- This topic is empty.
- Posts
On the front page of the website t8 writes:
Of course in their defense they are quick to point out that you cannot compare biological machines with synthetic or man-made ones. Yet this answer only shows their lack of understanding. Because the ‘design requiring a designer’ argument is basically saying that if a robot cannot come about by Evolution, then how much more ridiculous is it to believe that a biological animal does. In other words if Evolution is a bad way to describe the existence of a robot, then how much more worse is it to say that Evolution produces much more complex machines.
Questions for you t8:
1. Do you believe it is valid to compare biological machines with synthetic machines?
2. Do you think that if synthetic machines were developed with a genuine capacity for self-reproduction that mutation and natural selection would not result in them undergoing evolution?
3. [It's natural selection that produces complexity, evolution is the description of the net result, but] what facts do you present in support of your assertion that natural selection cannot increase complexity?Stuart
Oh good. Glad you have asked these questions.
Busy at this moment, but will reply perhaps in the weekend.Cheers.
Stu………The more modern science is finding out, the more you evolutionary bull goes down the drain, The complexity of creation demands a creator , How can any honest Person not understand that especially with all the Modern know facts surrounding life structures. Could a Primordial Swamp produce the billions of different species that this earth has and not be of design?
Just take the human Eye alone for a study how could a complex organ a it just evolve from a swamp , when you consider it it is truly amazing in how it operates and functions , it is so complex that there is just no way it could have evolved on it own, And that not even the tip of the iceberg of creation.
Anyone with any true modern science understand can not deny a designer because of the immense complexity and functionality that is in every creature on this earth. The enter action of creation and how creatures are able to survive and coexist with one another , how they are able to get there food protect themselves and their young and on and on it goes.
You speak of our religion blinding our eyes, but what about you religion, how far has it blinded your eyes, where you can't even see the obvious?>
peace and love to you and yours Stu………………………………………………………….gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 24 2013,05:29) Stu………The more modern science is finding out, the more you evolutionary bull goes down the drain, The complexity of creation demands a creator , How can any honest Person not understand that especially with all the Modern know facts surrounding life structures. Could a Primordial Swamp produce the billions of different species that this earth has and not be of design? Just take the human Eye alone for a study how could a complex organ a it just evolve from a swamp , when you consider it it is truly amazing in how it operates and functions , it is so complex that there is just no way it could have evolved on it own, And that not even the tip of the iceberg of creation.
Anyone with any true modern science understand can not deny a designer because of the immense complexity and functionality that is in every creature on this earth. The enter action of creation and how creatures are able to survive and coexist with one another , how they are able to get there food protect themselves and their young and on and on it goes.
You speak of our religion blinding our eyes, but what about you religion, how far has it blinded your eyes, where you can't even see the obvious?>
peace and love to you and yours Stu………………………………………………………….gene
Just because you can't allow yourself to see how natural selection completely explains the diversity of life on the planet (and almost certainly any life on any planet) doesn't mean it isn't the right explanation. In fact it's the only explanation anyone has ever had. Do you know what evidence supports it? Have you been able to disprove it? No one has in the past 160 years. It's got to be the most successful scientific theory we have. And theory doesn't mean “speculation” it means something that is very well established as fact.I don't feel the need to teach you biology, but the information is out there and you will be able to find a version to suit your level of science.
If you can cope with it, the evolution of the eye is laid out quite well in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
Note how it isn't just speculation about all the different stages of eye evolution that have been proposed. All of those stages exist in the animal kingdom today.
I hope you will eventually be able to contribute something helpful to the current conversation. At the moment you appear to be refusing to get yourself up to speed.
Stuart
Stu………Any animal can learn to adapt to there environment to a point, but what you fail to see is who did they ever get that ability to do that seeing it would take billions of year for that to happen and seening they only Iive for a very few years. All species only have so much time being alive before they die, and so they would take there ability to adapt to there grave, and it would again take a trillion year to start over again , you see the life cycle doesn't allow time enough for a evolutionary process to take place, not to even mention it takes two to even make another one , of opposite sex, Mow lets suppose one made it in a trillion years, whats the odds of the other making it also, it would have to have happened in Just a few short years because that all the time here they have , so you evolution process would have to start over ever few years because of the life expectancy of the creature.
