Selection is the opposite of chance. It's not like random molecules just bounce into each other and create a human. It starts with simple self replicating units. Things went from very simple to very complex over a period of about 600 million years.
Answering an evolutionist argument.
by hooberus 39 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
-
DanTheMan
Hooberus,
I think you missed my point. Saying that God is some unobserved, unobserveable, non-mechanical something that had no beginning is an unverifiable, untestable, 'because I say so' assertion. It proves nothing.
-
Abaddon
It is unbelivable that Creationists can think their argument against evolution ("design requires a designer") is NOT a fallacy simply because they say "but in this case our postulated designer doesn't need a designer because we say so". It shows the self-obsesion and auto-idolatry that lies at the heart of every literalistic belief system where it is only the conceit of the literalist that they can understand scripture correctly that provides any basis for their belief structure.
Once again they wharp facts to suit theories rather than adapting theories to suit facts, and blashpheme against god by insisting god cannot cause what we see around us to come about as a result of evolution, even when all the evidence points to evolution occuring. They limit the power of the Almighty god because of their lack of faith.
Seriously, with believers like that god doesn't need atheists.
And hooberus, you knowBehe's irreducable complexity arguments have been falsified; why do you seek to deceive people by presenting it as credible science? Is dishonesty like that part of your Christian fruitage? I don't expect someone as evasive as yourself to answer me; I have been waiting several years for you to show how dendrochronolgy does not falsify literalist claims of a global flood. You make out your silence on the subject to be my fault, which is just more deciet as we all know if you had a credible argument against dendrochronology you would use it...
-
greendawn
Ithinkisee and 2050, I am surprised with what you are saying as far as I have always known evolution is based on random mutations which are based on sheer chance, if some of these mutations happen to be advantageous the species progresses into something more sophisticated and overall the evolution of life to higher forms including man happened by a long (additive) series of such mutations over billions of years. I can't imagine this being anything other than a random process driven by chance.
-
dawg
Again, this whole argument is a straw man, making up the argument of your opponent so you can easily knock it down... there are those that have addressed the evolution of the eye and don't say one word about the subject of god in the process.
-
AlmostAtheist
>>evolution is based on random mutations which are based on sheer chance, if some of these mutations happen to be advantageous the species progresses into something more sophisticated and overall the evolution of life to higher forms including man happened by a long (additive) series of such mutations over billions of years. I can't imagine this being anything other than a random process driven by chance.
Greendawn, the non-random part of the deal is the selection process -- the "happen to be advantageous" part you mentioned. That is decidely non-random as it specifically selects those changes that enhanced survival.
Think of Silly-Putty, the classic "happy accident". Invented by mistake, but was its commercial success a random occurrence? Not at all. There are thousands of accidents made every day in labs, thousands of experiments that produce surprising-but-useless results. The "silly putty" accident was a beneficial one, and it survived.
A mutation that made a mouse glow in the dark would make him easy to see and eat -- that mutation would be not be selected, as the carrier would soon be eaten and couldn't pass it on. A mutation that made a mouse blend into his environment, however, WOULD enhance survival, and would be passed on to his children that would also survive better than their peers. In short order, the population at large would have that mutation.
Dave
-
kid-A
"Ithinkisee and 2050, I am surprised with what you are saying as far as I have always known evolution is based on random mutations which are based on sheer chance"
> Why is it an inevitable fact that the biggest opponents of evolution are those that understand it the least? Evolution has nothing to do with "sheer chance" ! Random selection is only "random" in so far as unpredictable environmental contingencies act upon existing genetic variation, selecting for genotypic traits that render a reproductive advantage on subsequent generations. Obviously if a given gene confers biological advantages on an individual within a particular set of environmental factors, those genotypic traits will be selected for. The genomes of most organisms are remarkably complex with inherent redundancies upon which environmental pressures may "select" certain genetic factors. Second, as other posters have pointed out to you, what you consider "complex" biological organisms are all, ultimately reducible to simple, component molecular elements.
