[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Easter Island Heads: Created
[/quote]
Easter Island Heads don’t reproduce therefore they can’t evolve. [/quote]
Sorry, misuse of the word. I should have said, ‘appeared by chance’. My apologies.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
How is it proof of ‘Intelligent Design’?
[/quote]
It doesn’t.
[/quote]
I agree it doesn’t. What gives intelligent design theories probability is the tremendous mathematical improbability of accident. However, the only viable counter claim to it, is the many worlds hypothesis, which I don’t believe is a strong objection in the end. Yes, it’s mathematically possible, in that a model can be created in which it could maybe possibly happen, but there is not a single solitary shred of evidence of any chance of actuality. Science requires evidence. Further, it’s the mathematical probability is much smaller than that of intelligent design.
It of course helps if one understands what the intelligent design theory actually is claiming, versus most ad hoc bro-philosophy interpretations of it.
However, the Cambrian explosion is no more a slam dunk for Intelligent Design then any other event in the universe. [/quote]
The questions are these:
-
What are the odds that things–the particulars of physical constants and parameters, the happenstances of evolutionary history–turned out so well for us, without “god?”
-
What are the odds that “god” caused things to turn out so well for us?
-
Which set of odds is likelier?
The problem is that a probability can be ascribed to neither 1 nor 2, and you will never prove that either is more likely–much less more true–than the other.[/quote]
Do DMT and you will have your answer…
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Here is the thing: if there is a God, action is needed on our part. If there isn’t, then nothing is required. The problem people have is the reality is just staring them in the face and they don’t want to accept it. Life was designed, the cell structure, the ‘cambrian explosion’ of species, and complexity of design indicate an intelligent designer, but an alarming number of people don’t want to admit that.
[/quote]
Why did you make the thread if you’ve already got the answer?
Why ask anyone else what we think when you can just tell us “nah, we already have the answer.”
Talk about a waste of time. No matter what anyone says to the contrary you’re going to believe what you already believe. And yet you come in here faking that you want a discussion? “Here’s what happened, agree or you’re wrong.”
I guess if you say so why have anyone else attempt to say otherwise?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Easter Island Heads: Created
[/quote]
Easter Island Heads don’t reproduce therefore they can’t evolve. [/quote]
Sorry, misuse of the word. I should have said, ‘appeared by chance’. My apologies.[/quote]
Evolution is not chance. It is the non-random survival of random variants. You’re arguing with a caricature of evolution. Perhaps if you actually try learning about it from someone who knows what they are talking about you might see that it actually makes a lot of sense.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
How is it proof of ‘Intelligent Design’?
[/quote]
It doesn’t.
[/quote]
I agree it doesn’t. What gives intelligent design theories probability is the tremendous mathematical improbability of accident. However, the only viable counter claim to it, is the many worlds hypothesis, which I don’t believe is a strong objection in the end. Yes, it’s mathematically possible, in that a model can be created in which it could maybe possibly happen, but there is not a single solitary shred of evidence of any chance of actuality. Science requires evidence. Further, it’s the mathematical probability is much smaller than that of intelligent design.
It of course helps if one understands what the intelligent design theory actually is claiming, versus most ad hoc bro-philosophy interpretations of it.
However, the Cambrian explosion is no more a slam dunk for Intelligent Design then any other event in the universe. [/quote]
The questions are these:
-
What are the odds that things–the particulars of physical constants and parameters, the happenstances of evolutionary history–turned out so well for us, without “god?”
-
What are the odds that “god” caused things to turn out so well for us?
-
Which set of odds is likelier?
The problem is that a probability can be ascribed to neither 1 nor 2, and you will never prove that either is more likely–much less more true–than the other.[/quote]
Here is the thing: if there is a God, action is needed on our part. If there isn’t, then nothing is required. The problem people have is the reality is just staring them in the face and they don’t want to accept it. Life was designed, the cell structure, the ‘cambrian explosion’ of species, and complexity of design indicate an intelligent designer, but an alarming number of people don’t want to admit that.
[/quote]
I see no proof whatsoever so the null hypothesis holds sway for now.
[/quote]
I had to Google this term. However, can you please explain how you are using this here? We have proof. It is walking around us. Growing around us. People look at hieroglyphics and think, ‘who wrote that?’. Yet, when we see moving, talking, creatures, we dismiss it as not proof. It is intrinsically proof, just like the hieroglyphics, no?
[/quote]
No you have no idea what evolution is.
Hieroglyphics don’t reproduce.