Stu there is only a narrow window when this evolution process has to take place and it is not billions of years but one a few years and then it must start over again to even get to the place it was before, unless you know of some animals that never die. Not to mention where are all the evolutionary Human Skeletons, There should be BILLIONS of Them that could be found as the evolutionary process came about, but there are not any, much less the billions or trillions of them that should be found everywhere in this world that would show this gradually changing process.
As i said you simply have a “RELIGION” that does ignore many many fact of truth to support it. IMO
peace and love to you and yours………………………………………gene
When scientist go beyond empirical evidence and promote theory as fact they are no longer scientist, they have become philosophers.
The same is true for spiritualist's. Revelation in the 20th century has revealed that evolution was initiated by the Life Carriers who planted life on earth from whence it evolved into what we have today. This validates both some discoveries of science and God as the creator.
Colter
Hi Colter,
To most people a theory is just a best guess, an idea.However to a scientist a theory must be tested a large number of times, by many different scientists in a lot of different places, and must pass the test every time. IF it passes, then it becomes a theory.
So until scientific theory has been disproved, for all practical purposes it is considered a scientific fact.
Tim
Quote (TimothyVI @ Mar. 25 2013,05:26) Hi Colter,
To most people a theory is just a best guess, an idea.However to a scientist a theory must be tested a large number of times, by many different scientists in a lot of different places, and must pass the test every time. IF it passes, then it becomes a theory.
So until scientific theory has been disproved, for all practical purposes it is considered a scientific fact.
Tim
Tim,I had always considered theory to be speculation based on related facts until the theory could finally be proven as a fact.
Using your definition then the story of Noahs ark is a fact until proven otherwise because a large number of people have tested other facts of the bible and found them to be true, therefore the flood story is a fact.
Colter
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Mar. 25 2013,03:40) Stu………Any animal can learn to adapt to there environment to a point,
And you would be right to think that is very limited. We can change a bit by getting physically fitter, for example. But the effect is relatively small, and temporary, and that is just as well. Homeostasis is very important.Quote but what you fail to see is who did they ever get that ability to do that seeing it would take billions of year for that to happen and seening they only Iive for a very few years. All species only have so much time being alive before they die, and so they would take there ability to adapt to there grave, and it would again take a trillion year to start over again , you see the life cycle doesn't allow time enough for a evolutionary process to take place, not to even mention it takes two to even make another one , of opposite sex, Mow lets suppose one made it in a trillion years, whats the odds of the other making it also, it would have to have happened in Just a few short years because that all the time here they have , so you evolution process would have to start over ever few years because of the life expectancy of the creature. Stu there is only a narrow window when this evolution process has to take place and it is not billions of years but one a few years and then it must start over again to even get to the place it was before, unless you know of some animals that never die. Not to mention where are all the evolutionary Human Skeletons, There should be BILLIONS of Them that could be found as the evolutionary process came about, but there are not any, much less the billions or trillions of them that should be found everywhere in this world that would show this gradually changing process.
The individuals with the genes that suit them best to survival and reproduction in that particular environment are the ones that are most likely to pass the genes on. So natural selection works on whole populations; evolution is the change in the frequency of genes over time in a population.Given enough time those tiny changes accumulate. That is the other important point: advantageous changes to genes are kept, this is not a random search for the best genes that starts from scratch each time.
I recommend you keep reading. Have you checked out the eye evolution page on Wikipedia?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 08 2013,05:38) 1. Do you believe it is valid to compare biological machines with synthetic machines?
2. Do you think that if synthetic machines were developed with a genuine capacity for self-reproduction that mutation and natural selection would not result in them undergoing evolution?
3. [It's natural selection that produces complexity, evolution is the description of the net result, but] what facts do you present in support of your assertion that natural selection cannot increase complexity?
1) Yes. Even scientists look to nature to create designs for flight, ground movement, etc. The camera mimics the eye, it has lenses, reverts the image, …2) If synthetic reproducing robots were sent to Mars to exist and build cities, they would only change if they changed themselves. Any changes that occur without their own intervention of replacing parts with better ones, would be part of their progam. In other words, they would only draw upon what is already there, and a recessive feature might show itself in the right condition if the creator inbuilt that feature to ensure their survival (if you can call it that).
