Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[justlookinla]

I can predict that Honolulu will not have a blizzard today. Therefore, weather is not random. They even have these things called weather PATTERNS. Ever heard of them?

Yes I have. I predict there will not be a hurricane in Omaha, Nebraska this year.

ran·dom
ˈrandəm/Submit
adjective
1.
made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.​

There's method or conscious decision in the lack of a blizzard in Honolulu or a hurricane in Omaha?





So you have no problem with humans sharing a common ancestor with an amoeba since eukaryotes are eukaryotes?

Eukaryotes[/QUOTE]

 

[justlookinla]

I can predict that Honolulu will not have a blizzard today. Therefore, weather is not random. They even have these things called weather PATTERNS. Ever heard of them?

Yes I have. I predict there will not be a hurricane in Omaha, Nebraska this year.

ran·dom
ˈrandəm/Submit
adjective
1.
made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.​

There's method or conscious decision in the lack of a blizzard in Honolulu or a hurricane in Omaha?

So you have no problem with humans sharing a common ancestor with an amoeba since eukaryotes are eukaryotes?

Eukaryotes

Of course not. Building blocks are building blocks. Sharing is sharing.

 

[justlookinla]

No, just no, none of these things are random. If they were, a volcano would be just as likely to pop up in my yard as anywhere else, earthquakes wouldn't happen more often in certain areas than others, tornadoes wouldn't happen more often at certain times of the year. There would be no weather forcast if it were truly random, because one cannot predict random events to any extent.

Likewise, if evolution were random, you would have no correlation between the adaptations of animals and their environment, which just isn't the case.

Well...this is looking more and more designed, more and more like there is a consciousness behind it.

Maybe I was wrong. Now we need to find more about the designer, about the consciousness.

 

[justlookinla]

There is a form of nihilism where it is felt that if you do not know every thing about a subject then you know nothing. Basically this view rejects all evidence.

The above is a perfect example. If we not know the *exact* path, severity and on ground time of a tornado then it is totally random.

It does not matter that weather scientists can give the public a pretty good of where and when a tornado is likely to hit. It is irrelevant to someone with this kind of philosophy.

I think this is the point we should began talking about the designer if weather, volcanoes, earthquakes aren't random, i.e., there's a consciousness behind it.

The same goes for the original common ancestor. If we cannot precisely identify the the first organism then we know nothing about how the diversity of life occurred.

The issue in the view that humanity was created from a single life form of long long ago lies not in the failure to identify that alleged life form, the issue is the theory being chock full of 'maybe's', 'could be's', 'assumes' and possibly's. It's based on guesses. Suppositions. And not just a few.

A rather good example of this:

DerelictJunction Just According to Just, if we can't identify the first life, then all the references and explanations have no meaning whatsoever.

It is hard to gain any exchange of ideas with someone like this especially when this stance may indicate a somewhat tenuous hold on reality.

Dizredux

Are you aware that DerelictJunction misrepresented my position?

 

[justlookinla]

Yep, and within are different species of bacteria, finches, and moths. The speciation level is where evolution occurs.

Ok. What does that have for the failure of Darwinist creationists to provide evidence for their view of the creation of the variety and complexity of life we observe today?

 

[RickG]

I think this is the point we should began talking about the designer if weather, volcanoes, earthquakes aren't random, i.e., there's a consciousness behind it.

All of those have physical causes, which are observable with documentation and empirical data that are fully falsifiable. I am unaware of an independent consciousness being behind any of it. You have evidence to the contrary?

 

[justlookinla]

All of those have physical causes, which are observable with documentation and empirical data that are fully falsifiable. I am unaware of an independent consciousness being behind any of it. You have evidence to the contrary?

If there is no consciousness behind it, no order, then it's random.

ran·dom
ˈrandəm/Submit
adjective
1.
made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.​

 

[Loudmouth]

cre·ate
krēˈāt/Submit
verb
bring (something) into existence.

If that is the case, then clouds bring lightning into existence, so the theory that explains the creation of lightning through natural processes is also creationism.

Or, you are twisting words to such an extreme that they lose all meaning. In fact, you do so in order to pull science down into the religious muck with you. Calling evolution "creationism" is a desperate ploy to make science look as bad as religion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok. What does that have for the failure of Darwinist creationists

Until you use the correct terminology, there is no reason to look at the rest of your post.

cre·a·tion·ism
noun \-shə-ˌni-zəm\

: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
Creationism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[justlookinla]

All of those have physical causes, which are observable with documentation and empirical data that are fully falsifiable. I am unaware of an independent consciousness being behind any of it. You have evidence to the contrary?

