Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2019 11:48:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 5, 2019 13:01:43 GMT
Obviously then to believe a living cell can arise from a series of accidents requires a greater leap of faith than to believe a tornado can assemble an automobile. It must be a great relief to you that, instead of studying what scientists actually believe so you understand their positions (which involves hard work), you can just pull bullshit versions of their stances out of your dumb, ignorant ass and call it a day. I admire how you make an effort to participate even in topics in which you are not the least bit conversant. At least we know you're still alive, perhaps senile, perhaps mired in horrifically simple notions of biology from the science before there was indoor plumbing, but alive at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 5, 2019 13:08:51 GMT
. . .perhaps mired in horrifically simple notions of biology from the science before there was indoor plumbing. . . No, that would be you, as this thread, posing a long outdated and refuted argument, amply demonstrates.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 5, 2019 20:00:07 GMT
As has been patiently explained to Arlon before the “tornado in a junkyard” fallacy assumes that 1) evolution works completely randomly (like an indiscriminate tornado whipping about various parts), 2) that the evolution of a complex biology happens all at once, and 3) that probabilities are against the whole theory.
This argument is rejected by the vast majority of biologists. From the modern evolutionary standpoint, while the odds of the sudden construction of higher lifeforms are indeed improbably remote, evolution proceeds in many smaller stages, each driven by natural selection rather than by chance, over a long period of time. The transition as a whole is plausible, as each step improves survivability; the Boeing 747 was not designed in a single unlikely burst of creativity, and modern lifeforms were not constructed in one single unlikely event, as the junkyard tornado posits.
Evolutionary biology explains how complex cellular structures evolved by analysing the intermediate steps required for precellular life. It is these intermediate steps that are omitted in creationist arguments, which is the cause of their overestimating of the improbability of the entire process. Let's hope this helps our resident closet fundamentalist since I for one are tired of his latest hobby horse. But it won't.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 5, 2019 20:09:43 GMT
Here's an amazing thing about people and what they believe. Several atheists obviously replied here that it is arguing against a "straw man" since they do not believe a tornado could assemble an automobile. Let's examine that more closely. Which is more complicated? Is an automobile or a single living cell more complicated? An automobile cannot scour its environment to find and absorb food from which to obtain its own fuel. A human operator is required for that. A single cell can get its own fuel. Once assembled, by whatever perhaps a tornado, an automobile cannot duplicate itself. Human operators are required for that. A single living cell can duplicate itself. What is the point here? A single living cell is thousands of times more complicated than an automobile. A single living cell contains more information about complex and interdependent systems that cannot arise independently, at least not to any long term avail. Which is the Greater Leap of Faith? Obviously then to believe a living cell can arise from a series of accidents requires a greater leap of faith than to believe a tornado can assemble an automobile. It might be humorous if not so tragic but the atheists on this board believe the least likely thing by far than a considerably more likely (by thousands of times) thing. Conclusion Although atheists pride themselves on their "science" and "logic" they are utterly devoid of either. It is indeed a great wonder how the vast unschooled masses follow such imbeciles.
