, that is found universally in all of nature, that is, in creation of matter, in function and movement of matter. All you have achieved here is to highlight the causality and effect and this would not account to patterns like Fibbonicci pattern that I discussed, which is across all creation from the finite to the infinite.

Just because as a scientists, I do this and do that and the response is like this all the time, by using a different approach/path/algorithm, does no in any way imply that the single intellegencia used the geologists embedded algorithm to arrive at the same order/solution. What you have unwittingly done, was to further give support to intellegence, that is, that being of the geologists on a micro level and the other of the single intelligent being on a macro level.

That is all you have done!

(By the way, is a pundent an impression made with paronomasia?)

It is not a pun, rather it is meant to say that it is more like a person waging a bet, something like that. Well the bet for Evolutionists hasn't paid off in terms of observable, measurable, quantifiable, qualifiable evidence, with naturally occurring diverse algorithmic patterns universally found in all Created Matter.

No they don't, since evolutionary theory does not include embedded algorithmic patterns.

Come on, are you serious! Are you serious!
Every path taken to arrive at order/solution is involving algorithms that use the universal laws. How do you, according to your faith statement above, excuse Evolution theory from any embedded algorithmic patterns, when I have proven to you and others that Evolution theory has failed miserably to highlight infinite embedded algorithmic patterns in terms of millions of millions of years of miss and miss affair. Your statement is contradictory and is extremely biased and weighted on your faith statement above.

There are multiple ways to arrive at order, shown me or show us, please.

Yet we can account rather well for all of this, with little or no reference to algorithmic patterns other than occassional one you have purloined.

Yeh sure, because you know the answer and don't need to provide a algorithmic path to how you arrive at the answer.

I had another student in my engineering class and he would only write answers for the questions of the practical lab exam and you know what, the teacher gave him a fail. The majority of marks were lost on not showing how he got there.

So what why are those pundents of Evolution so privileged to not have to provide algorithmic patterns?

The answer is because if one started to get into embedded algorithmic patterns, then the theory of evolution falls in a heap. So Evolutionists avoide showing the algorithmic path and cite ignorance at times. Yet evidences found in nature can not be ignored, just like I can not ignore that the Sun shines during the day and themoon during the night.

 

[HiEv]

Your reply with all due respect, I find totally illogical. Please just think for a moment.

IMHO, it's not respectful to assume that they hadn't thought for a moment, merely because they came to a different conclusion than you.

Order or should I put it in simple terms the solution,

You keep trying to use this false equivalence. "Solutions" are not the same as "order".

If the solution involves burning something, then you are increasing overall entropy, i.e. disorder.

does not use the same embedded algorithmic patterns consistently throughout all of Creation, which encompasses matter from the finite to the infinite (i.e. galaxies), IF and a big IF....

as Evolution theory pundents claim that matter came about by random chaotic processes.

That's not actually what they claim. Matter came about by the cooling of the universe after it expanded due to physics, not "random chaotic processes." Atoms were produced about 380,000 years after the universe first began expanding, and this was due to known laws of physics. While there is some randomness and chaos in the initial state of all of that energy and matter, the process that produced atoms was not itself just random chaos.

This means that infinite paths to the solutions should be readily and scientifically observed and measured to quantify and qualify an infinite array of random embedded algorithms, to support the Evolution theory.

I'm sorry, this is word salad to me. What "solutions"? How can you observe "infinite paths"? What "embedded algorithms"? And what does any of that have to do with the theory of evolution?

Evolution is a separate thing from from the origin of the universe and the origin of life. Evolution is what happened after all of that, and it's supported by fossil/geologic evidence, genetic evidence, geographic distribution of species, and many other things. Talking about "algorithms" doesn't wipe away all of the evidence that validates evolution.

The same applies to all of Creation. It is the consistency of the same embedded algorithm used throughout all of Creation.

I don't have time to go through the entire thread, but what "embedded algorithm" are you talking about, and where are the scientific sources supporting its existence?

If you're simply referring to the Fibonacci sequence, that's not an "embedded algorithm", nor is it "found everywhere". Heck, it isn't even an algorithm, it's an integer sequence. It's simply something that we rarely see in nature (not "everywhere" as you assert) since it's a simple mathematical progression. The fact is, when you have a large enough number of opportunities for coincidence to occur, coincidences are likely to occur. This isn't magic or proof of a deity, it's simply statistics.

Some patterns are more likely to occur and be noticed than others. That's simply a side-effect of how physics and mathematics work, not to mention human pattern recognition. But even in a universe with no deity, it's not hard to show statistically that patterns would still occasionally occur by chance alone.