3) All features in a living organisms combined gene pool have to already exist in order to show themselves when they are needed. They do not result from corrupt data. Corruption is detrimental to the organism. Features that are more complex can arise, but that was always possible because it was always part of the code. From the huge range of code, mixing and matching all kinds of things are possible. It is not magic Stu. If a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, then know that it did not come out of nothing, but that the rabbit was always there.
Quote (Colter @ Mar. 25 2013,06:16) Quote (TimothyVI @ Mar. 25 2013,05:26) Hi Colter,
To most people a theory is just a best guess, an idea.However to a scientist a theory must be tested a large number of times, by many different scientists in a lot of different places, and must pass the test every time. IF it passes, then it becomes a theory.
So until scientific theory has been disproved, for all practical purposes it is considered a scientific fact.
Tim
Tim,I had always considered theory to be speculation based on related facts until the theory could finally be proven as a fact.
Colter
There see, you made my point.
Your definition of theory is not the definition of scientific theory.Tim
Quote (TimothyVI @ Mar. 25 2013,08:26) Hi Colter,
To most people a theory is just a best guess, an idea.However to a scientist a theory must be tested a large number of times, by many different scientists in a lot of different places, and must pass the test every time. IF it passes, then it becomes a theory.
So until scientific theory has been disproved, for all practical purposes it is considered a scientific fact.
Tim
Where is the proof that we were once primitive apes and further back we were daffodils?Quote (Colter @ Mar. 25 2013,06:16) Quote (TimothyVI @ Mar. 25 2013,05:26) Hi Colter,
To most people a theory is just a best guess, an idea.However to a scientist a theory must be tested a large number of times, by many different scientists in a lot of different places, and must pass the test every time. IF it passes, then it becomes a theory.
So until scientific theory has been disproved, for all practical purposes it is considered a scientific fact.
Tim
Tim,Using your definition then the story of Noahs ark is a fact until proven otherwise because a large number of people have tested other facts of the bible and found them to be true, therefore the flood story is a fact.
Colter
Now you are just playing games with me Colter.
I know that you are smarter than that.It matters not what a large number of people tested if they are not testing in a scientific manner. I said that a scientific theory must be tested a large number of times by other scientists, and pass the test every time.
On the contrary, the noahs ark story fails every scientific and geological test.
Tim
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 25 2013,22:02) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 08 2013,05:38) 1. Do you believe it is valid to compare biological machines with synthetic machines?
2. Do you think that if synthetic machines were developed with a genuine capacity for self-reproduction that mutation and natural selection would not result in them undergoing evolution?
3. [It's natural selection that produces complexity, evolution is the description of the net result, but] what facts do you present in support of your assertion that natural selection cannot increase complexity?
1) Yes. Even scientists look to nature to create designs for flight, ground movement, etc. The camera mimics the eye, it has lenses, reverts the image, …
When thinking of evolution by natural selection would you insist that biologists should consider cameras and aircraft as comparable to biological machines? Cameras do not reproduce without engineers but living things evidently do.Quote 2) If synthetic reproducing robots were sent to Mars to exist and build cities, they would only change if they changed themselves. Any changes that occur without their own intervention of replacing parts with better ones, would be part of their progam. In other words, they would only draw upon what is already there, and a recessive feature might show itself in the right condition if the creator inbuilt that feature to ensure their survival (if you can call it that).
So you believe such machines would be infallible in their reproduction? What if the raw materials began to run out (the environment changed in a way not anticipated by the original designers) and the robots knew to substitute other materials, whatever they were, as they found them?You are talking about either survival with modification or extinction, which is essentially natural selection. Maybe it is artificial selection of a sort, but if this went on for tens of thousands to millions of years without further engineering input then eventually the environment would be doing the selecting.
Quote 3) All features in a living organisms combined gene pool have to already exist in order to show themselves when they are needed. They do not result from corrupt data. Corruption is detrimental to the organism. Features that are more complex can arise, but that was always possible because it was always part of the code. From the huge range of code, mixing and matching all kinds of things are possible. It is not magic Stu. If a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, then know that it did not come out of nothing, but that the rabbit was always there.