I wonder, are you aware that no-one credible actually says that evolution is a process achieved through a series of accidents?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 5, 2019 22:34:15 GMT
@filmflaneursaid:[full text here] < clips > 1) the “tornado in a junkyard” fallacy assumes that 1) evolution works completely randomly (like an indiscriminate tornado whipping about various parts) 2) that the evolution of a complex biology happens all at once 3) that probabilities are against the whole theory. 4) This argument is rejected by the vast majority of biologists. 5) The transition as a whole is plausible, as each step improves survivability 1) The problem here is not evolution or whether the source of genetic variation is Lamarckian. The "vast majority of biologists" holds that Lamarckian genetic variation is most unlikely anyway. 2) It does not happen at all so how fast it might happen is not immediately important. However it should be noted that it may not take centuries to develop since the onslaught of the environment will not preserve individual components unable to protect themselves. 3) "Probabilities" are a characteristic of random forces, which we have moved past. Or not? The observations are totally in support of the theory. What does not happen now is not going to happen. 4) The atheists on this board who are obviously the product of far inferior public schools and no college at all do not constitute the "vast majority of biologists." 5) In the prebiotic environment smaller chains of RNA have the competitive advantage over longer chains. That means the shorter ones are "selected" (passed over by attackers) only to tear longer chains apart. Given a billion years that is still not going anywhere. The competitive advantage of larger molecules does not happen until complex defensive strategies are developed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 5, 2019 22:40:28 GMT
Here's an amazing thing about people and what they believe. Several atheists obviously replied here that it is arguing against a "straw man" since they do not believe a tornado could assemble an automobile. Let's examine that more closely. Which is more complicated? Is an automobile or a single living cell more complicated? An automobile cannot scour its environment to find and absorb food from which to obtain its own fuel. A human operator is required for that. A single cell can get its own fuel. Once assembled, by whatever perhaps a tornado, an automobile cannot duplicate itself. Human operators are required for that. A single living cell can duplicate itself. What is the point here? A single living cell is thousands of times more complicated than an automobile. A single living cell contains more information about complex and interdependent systems that cannot arise independently, at least not to any long term avail. Which is the Greater Leap of Faith? Obviously then to believe a living cell can arise from a series of accidents requires a greater leap of faith than to believe a tornado can assemble an automobile. It might be humorous if not so tragic but the atheists on this board believe the least likely thing by far than a considerably more likely (by thousands of times) thing. Conclusion Although atheists pride themselves on their "science" and "logic" they are utterly devoid of either. It is indeed a great wonder how the vast unschooled masses follow such imbeciles.
I wonder, are you aware that no-one credible actually says that evolution is a process achieved through a series of accidents?
Oh look! Another Lamarckian.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 6, 2019 2:02:37 GMT
I wonder, are you aware that no-one credible actually says that evolution is a process achieved through a series of accidents?
Oh look! Another Lamarckian. You don't actually understand how evolution works, do you? Someone with even a basic knowledge and understanding of evolutionary science would not be making the stupid comments that you do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 6, 2019 2:52:17 GMT
It must be a great relief to you that, instead of studying what scientists actually believe so you understand their positions (which involves hard work), you can just pull bullshit versions of their stances out of your dumb, ignorant ass and call it a day. I admire how you make an effort to participate even in topics in which you are not the least bit conversant. At least we know you're still alive, perhaps senile, perhaps mired in horrifically simple notions of biology from the science before there was indoor plumbing, but alive at least.
 Get him.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Nov 6, 2019 3:02:39 GMT
This is the worst anti-science flat-earth excuse for not believing evolution since the watch analogy (the human eye is so complex it could not have evolved without a miracle just like you wouldn't expect to find a watch that had formed naturally). Ask any third grader and she can debunk that bunk. What makes it worse is that it, I guess, is supposed to be satirically funny. It is just pathetic. Go back to school - and not that evangelical or Pentecostal church school you graduated from. That is not necessarily anti-evolution. It just says that evolution is a designed system.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Nov 6, 2019 3:45:27 GMT
This is the worst anti-science flat-earth excuse for not believing evolution since the watch analogy (the human eye is so complex it could not have evolved without a miracle just like you wouldn't expect to find a watch that had formed naturally). Ask any third grader and she can debunk that bunk. What makes it worse is that it, I guess, is supposed to be satirically funny. It is just pathetic. Go back to school - and not that evangelical or Pentecostal church school you graduated from. That is not necessarily anti-evolution. It just says that evolution is a designed system. That is a matter of Faith (which you are welcome to), not science. Scientific statements can be tested for reliability. Statements of faith cannot. It doesn't matter is evolution is a designed system or not. That it is designed cannot be proved. That it does exist and is still happening CAN be demonstrated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Nov 6, 2019 3:46:19 GMT
