Analyzing evolution through Laws of Probability

by pomegranate 145 Replies latest jw friends

  • Zechariah
    Zechariah

    Evolutionists in this thread have made the finest possible defense for an indefensible idea.

    They have accused creationists of not be educate. to their point of view. Read some science books smetimes they say. The accuse creationists therefore of rejecting the "fact" of evolution out of ignorance.

    Certainly that is not true with me. I have read in enough detail all they feel is important and have quickly identified the patterns of their arguments. I have become skilled and value netting things out to the simplest form in order to them make them understandable to both myself and others.

    The evolutionists have most cleverly manipulated facts to avoid giving creative credit to an personal original cause. One poster provided a elaborate case that there always was uniformly present intelligence throughout the universe This early lifeform or organism or whatever they want to call it can disinterestedly, independently, and without any outside maintenance grow and evolve slowly and uniformly into life as we know it today.

    That was easy to say but is a totally preposterous idea.

    As added support to this theory the suggestion was made that spirit forces might be so different that we cannot fathom their nature. It is clear their intent in theorizing such is so there would be no responsibility on their part for crediting life to a interested personal intelligent force. With impunity they can call God lazy and inept for certainly he could not care as he does not exist.

    They think its wise to believe this way and they are being well served by their belief. The Bible clarifies the fact that though God is quantum leaps superior to man in form and magnitude he has created us in spirit to be in his image. That means we have his attributes of love, power, wisdom and justice. Basicaly that means we do things for the same reasons God does.

    It is by this spirit inheritance from God that we are capable of understanding his purposes . Of course for proper perspective we must elevate our thinking to allow for his quantum leaps greater magnitude. This is why my "Little Computer People" philosophy is of such great value to me. I believe it was a provision from God along with other object lessons he has inspired man to make which helps us understand him and our own lives better.

    Therefore the notion that because God is not human he can't be understood by us is wthout merit. My reasoning here alone in this matter solidifies my belief in a personal Creator.

    The evolutionists on the board say their rejection of God is nothing personal as he does not really exist. They deny having Child abandonment issues as they feel God has left them. The proof this is indeed the case with them is the necessity they have to make personal attacks and insults on someone they claim doesn't exist. He's abandoned us. He is lazy. He is inept. He is too slow. He is cruel. Who are you fooling guys . You are all hurting desiring a relationship with your heavenly father.

    I see this attitude every day with my grandnephew whose mother has abandoned him. He is so angry he disowns her, disrespects her, wont take her phone calls or mail and speaks he harshly of her all the time. His rebellion against his mother is going to severely affect his mental and emotional development. Hes got to accept and forgive his mother for whatever she is and accept whatever positive things she is willing and capable of giving. Hes only hurting himself otherwise. I hope he oneday realizes that before it is too late. So too I make the same plea to you evolutionists.

    Zechariah

  • Zechariah
    Zechariah

    Sorry.... Is duplicate post

    Edited by - zechariah on 18 October 2002 7:53:44

  • rem
    rem

    Pomegranate,

    Abiogenesis is part and parcel of the evolutionary lump. It is the first STEP, the beginning, the HEAD of evolution. It is the leg upon which the whole hypothesis stands.

    This is incorrect. Evolution is Evolution. Abiogenesis is Abiogenesis. They are completeley separate. Evolution does not rely on Abiogenesis for support. You don't have to accept Abiogenesis to accept Evolution. In fact, many (maybe most?) people in the world don't.

    That is why many Christians and other theists and deists accept Evolution. Evolution conforms with all of the facts. Special creation of separate species does not. We don't have enough facts to explain conclusively how life first started, so Theists typically agree that God started it. After that, it's all Evolution, baby.

    I don't care if you don't agree with Abiogenesis. Science has made great progress in the field, but I'm in no position to defend it because there are not enough facts yet. There are, however, enough facts to support Evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. Anyone who looks at the facts and denies the reality of Evolution is being intellectually dishonest. They are forcing the observed facts to conform with their ancient religious text. And when that doesn't work, they outright deny the facts. That is intellectual dishonesty in the extreme.