So no facts then. Your bald assertion is just what is convenient for you to believe.Stuart
Quote (TimothyVI @ Mar. 25 2013,22:10) Quote (Colter @ Mar. 25 2013,06:16) Quote (TimothyVI @ Mar. 25 2013,05:26) Hi Colter,
To most people a theory is just a best guess, an idea.However to a scientist a theory must be tested a large number of times, by many different scientists in a lot of different places, and must pass the test every time. IF it passes, then it becomes a theory.
So until scientific theory has been disproved, for all practical purposes it is considered a scientific fact.
Tim
Tim,Using your definition then the story of Noahs ark is a fact until proven otherwise because a large number of people have tested other facts of the bible and found them to be true, therefore the flood story is a fact.
Colter
Now you are just playing games with me Colter.
I know that you are smarter than that.It matters not what a large number of people tested if they are not testing in a scientific manner. I said that a scientific theory must be tested a large number of times by other scientists, and pass the test every time.
On the contrary, the noahs ark story fails every scientific and geological test.
Tim
Hi Tim,Not according to this:
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgBible worshipers must, by default, believe in a rapid form of evolution after Noah landed on dry ground.
Colter
Hi Colter,
Procreation and evolution are two very different things. Besides,
what are you calling 'bible worshipers' – what does that even mean?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (TimothyVI @ Mar. 25 2013,22:04) Quote (Colter @ Mar. 25 2013,06:16) Quote (TimothyVI @ Mar. 25 2013,05:26) Hi Colter,
To most people a theory is just a best guess, an idea.However to a scientist a theory must be tested a large number of times, by many different scientists in a lot of different places, and must pass the test every time. IF it passes, then it becomes a theory.
So until scientific theory has been disproved, for all practical purposes it is considered a scientific fact.
Tim
Tim,I had always considered theory to be speculation based on related facts until the theory could finally be proven as a fact.
Colter
There see, you made my point.
Your definition of theory is not the definition of scientific theory.Tim
Fair enough Tim, even though I got that from Websters I won't argue with you about it. My point is that I observe scientist who claim reverence for testable proofs going a step further drawing final conclusions when all the “facts” aren't yet in. A good example of why this is problematic is in this example:“Technical analysis does not reveal what a person or a thing can do. For example: Water is used effectively to extinguish fire. That water will put out fire is a fact of everyday experience, but no analysis of water could ever be made to disclose such a property. Analysis determines that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen; a further study of these elements discloses that oxygen is the real supporter of combustion and that hydrogen will itself freely burn.”
When scientist “analyze” the universe of matter, they go further and conclude what cannot be and call that fact.
Religion and science should stay within their respective fields.
Colter
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 26 2013,00:44) Hi Colter, Procreation and evolution are two very different things. Besides,
what are you calling 'bible worshipers' – what does that even mean?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Either way life on earth would have had to totally re-evolve after Noah's flood.Bible worship mean's people believe that Bible to be the infallible written word of God, believers substitute a personal relationship with God for a relationship with the Bible.
In this way people come to believe things that are absurd, not because they sound remotely plausible, but because they are in the Bible book collection. So they are then forced to bend reality, rationalize and even distort their own sense of right and wrong. The result is a warped view of history and of the Loving character of God.
Colter
Quote (Colter @ Mar. 26 2013,00:57) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 26 2013,00:44) Hi Colter, Procreation and evolution are two very different things. Besides,
what are you calling 'bible worshipers' – what does that even mean?God bless
Ed J
(1)Either way life on earth would have had to totally re-evolve after Noah's flood.(2)Bible worship mean's people believe that Bible to be the infallible written word of God, (3)believers substitute a personal relationship with God for a relationship with the Bible.
(4)In this way people come to believe things that are absurd, not because they sound remotely plausible, but because they are in the Bible book collection. So they are then forced to bend reality, (5)rationalize and even distort their own sense of right and wrong. (6)The result is a warped view of history and of the Loving character of God.
Colter
Hi Colter,1) 're-evolve': what is that suppose to mean?
2) Do you not believe “God's word” is infallible?
3) How so?4) What things?
5) Does not God determine what is right and wrong?
6) Eyewitness testimony does not form our view of History?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
