|
Design vs. Arbitrary (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TranceGiant |
I think my head just exploded.
I haven't even read 5% of the thread but I gotta ask this question right away: We dicuss chance vs. design when we haven't even solved the problem of determinsm. Is there such a thing as chance/coincidence at all? If we assume that our existence is just the temporary product of an infinitely long chain of causilty, there's no room for the evolution vs. creationsm debate anymore. The only mystery to remain would be: Who activated the domino effect?
Btw: Isn't there a parallity between creationism and the "free choice" notion? |
|
|
| Zild |
| Why can't the evolution that we observe be somehow the product of a much more powerful being's design? |
|
|
| Knight Rider |
| quote: | | That’s the usual sentiment of fundie creationists and IDers who are too intellectually lazy to examine the research themselves. And I’m sorry if you continue to misunderstand evolution, and continue to fail to realize that the mechanism of evolution is anything but arbitrary, but I really don’t know what else to tell you other than try to do a little more reading in the research on the subject from actual scientists. |
Random mutation; bottom line.
Have you read chapter six of "Origin of species" ? Coupled with studies of "Probability" may explain my point of arbitrary a little better. As for creationism, well, studies of the Big Bang seem to provide evidence of singularity creationism. But hey, evolutionists have an answer for everything. ;) |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Knight Rider
Random mutation; bottom line. |
Uhh, no Mr. Rider, that's not the bottom line - because there's selection involved in the process as well, which logically entails the opposite of "random".
| quote: | | Have you read chapter six of "Origin of species" ? Coupled with studies of "Probability" may explain my point of arbitrary a little better. |
Yes, I have read that chapter along with the rest of the book a number of times over. Why don't you point towards a quote or two that you seem to think demonstrates your point?
And BTW, you do realize that Darwin was a bit unaware of genetics, especially modern day genetics at that time, right?
| quote: | | As for creationism, well, studies of the Big Bang seem to provide evidence of singularity creationism. But hey, evolutionists have an answer for everything. ;) |
Since when has evolutionists ever been concerned with the Big Bang? Can you point me to one instance in which an evolutionist has ever been concerned with astronomical creation? |
|
|
| Knight Rider |
| quote: | | Since when has evolutionists ever been concerned with the Big Bang? Can you point me to one instance in which an evolutionist has ever been concerned with astronomical creation? |
Evolution and creation have no concern with each other. I was responding to your slip comments of creationism.
I think we should call it a day since this thread is repeating itself.
By the way, are you pro/anti Iraq War ? |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
Why can't the evolution that we observe be somehow the product of a much more powerful being's design? |
That could be possible but you would first need scientific evidence to back up your hypothosis, otherwise it's just pure speculation. Your just expressing a natural human desire to give meaning to the world around us. In a Rorschach Test how we interpret an inkblot tells us more about our feelings than what we are looking at. ID believers are likewise imposing their religious preconceptions on the universe to give it meaning and order. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Knight Rider
Evolution and creation have no concern with each other. I was responding to your slip comments of creationism.
I think we should call it a day since this thread is repeating itself. |
Suit yourself.
| quote: | | By the way, are you pro/anti Iraq War ? |
Well I actually started out as pro-war because I had believed that our original intentions of ridding Saddam of WMD was a worthy and somewhat justifiable pretense. I did have reservations, however, because I did feel that the real war should have continued against Al Qaeda, not Iraq. I had also further stipulated my belief that those pretenses should be valid and supported with evidence. Once it became apparent that the pretenses were false, my support for Bush's war was lost.
Of course now that we're there, I do support a stable government before any thought of us pulling out would occur. Unfortunately, I'm pretty pessimistic that such a situation will occur. Or what's worse, we replace one dictatorial government with a religious totalitarian one with possible ties to it's Iranian neighbor, which also now harbors a great deal of extra terrorism thanks all in part to our actions.