    Evolution is not a theory that tries to avoid giving creative credit to a personal original cause. It is just a scientific theory that explains the facts well. It says nothing of the origins of life... only of the origins and changing of species. Repeat after me: Abiogenesis is not Evolution.

    You keep arguing a straw man. Shame on you!

    rem

  • Realist
    Realist

    it becomes really pointless to discuss science with people who have no idea what they are talking about. i don't blame anyone for not having the time to study physics, biology or whatever science. but then they should at least not try to argue against proven scientific facts.

    non of the people here who are defending creation have a clue about the facts that support evolution. in fact they have no clue about how science works. otherwise they would keep their rediculous statements to themselfs.

    i think decency would require that they read the scientific facts and explanations before they post. but unfortunately they are not even willing to read summaries like that provided on talkorigins.

    the best is probably to leave them in their ignorance and if it makes them really happy let them keep their naive views about the world.

  • CoolBreeze
    CoolBreeze

    Pomeganete,
    Just wanted to say thanks for a well thought out discourse. We both stated our views, and neither of us resorted to personal attaks or name calling. I've really enjoyed your posts as well. I wish I could have more discussions like this, just an open exchanange of ideas by folks with differing thoughts. I believe this is how we learn things. If your ever in California let me know, and I'll take you up on that cup of coffee.

    Peace be with you.

    Anton

    Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

    Edited because my spelling hasn't improved with daylight.

    Edited by - coolbreeze on 18 October 2002 13:33:43

  • pomegranate
    pomegranate

    This is incorrect. Evolution is Evolution. Abiogenesis is Abiogenesis. They are completeley separate. Evolution does not rely on Abiogenesis for support. You don't have to accept Abiogenesis to accept Evolution. In fact, many (maybe most?) people in the world don't.

    Really? What would you call the transition bewtween abiogenesis (no life) to biogenesis (life)? In order for life to be, it had to EVOLVE out of DEAD CHAOTIC CHEMISTRY (abio) into fully ordered and COMPLEX systems (bio). Evolving is going UP in order and complexity BY ITSELF with NO intelligence. To go from abio (dead) to bio (life) is EVOLUTION in the broadest sense of the word.

    That is why many Christians and other theists and deists accept Evolution. Evolution conforms with all of the facts.

    How does evolution conform with this fact?:

    There are no actual transitional links in the fossil record to support the theory of evolution. All of the species of plants and animals along with their biological parts, traits, and characteristics are found already fully-formed or complete within the fossil record. For example, not a single fossil with part fins/part feet has been discovered to show that fish had evolved into amphibians. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that there ever was a process of evolution going on.

    There are, however, enough facts to support Evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    You have shown NOT ONE FACT. You have only uttered the existence of these FACTS without preseting them. Here is another fact:

    Nowhere PRESENTLY, do we see animal species with transitional or partially evolved legs, eyes, skin, brain, or various other tissues, organs, and biological structures as evidence that evolution is still occurring. We should be seeing in-between stages of macro-evolution occurring all around us right now if Darwinian evolutionary process is a reality.

    Oh yes, evolutionists do have their FEW supposed transitional links, but even they admit, that they are not indisputable.

    As for the transitional links themselves, the fact is if macro-evolution really occurred with all the variety and varience of life we see now, there should be billions of billions of anatomically indisputable transitional forms in the fossil record instead of just one or two questionable ones which even all evolutionists themselves can't even agree upon.

    So, where's the facts you are professing?

    Anyone who looks at the facts and denies the reality of Evolution is being intellectually dishonest.

    Again, another portrayal of facts that are never presented. Show your "facts" would you?

    They are forcing the observed facts to conform with their ancient religious text. And when that doesn't work, they outright deny the facts. That is intellectual dishonesty in the extreme.

    Again the elusive evolutionary "facts." Where for art thou facts of evolution you keep talking about?