"if some of these mutations happen to be advantageous the species progresses into something more sophisticated and overall the evolution of life to higher forms including man happened by a long (additive) series of such mutations over billions of years."
> Yes, now you're getting it.....
"I can't imagine this being anything other than a random process driven by chance."
> This sort of statement from "creationists" always boggles my mind. Evolutionary science constantly, on a nearly daily basis, makes new, exciting discoveries at the anatomical, anthropological, and molecular levels of analysis all of which are filling in the evolutionary history of this planet and its lifeforms. There are thousands of tested, proven hypotheses backing the tenets of evolution in addition to hundreds of thousands of pieces of tangible, hard evidence for the evolution of not only hominids, but nearly all multicellular lifeforms on this earth.....
Now, what does a "creationist" bring to the table? Lets see......an ancient, poorly translated book of legends and myths written by wandering desert nomads 2000 years ago that modern, scientifically advanced humans are expected to take as a "factual" history of life on this planet. Constante "special pleading" arguments based purely on the emotional need to believe in a "sky-daddy" that somehow, for no apparent reason, decided to wave his magic wand, and create an "Adam and Eve" in a magical "garden", replete with talking snakes. This is in addition to a complete and utter lack of ANY tangible evidence (outside of the literary world) for the existence of ANY god in the universe.....
In summary, my only conclusion is that in the face of incontrovertible, hard evidence for evolution, Greendawn persists in the "belief" that there is a far greater "probability" that some undefinable, omnipotent god creature floating in the sky, who somehow, did not himself require a "designer" or "creator", one day, out of universal boredom, decides to create organic life-forms on some random planet in the cosmos so that he could have an "audience" to worship his supreme ego for all eternity. Yup, makes sense to me!!! LOL......
-
stillajwexelder
ABBADON SAID Is dishonesty like that part of your Christian fruitage? I don't expect someone as evasive as yourself to answer me; I have been waiting several years for you to show how dendrochronolgy does not falsify literalist claims of a global flood. You make out your silence on the subject to be my fault, which is just moredeceit as we all know if you had a credible argument against dendrochronology you would use it...
Yes Hooberus - please explain- are Christians supposed to be dishonest? Selective quotations - just like the WT
-
IsaacJS2
There are some random elements in the process of evolution because mutations are random. But it is a process--a painfully slow one at that--not a sudden random change of one species into another out of the blue every so many generations. To say that it is all about randomness is to greatly oversimplify the process and to misunderstand how it works. Still, I know of no better explanation for it than Dawkin's mount improbable. It makes sense, even if you know nothing more about evolution than what you learned in high school. BTW, most of us were taught wrong in high school about evolution and history. If you want to understand evolution, you really have to dig a lot deeper. If you have dug deeper and read the scientific responses to the I.D. (and other creationist) objections to evolution, but still support I.D. as a more scientific view, then it might help if you could tell us where the scientists are wrong. Right now, you seem to be repeating the arguments that scientists have already refuted.
I would like to point out that evolution doesn't have to be unscientific to be wrong. Ultimately, we nonscientists have nothing more to go on than the word of people who know gobs more about it than we do any way. I just don't know of any good reason to take the word of I.D. advocates over that of the scientific community, which is just one of the issues I have with I.D. and why I honestly have a hard time listening to these debates any more. Again, if you want to convince the pro-evolution crowd of creationism, then start refuting the scientists objections instead of covering the same ground they've already refuted themselves. If you don't want to convince us, then I'm not sure what point a thread like this really serves.
One last thing: I honestly have no idea how anyone could say a 9 year old could debate with Dawkins or refute his book. No disrespect intended, but I honestly wonder if you read the same book that I did. But I don't want to argue about it since that always gets me into trouble. Here's a suggestion then: If someone wants to refute the God Delusion book, maybe they could start a thread which does so and let Dawkin's fans like myself see where we are wrong. I would read such a thread. But please offer up strong arguments to back up your claims. Explain the reasoning and the evidence for each point you raise so we can have the chance to be convinced that we are wrong. And yes, I really am more than willing to admit my mistakes once I see them.
IsaacJ