There is an intellegencia who has used consistently the embedded algorithm throughout all of Creation.

I'm going to go with "nope" and "citation needed" here. I've seen no evidence of that.

Also, "intelligentsia" (not "intellegencia") means "intellectuals or highly educated people as a group, especially when regarded as possessing culture and political influence." So are we talking the Illuminati or Masons, or are we talking Atlanteans? I want to know how deep into the crazy conspiracy territory we're going.

Or did you simply mean "intelligence"? In which case, where is your evidence for that? You can't simply attribute something you don't understand to intelligence, and then use that as "proof" of intelligence. Ignorance does not beget knowledge.

The example you have highlighted doesn't answer how the smallest grains of sand are sorted amongst themselves, nor how the largest grains of sand are sorted amongst themselves.

I don't know why you think it has to "answer" anything. It's an example of order from chaos without requiring intelligent intervention. How it happens is irrelevant when the argument is that it can't happen at all. As long as there isn't evidence of tiny intelligent pixies or some similar intelligence arranging the materials by size, the exact how doesn't matter.

It is in the finer detail of how the smallest finite matter couples itself, which arrives at the solution (order).

Did you know that the sorting that results in order is in how the big grains are sorted amongst themselves and how the small grains are sorted amongst themselves. It is this algorithm that is across board from the finite to the infinite, which highlights the same consistent embedded algorithm.

That's just more word salad. You haven't actually explained anything.

The fact is, there are a couple explanations for granular convection, also called "the Brazil nut effect" due to the way the larger Brazil nuts tend to sort to the top in mixed nuts. None of those explanations have anything to do with "matter coupl(ing) itself". Also, saying that A gets sorted apart from B because of how A sorts among A and B sorts among B doesn't actually explain anything and can't be an explanation. The explanation for how A sorts itself from B has to involve explanations across both A and B at the same time.

The actual answer appears to be that, when shaken, the smaller particles slip down between the gaps due to gravity, causing them to pack lower down. This greater density in the lower portion of the container causes the larger, less dense (due to air gaps), objects to become relatively more buoyant and "float" up to the top, since when the materials are shaken they act more like a liquid. So it's a combination of gravity and buoyancy that does the sorting, both of which, needless to say, are unintelligent processes.

Regardless, the explanation for why it happens is irrelevant unless you can demonstrate the why happens to be an intelligent being, which it is not. The fact that it happens without needing intelligence disproves your claim that things like that require intelligence.

Imagine, what embedded algorithm on a finite level is being used to sort the smaller grains of sand, or the largest for that matter.

Unless by "embedded algorithm" you mean "physics", I see no reason to suppose there is anything inherent to the objects themselves that produces this sorting.

There is no random chaoctic order,

There are also no red things that are totally green. "Random chaotic order" is an oxymoron.

It's also a straw man to pretend that anyone was arguing that "random chaotic order" exists. That wasn't what they were saying, so it's flat out dishonest to pretend that it was.

otherwise we will observe and measure infinite embedded algorthimic patterns throughout all of Creation and the fact of the matter is, that we don't. On the contrary, we scientifically observe and measure consistently the same embedded algorthimic pattern throughout.

First, the word is "algorithmic", you keep putting the "i" in the wrong place. I don't think you mean Al Gore Thimic.

Second, I don't see evidence for either of those conclusions (not that anyone was talking about "random chaotic order" anyways).

What "algorithm"? And where is all of these scientific observations and measurements of it existing within things that you speak of? What part of a molecule/atom/particle contains this pattern? I see a lot of claims, but no actual scientific sources or evidence supporting those claims. The fact that the Fibonacci sequence merely exists or occasionally appears in nature is not itself evidence that any thinking mind put it there, since there are other, more probable, explanations for it's occasional appearance.

This reply begs belief.

The reply doesn't beg belief at all. It's simply pointing out that if you're going to assert that order can only come from a creator, then your creator would have to be disordered unless it too had a creator. Otherwise it's just special pleading.

You know if I claimed a solution in my engineering test, by using my own algorthims, then according to you, am I ordered or disordered?

I don't understand why you think this is a relevant response to Kylie's question.

Ordered or disordered in what??? It doesn't make sense what you are saying!

Ordered or disordered in the same sense that you're using it when you claim we or any other part of the universe are ordered. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

With all due respect, it just looks like you chose to dodge a pretty simple question that punches a giant hole in your argument, because you didn't want to be hoist by your own petard.