    Evolution is not a theory that tries to avoid giving creative credit to a personal original cause. It is just a scientific theory that explains the facts well. It says nothing of the origins of life... only of the origins and changing of species. Repeat after me: Abiogenesis is not Evolution.

    You are right, abiogenesis is DEATH. Biogenesis is life and has nothing to do with evolution. Life procreates according to it's KIND exactly as God had created, exactly as we see now with NO transitions in the fossil record (which should be in the billions of billions) or as we see in our world now.

    You keep arguing a straw man. Shame on you!

    Show some FACTS, maybe we'll see the real straw man.

  • pomegranate
    pomegranate

    it becomes really pointless to discuss science with people who have no idea what they are talking about.

    I guess that means me eh? Well why are you still here, don't you know you defy your own statement?

    i don't blame anyone for not having the time to study physics, biology or whatever science.

    Sorry. That's a pitiful cope out.

    but then they should at least not try to argue against proven scientific facts.

    Ooo. Another guy eluding to these "proven facts." Sure wish someone would reveal these "facts."

    non of the people here who are defending creation have a clue about the facts that support evolution.

    That's because nobody here defending evolution has presented any FACTS to support their position. Can you blame us?

    in fact they have no clue about how science works.

    Here we go again. Creationists have no clue how science works. I believe the FACTS I have presented wholey disprove your disparaging claims.

    otherwise they would keep their rediculous statements to themselfs.

    A statement like the above wit NO FACTS is so much hot air.

    i think decency would require that they read the scientific facts and explanations before they post.

    Why not present these marvels of evolutionary facts for us would you? Seems no one else will.

    but unfortunately they are not even willing to read summaries like that provided on talkorigins.

    Why not present them on your OWN understanding? Or are you incompetent? I have already poked a hole in talkorigins "math" with no refute.

  • pomegranate
    pomegranate

    Pomeganete,
    Just wanted to say thanks for a well thought out discourse. We both stated our views, and neither of us resorted to personal attaks or name calling. I've really enjoyed your posts as well. I wish I could have more discussions like this, just an open exchanange of ideas by folks with differing thoughts. I believe this is how we learn things. If your ever in California let me know, and I'll take you up on that cup of coffee.

    You have a admirable "air" about your posts which I enjoy. I concur that reasonable men can disagree and not be derogatory toward another. Even when I am being belittled, I try to maintain an absence of ill demeanor. It is challenging though and I do fail sometimes!

    I'd love to get out to Cal someday rap over some good java. I was out there many years ago in Orange County...

    Peace be with you.

    Thanks, and back at ya twice as much.

    pomegranate aka Ric

  • JanH
    JanH

    Pome,

    There are no actual transitional links in the fossil record to support the theory of evolution. All of the species of plants and animals along with their biological parts, traits, and characteristics are found already fully-formed or complete within the fossil record. For example, not a single fossil with part fins/part feet has been discovered to show that fish had evolved into amphibians. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that there ever was a process of evolution going on.

    Contrary to what you assert: If any such thing was found, it would totally prove Darwin's theory of evolution wrong. It would a real-life falsification of Darwin. Of course, no such thing exist.

    All species are fully formed, yet all species are at least potentially transitional.

    The only incomplete organ parts in species are rudiments and throwbacks to features of ancestor species. These are alone sufficient evidence that we know common descent is a fact. How could you otherwise explain the genetic code for teeth in living birds, or the fact that occasionally whales living today are born with complete legs on the inside of their bodies?

    You have again demonstrated you don't even know the extreme basics of evolutionary science. Your arguments are nothing but straw men, either intentionally (you are dishonest) or unintentionally (you are ignorant).

    If you showed just an itsy bitsy willingness to actually get yourself educated about biology and evolution, you could perhaps learn something.

    - Jan


    Blogging at Secular Blasphemy
  • pomegranate
    pomegranate

    The above is another classic example. All CLAIMS and NO FACTS, whilst diminishing pomegranate by intellectual insult.

    Kewl.

    At least there's consistency.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit