Some random discussion on evolution...

[OldWiseGuy]

No, it is not complete--no science is--but no doubt has been cast on it so far.

I hereby cast doubt on it.

 

[Speedwell]

Your analogy begins with the existence of the winning ticket.

In nature there are many potential winning tickets

Evolution is just reverse engineering of something that already exists.

If you 'wound back' the evolutionary clock and let it run again up to the present day, the probability of finding the same collection of species we have today would be vanishingly small.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I hereby cast doubt on it.

And your doubt means absolutely... nothing. Your doubt is worthless.

 

[Speedwell]

I hereby cast doubt on it.

In order to do that you must present physical evidence which contradicts it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In order to do that you must present physical evidence which contradicts it.

I can only present the obviously overwhelming odds against it. At a certain point improbable becomes impossible.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And your doubt means absolutely... nothing. Your doubt is worthless.

I cherish those doubts (I'm sure you noticed).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I cherish those doubts (I'm sure you noticed).

You cherish them a little too much. WAY too much.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You cherish them a little too much. WAY too much.

Evolution lacks the detail needed to understand it.

 

[pitabread]

I can only present the obviously overwhelming odds against it.

Given that it's not possible to calculate the odds of such a thing, therefore the above statement is not true.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution lacks the detail needed to understand it.

This statement makes no sense.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Evolution lacks the detail needed to understand it.

No, you just lack the ability to understand it, the patience to understand, and also really just the general attitude to actually admit that you don't want to understand it.

 

[Speedwell]

I cherish those doubts (I'm sure you noticed).

What for? Evolution doesn't deny the existence of God or His authorship of our being. Why not just relax and say, "maybe evolution really is the way He did it."

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you just lack the ability to understand it, the patience to understand, and also really just the general attitude to actually admit that you don't want to understand it.

Evolution can take a hike. It's a source of too much consternation.

 

[AV1611VET]

What for? Evolution doesn't deny the existence of God or His authorship of our being. Why not just relax and say, "maybe evolution really is the way He did it."

Evolution reduces our Saviour down to a mutant copy error.

 

[Speedwell]

Evolution reduces our Saviour down to a mutant copy error.

There are no grounds for believing that. Even if "mutant copy error" was an accurate description of evolution, it would be no different than saying, "Creationism reduces our Savior down to a handful of dust."

 

[Speedwell]

Evolution can take a hike. It's a source of too much consternation.

Only for creationists.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution can take a hike. It's a source of too much consternation.

(The theory of) evolution is an applied science. It ain't going anywhere.

Why creationists have chosen to pick a fight with science is mystery. Historically speaking, religion has never come out on the winning side of such battles.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Given that it's not possible to calculate the odds of such a thing, therefore the above statement is not true.

As stated, the odds are too overwhelming to actually figger.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This statement makes no sense.

Only if you discount complexity. Evolution sees simplicity where I see complexity. Therefore evolution doesn't have to answer to the actual complexity of the creation.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, you just lack the ability to understand it, the patience to understand, and also really just the general attitude to actually admit that you don't want to understand it.

How can one understand a theory that denies complexity and design, so obvious in the things they purport to study?