Organisms reproduce, producing more offspring than the environment can support, and there are small variations in these offspring. The offspring with the better variations will tend to survive and produce more offspring. Heiroglyphics don’t do this. Watches don’t do this. Only things that make copies of this, with small changes (living things) can evolve.
If one monkey is 1% smarter than another monkey, might he have a better chance of reproducing? Now let this trend take place over a million years.
Read some books, watch some lectures. You have so much to learn.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Imagine, individuals using their entire life’s work in searching for the ‘transitional species’ that would explain Darwin’s ‘Natural Selection’ and then finding none, nada. There have been none of these ‘transitional species’ found, and over 150 years have been spent by many a people all over the world. That time could have been better spent investigating the species.
[/quote]
That is the same as having the ability to know which day you changed from a child to an adult. There is no specificity to it because it happens over time.
[quote]Icarus wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Imagine, individuals using their entire life’s work in searching for the ‘transitional species’ that would explain Darwin’s ‘Natural Selection’ and then finding none, nada. There have been none of these ‘transitional species’ found, and over 150 years have been spent by many a people all over the world. That time could have been better spent investigating the species.
[/quote]
That is the same as having the ability to know which day you changed from a child to an adult. There is no specificity to it because it happens over time.
[/quote]
EXACTLY.
The creationists will look at you at day 2,650 and 2,651 and say see, there’s no change, you’re the same age/species. Only when you look hundreds/thousands of days/generations can you tell any differences.
[quote]Icarus wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
Imagine, individuals using their entire life’s work in searching for the ‘transitional species’ that would explain Darwin’s ‘Natural Selection’ and then finding none, nada. There have been none of these ‘transitional species’ found, and over 150 years have been spent by many a people all over the world. That time could have been better spent investigating the species.
[/quote]
That is the same as having the ability to know which day you changed from a child to an adult. There is no specificity to it because it happens over time.
[/quote]
And many people will view this not knowing as a fault. “See, you’re not 1000 percent certain of something, therefore intelligent design must be it!”
Questioning is precisely what makes me an agnostic. Fully admitting certain things may be unknowable, but here is what evidence suggests. And being willing to change when evidence changes or technology and science present new answers.
Of course if you want to just say “God” for everything (which is fine) then “God” is the answer you are going to get to everything anyways so this becomes a moot point. I don’t get the impression that OP was actually looking to discuss or learn anything, merely to belittle those who are too blind to see the answer he says you must see.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Icarus wrote:
That is the same as having the ability to know which day you changed from a child to an adult. There is no specificity to it because it happens over time.
[/quote]
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
EXACTLY.
The creationists will look at you at day 2,650 and 2,651 and say see, there’s no change, you’re the same age/species. Only when you look hundreds/thousands of days/generations can you tell any differences.
[/quote]
Uh oh. Some folks slipped in here without understanding what the Cambrian Explosion is.
[/quote]
We were responding to a tangent, that as far as I know was started by the original poster. Nice try though.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
How is it proof of ‘Intelligent Design’?
[/quote]
It doesn’t.
[/quote]
I agree it doesn’t. What gives intelligent design theories probability is the tremendous mathematical improbability of accident. However, the only viable counter claim to it, is the many worlds hypothesis, which I don’t believe is a strong objection in the end. Yes, it’s mathematically possible, in that a model can be created in which it could maybe possibly happen, but there is not a single solitary shred of evidence of any chance of actuality. Science requires evidence. Further, it’s the mathematical probability is much smaller than that of intelligent design.
It of course helps if one understands what the intelligent design theory actually is claiming, versus most ad hoc bro-philosophy interpretations of it.
However, the Cambrian explosion is no more a slam dunk for Intelligent Design then any other event in the universe. [/quote]
Probabilities don’t support in intelligent design. For one, you don’t know the odds of intelligent design, so you have no basis for comparing it to the probability for naturalism.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
How is it proof of ‘Intelligent Design’?
[/quote]
It doesn’t.
[/quote]
I agree it doesn’t. What gives intelligent design theories probability is the tremendous mathematical improbability of accident. However, the only viable counter claim to it, is the many worlds hypothesis, which I don’t believe is a strong objection in the end. Yes, it’s mathematically possible, in that a model can be created in which it could maybe possibly happen, but there is not a single solitary shred of evidence of any chance of actuality. Science requires evidence. Further, it’s the mathematical probability is much smaller than that of intelligent design.
It of course helps if one understands what the intelligent design theory actually is claiming, versus most ad hoc bro-philosophy interpretations of it.
However, the Cambrian explosion is no more a slam dunk for Intelligent Design then any other event in the universe. [/quote]
The many worlds hypothesis did not arise out of a need to explain evolution. It arose out of fundamental physics.