So there's my stance in a nutshell. |
|
|
| Knight Rider |
Absolutely. Your understanding of probability and its principles seem to be limited (correct me if I am wrong) and that makes it incredibility difficult for me to explain how chance and design cannot integrate (thus resulting in absolute conditioning). We're conversing at alternate wave lengths. It's clear that you support evolution with passion, where as I'm ignorant. It’s a one way algorithm MisterOpus1, you’re right, and I'm wrong. :) |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Knight Rider
Absolutely. Your understanding of probability and its principles seem to be limited (correct me if I am wrong) and that makes it incredibility difficult for me to explain how chance and design cannot integrate (thus resulting in absolute conditioning). We're conversing at alternate wave lengths. It's clear that you support evolution with passion, where as I'm ignorant. It’s a one way algorithm MisterOpus1, you’re right, and I'm wrong. :) |
Well, I see you're a bit full of yourself, but if anyone misunderstood any of the concepts here it is you. Frankly it seems to me that you don't really have as good a grasp of statistics and probability theory as you think. First of all, if you say that chance and intelligent design can not integrate, that only makes it worse for the ID theory because chance and random mutations have been observed in cell divisions. However, there's a difference between pure randomness and influenced randomness, and if you can't understand that concept, then I'm afraid you're not really the sharpest knife in the drawer. Hypothetically, that randomness could be influenced by a divine being and forced to move in a certain way, but it is also most certainly influenced with more earthly forces, mainly the environment and the natural selection. Now, since environment and natural selection themselves provide pretty much everything that is needed for the creatures to evolve in a way they evolved and since we haven't so far observed any unexplainable influence that makes one sort of mutation more probable than the other for no known reason, I really can't see why the need to introduce a divine entity at all. |
|
|
| Knight Rider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Well, I see you're a bit full of yourself, but if anyone misunderstood any of the concepts here it is you. Frankly it seems to me that you don't really have as good a grasp of statistics and probability theory as you think. First of all, if you say that chance and intelligent design can not integrate, that only makes it worse for the ID theory because chance and random mutations have been observed in cell divisions. However, there's a difference between pure randomness and influenced randomness, and if you can't understand that concept, then I'm afraid you're not really the sharpest knife in the drawer. Hypothetically, that randomness could be influenced by a divine being and forced to move in a certain way, but it is also most certainly influenced with more earthly forces, mainly the environment and the natural selection. Now, since environment and natural selection themselves provide pretty much everything that is needed for the creatures to evolve in a way they evolved and since we haven't so far observed any unexplainable influence that makes one sort of mutation more probable than the other for no known reason, I really can't see why the need to introduce a divine entity at all. |
Like I said, you're right and I'm wrong. :) |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Knight Rider
Absolutely. Your understanding of probability and its principles seem to be limited (correct me if I am wrong) and that makes it incredibility difficult for me to explain how chance and design cannot integrate (thus resulting in absolute conditioning). |
The problem, KR, is that you haven’t explained your stance AT ALL. ZILCH. NADA. So how is it difficult for you to explain anything when you’ve explained absolutely nothing? You’ve cited chapter 6 in Darwin’s Origin, but then you completely backed away from any explanation whatsoever. That’s just one example of many in which you’ve utterly failed to explain or defend your stance with ID. Instead, you’ve done nothing but attempt to attack evolution with the same old ID distortion on probability, the same old damn arguments I have defended against with many IDers and creationists over the past 8 years since I’ve been involved with the evolution debate here in my state of Kansas and elsewhere.
Added in Edit When I first read this following statement, I thought you were being a bit facetious:
| quote: | | We're conversing at alternate wave lengths. It's clear that you support evolution with passion, where as I'm ignorant. It’s a one way algorithm MisterOpus1, you’re right, and I'm wrong. |
It appears I may have misjudged you. As a result, I've edited my harsh response a bit above. I do appreciate and respect your admittance here, but I also do wish that if you ever do decide to enter into this debate that you'd present your argument a little better with more coherency and understanding. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Knight Rider
Like I said, you're right and I'm wrong. :) |
Kudos! It takes a lot to amit you're wrong. Welcome to the wonderful world of logic! I was wrong too... I never believed it was possible to convince an ID/creationist the error of his ways. :stongue: |
|
|
|
|