If there's no method or consciousness involved, then it's random.

ran·dom
ˈrandəm/Submit
adjective
1.
made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.
"a random sample of 100 households"
synonyms: unsystematic, unmethodical, arbitrary, unplanned, undirected, casual, indiscriminate, nonspecific, haphazard, stray, erratic;​

 

[Loudmouth]

If there's no method or consciousness involved, then it's random.

So you are saying that there is no method or consciousness involved in how nature works?

 

[justlookinla]

Until you use the correct terminology, there is no reason to look at the rest of your post.

cre·a·tion·ism
noun \-shə-ˌni-zəm\

: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
Creationism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

cre·a·tion
krēˈāSHən/Submit
noun
1.
the action or process of bringing something into existence.
"the creation of a coalition government"
synonyms: establishment, formation, foundation, initiation, institution, inauguration, constitution;

 

[Loudmouth]

cre·a·tion
krēˈāSHən/Submit
noun
1.
the action or process of bringing something into existence.

That makes the natural process of clouds bringing lightning into existence a form of creationism, in your usage of the term.

 

[justlookinla]

If that is the case, then clouds bring lightning into existence, so the theory that explains the creation of lightning through natural processes is also creationism.

Or, you are twisting words to such an extreme that they lose all meaning. In fact, you do so in order to pull science down into the religious muck with you. Calling evolution "creationism" is a desperate ploy to make science look as bad as religion.

The clouds bringing lightning into existence are random, are they not?

 

[Loudmouth]

The clouds bringing lightning into existence are random, are they not?

It is creationism, according to your definition of the term, is it not?

 

[DerelictJunction]

Nope, not what I said. What I said was....."Yes, the point was that lack of the identity of an alleged single common ancestor calls into question the other many guesses and suppositions of the Darwinist creationist model. It could be this and it could be that and it could be something else is hardly evidence for one's creationist view."

I can read. My question was to gain clarity because I wanted to completely understand your meaning. Repeating a sentence that I already don't understand does nothing to add clarity.
If the "other many guesses and suppositions" are "called into question" by "lack of identity of an alleged single common ancestor", doesn't that call into question the entire conclusion that humanity evolved from a common ancestor? What do you mean by "call into question"? Is that the same as invalidating it, or just lowering its likelihood some percentage points?

That's the thing, you don't have evidence which points to humanity being the creation of only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic processes. The guesses and suppositions may or may not be true in that particular creationist viewpoint.

There is evidence that naturalistic processes were involved in evolution at some points. There is evidence that humans evolved from an common ancestor with chimpanzee's. Since there is evidence that humans evolved and that naturalistic processes were involved, that evidence can be used to point to humanity being the creation of only totally completely solely naturalistic processes. The evidence scientists have uncovered does not guarantee that the process was only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic, but it still points to it. What the evidence does not point to is God creating humanity as a life form which never previously existed (assuming that means humans did not evolve from other animals).

There's as much evidence for a supernatural involvement in the creation of humanity as it is for an atheistic viewpoint of the creation of humanity.

I agree if you mean that the supernatural involvement consisted of humanity evolving from a common ancestor with chimpanzee's. The evidence for God forming the first humans separately from the rest of life, with no ancestors, has almost no evidence, none of which is scientific evidence.

It's a faith-based view, as is Darwinist creationism which teaches that humanity is the result of a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless process.

Except that the evolution of humanity from a common ancestor has some scientific evidence pointing to it, whereas the "formed from the dust of the ground" hypothesis has none.

 

[justlookinla]

That makes the natural process of clouds bringing lightning into existence a form of creationism, in your usage of the term.

We're going to go back to the beginning of creation and you're not going to be able to give the original first cause. Been through this before. But, if you wish, we'll take it a step at a time. What natural process, which isn't random, brought the clouds into existence?

 

[justlookinla]

It is creationism, according to your definition of the term, is it not?

Random creationism?

 

[Loudmouth]

We're going to go back to the beginning of creation and you're not going to be able to give the original first cause. Been through this before. But, if you wish, we'll take it a step at a time. What natural process, which isn't random, brought the clouds into existence?

What nonsense. You call evolution "atheistic creationism" even though it does not talk about the ultimate origin of the universe.

You can't even keep your lies straight.

 

[Loudmouth]

Random creationism?

That's strange. When evolution is said to occur through just natural processes, you call it atheistic. So why doesn't the same apply to lightning?