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
How is it proof of ‘Intelligent Design’?
[/quote]
It doesn’t.
[/quote]
I agree it doesn’t. What gives intelligent design theories probability is the tremendous mathematical improbability of accident. However, the only viable counter claim to it, is the many worlds hypothesis, which I don’t believe is a strong objection in the end. Yes, it’s mathematically possible, in that a model can be created in which it could maybe possibly happen, but there is not a single solitary shred of evidence of any chance of actuality. Science requires evidence. Further, it’s the mathematical probability is much smaller than that of intelligent design.
It of course helps if one understands what the intelligent design theory actually is claiming, versus most ad hoc bro-philosophy interpretations of it.
However, the Cambrian explosion is no more a slam dunk for Intelligent Design then any other event in the universe. [/quote]
The many worlds hypothesis did not arise out of a need to explain evolution. It arose out of fundamental physics.
[/quote]
Yes it rose out of a need to explain quantum physics. It’s a theory based on absolutely no evidence and created to reconcile mathematical anomalies. Same with dark matter, Schwarzschild wormholes, string theory and dozens of other speculative theories.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
How is it proof of ‘Intelligent Design’?
[/quote]
It doesn’t.
[/quote]
I agree it doesn’t. What gives intelligent design theories probability is the tremendous mathematical improbability of accident. However, the only viable counter claim to it, is the many worlds hypothesis, which I don’t believe is a strong objection in the end. Yes, it’s mathematically possible, in that a model can be created in which it could maybe possibly happen, but there is not a single solitary shred of evidence of any chance of actuality. Science requires evidence. Further, it’s the mathematical probability is much smaller than that of intelligent design.
It of course helps if one understands what the intelligent design theory actually is claiming, versus most ad hoc bro-philosophy interpretations of it.
However, the Cambrian explosion is no more a slam dunk for Intelligent Design then any other event in the universe. [/quote]
The many worlds hypothesis did not arise out of a need to explain evolution. It arose out of fundamental physics.
[/quote]
Yes it rose out of a need to explain quantum physics. It’s a theory based on absolutely no evidence and created to reconcile mathematical anomalies. Same with dark matter, Schwarzschild wormholes, string theory and dozens of other speculative theories.
[/quote]
It’s not a theory.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
How so? I would argue the exact opposite. Imagine, individuals using their entire life’s work in searching for the ‘transitional species’ that would explain Darwin’s ‘Natural Selection’ and then finding none, nada. There have been none of these ‘transitional species’ found, and over 150 years have been spent by many a people all over the world. That time could have been better spent investigating the species.
[/quote]
An example of an transitional species could be perhaps homo heidelbergensis. Its likely that it is the transitional species between homo erectus and homo sapiens( we are homo sapiens sapiens, wich is a sub-species of the homo sapiens species ). What you might mean With transitional “species” i guess is more akin to a animal that is the transition between lets say Fish and amfibians, or amphibians and reptiles etc. The Word you are looking for are transitional Groups. Fish are a Group, amphians are another etc. Tiktaalik is an fossil wich has both Fish features and amphibian features and is therefor what you might Call an transitional “Group” of animals.
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
How is it proof of ‘Intelligent Design’?
[/quote]
It doesn’t.
[/quote]
I agree it doesn’t. What gives intelligent design theories probability is the tremendous mathematical improbability of accident. However, the only viable counter claim to it, is the many worlds hypothesis, which I don’t believe is a strong objection in the end. Yes, it’s mathematically possible, in that a model can be created in which it could maybe possibly happen, but there is not a single solitary shred of evidence of any chance of actuality. Science requires evidence. Further, it’s the mathematical probability is much smaller than that of intelligent design.
It of course helps if one understands what the intelligent design theory actually is claiming, versus most ad hoc bro-philosophy interpretations of it.
However, the Cambrian explosion is no more a slam dunk for Intelligent Design then any other event in the universe. [/quote]
The many worlds hypothesis did not arise out of a need to explain evolution. It arose out of fundamental physics.
[/quote]
Yes it rose out of a need to explain quantum physics. It’s a theory based on absolutely no evidence and created to reconcile mathematical anomalies. Same with dark matter, Schwarzschild wormholes, string theory and dozens of other speculative theories.
[/quote]
It’s not a theory.
[/quote]
From Wikipedia: ‘Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others…’
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
How is it proof of ‘Intelligent Design’?
[/quote]
It doesn’t.
[/quote]
I agree it doesn’t. What gives intelligent design theories probability is the tremendous mathematical improbability of accident. However, the only viable counter claim to it, is the many worlds hypothesis, which I don’t believe is a strong objection in the end. Yes, it’s mathematically possible, in that a model can be created in which it could maybe possibly happen, but there is not a single solitary shred of evidence of any chance of actuality. Science requires evidence. Further, it’s the mathematical probability is much smaller than that of intelligent design.
It of course helps if one understands what the intelligent design theory actually is claiming, versus most ad hoc bro-philosophy interpretations of it.
However, the Cambrian explosion is no more a slam dunk for Intelligent Design then any other event in the universe. [/quote]
The many worlds hypothesis did not arise out of a need to explain evolution. It arose out of fundamental physics.
[/quote]
Yes it rose out of a need to explain quantum physics. It’s a theory based on absolutely no evidence and created to reconcile mathematical anomalies. Same with dark matter, Schwarzschild wormholes, string theory and dozens of other speculative theories.
[/quote]
It’s not a theory.
[/quote]
From Wikipedia: ‘Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others…’[/quote]
You said “it’s a theory based on absolutely no evidence.” What were you talking about? The many worlds hypothesis. Not a theory.
Holy crap pay attention.
Evolution is a fact.
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
How is it proof of ‘Intelligent Design’?
[/quote]
It doesn’t.
[/quote]
I agree it doesn’t. What gives intelligent design theories probability is the tremendous mathematical improbability of accident. However, the only viable counter claim to it, is the many worlds hypothesis, which I don’t believe is a strong objection in the end. Yes, it’s mathematically possible, in that a model can be created in which it could maybe possibly happen, but there is not a single solitary shred of evidence of any chance of actuality. Science requires evidence. Further, it’s the mathematical probability is much smaller than that of intelligent design.
It of course helps if one understands what the intelligent design theory actually is claiming, versus most ad hoc bro-philosophy interpretations of it.
However, the Cambrian explosion is no more a slam dunk for Intelligent Design then any other event in the universe. [/quote]
The many worlds hypothesis did not arise out of a need to explain evolution. It arose out of fundamental physics.
[/quote]
Yes it rose out of a need to explain quantum physics. It’s a theory based on absolutely no evidence and created to reconcile mathematical anomalies. Same with dark matter, Schwarzschild wormholes, string theory and dozens of other speculative theories.
[/quote]
It’s not a theory.
[/quote]
From Wikipedia: ‘Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others…’[/quote]
You said “it’s a theory based on absolutely no evidence.” What were you talking about? The many worlds hypothesis. Not a theory.
Holy crap pay attention.
Evolution is a fact. [/quote]
Even Darwin didn’t present it as ‘fact.’ It’s a theory that is now being questioned by many scientists.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]darsemnos wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
How is it proof of ‘Intelligent Design’?
[/quote]
It doesn’t.
[/quote]
I agree it doesn’t. What gives intelligent design theories probability is the tremendous mathematical improbability of accident. However, the only viable counter claim to it, is the many worlds hypothesis, which I don’t believe is a strong objection in the end. Yes, it’s mathematically possible, in that a model can be created in which it could maybe possibly happen, but there is not a single solitary shred of evidence of any chance of actuality. Science requires evidence. Further, it’s the mathematical probability is much smaller than that of intelligent design.
It of course helps if one understands what the intelligent design theory actually is claiming, versus most ad hoc bro-philosophy interpretations of it.
However, the Cambrian explosion is no more a slam dunk for Intelligent Design then any other event in the universe. [/quote]
The many worlds hypothesis did not arise out of a need to explain evolution. It arose out of fundamental physics.
[/quote]
Yes it rose out of a need to explain quantum physics. It’s a theory based on absolutely no evidence and created to reconcile mathematical anomalies. Same with dark matter, Schwarzschild wormholes, string theory and dozens of other speculative theories.
[/quote]
It’s not a theory.
[/quote]
From Wikipedia: ‘Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others…’[/quote]
You said “it’s a theory based on absolutely no evidence.” What were you talking about? The many worlds hypothesis. Not a theory.
Holy crap pay attention.
Evolution is a fact. [/quote]
Even Darwin didn’t present it as ‘fact.’ It’s a theory that is now being questioned by many scientists.
[/quote]
Ha, ha. Darwin is not the god of evolution. You’re writing as if he has the final say. No, he was just the first to understand to some degree what was happening.
We know a lot more than Darwin did.
That evolution happened is a fact in the Stephen J. Gould sense, in which it would be perverse to deny it.
There are mountains of evidence that evolution happened. There may be some debate as to many details, but no one really disputes that it happened. At least not anyone who knows anything about it.