This is the worst anti-science flat-earth excuse for not believing evolution since the watch analogy (the human eye is so complex it could not have evolved without a miracle just like you wouldn't expect to find a watch that had formed naturally). Ask any third grader and she can debunk that bunk. What makes it worse is that it, I guess, is supposed to be satirically funny. It is just pathetic. Go back to school - and not that evangelical or Pentecostal church school you graduated from. That is not necessarily anti-evolution. It just says that evolution is a designed system. The problem becomes who designed the designer? And the universe could be the product of a design or what appears to be design via self-organization of matter starting at the quantum level. We just don’t know yet. Arlon assumes since we don’t fully know what caused the Big Bang and eventually intelligent life, then God must have done it. Faith in a God of Gaps is fragile because the gaps keep getting filled everyday making the faithful either re-explain how plugged gaps fit with their proof of God or deny the plugs.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Nov 6, 2019 3:58:08 GMT
That is not necessarily anti-evolution. It just says that evolution is a designed system. That is a matter of Faith (which you are welcome to), not science. Scientific statements can be tested for reliability. Statements of faith cannot. It doesn't matter is evolution is a designed system or not. That it is designed cannot be proved. That it does exist and is still happening CAN be demonstrated. I tend towards atheism myself. But arguments which say there is no god are based on logic and observation of the world. So what is wrong if the OP proposes a logical argument that there is a god? It's a sound argument. We don't see complex structures appear at random. And a living single cell which emerges from inanimate matter is "complex" even if it's one cell. Atheists can't explain exactly how it happened. It's all theory on both sides.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Nov 6, 2019 4:03:09 GMT
That is not necessarily anti-evolution. It just says that evolution is a designed system. The problem becomes who designed the designer? And the universe could be the product of a design or what appears to be design via self-organization of matter starting at the quantum level. We just don’t know yet. Arlon assumes since we don’t fully know what caused the Big Bang and eventually intelligent life, then God must have done it. Faith in a God of Gaps is fragile because the gaps keep getting filled everyday making the faithful either re-explain how plugged gaps fit with their proof of God or deny the plugs. Actually the Big Bang theory does suggest there was a prime mover. What compelled that small pinpoint of dense matter to explode and expand into the universe? It's ironic that science suggests there was a beginning, as most religion teaches. As for who designed the designer, this can be answered by the mathematical concept of infinity. Infinity requires no beginning nor end. So if this god exists he needs no designer, he always was and is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 6, 2019 12:42:29 GMT
That is not necessarily anti-evolution. It just says that evolution is a designed system. And the universe could be the product of a design or what appears to be design via self-organization of matter starting at the quantum level. We just don’t know yet. Arlon assumes since we don’t fully know what caused the Big Bang and eventually intelligent life, then God must have done it. Faith in a God of Gaps is fragile because the gaps keep getting filled everyday making the faithful either re-explain how plugged gaps fit with their proof of God or deny the plugs. The material world is obviously subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, a "spiritual" realm might not be. There might be "eternally" existing entities in a spiritual realm. Some claims of spiritual phenomena indicate the rules are indeed different in that realm. Before you get all upset and lose your composure please note that I said "claims." I have no proof myself of any ESP. However if other people do, then that would explain why a designer needs no previous designer there.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 6, 2019 13:05:22 GMT
Actually the Big Bang theory does suggest there was a prime mover. Complete and utter bullshit. You will find no such suggestion in any of the scientific literature.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Nov 6, 2019 15:59:53 GMT
Actually the Big Bang theory does suggest there was a prime mover. Complete and utter bullshit. You will find no such suggestion in any of the scientific literature. Duh, don't be an idiot. I never said that's a scientific theory. I said the Big Bang supports or "suggests" the religious idea that the universe had a beginning and there was a "Prime Movement" which began it. Learn to read.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 6, 2019 16:11:23 GMT
The problem here is not evolution or whether the source of genetic variation is Lamarckian. The "vast majority of biologists" holds that Lamarckian genetic variation is most unlikely anyway. But nearly all of them would accept that evolution moves by successful increment and not by sudden complexities. Which was the point. At least you have something right. Some successful changes can happen fairly quickly, right down to the appearance of new species. However this does not do your tired junkyard-and-tornado trope any favours. There are no observations that I know of which support your late portrayal of evolution. Perhaps you can link to some? Evasion will be noted, as usual. This does not invalidate the notion that there is overwhelming scientific consensus about the modern evolutionary synthesis. And your superiority complex is showing again, as is a preference for insults over argument. Thank you for your opinions about DNA and RNA. I think your relative lack of knowledge here has been dealt with already by others.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 6, 2019 16:34:56 GMT
Complete and utter bullshit. You will find no such suggestion in any of the scientific literature. I said the Big Bang supports or "suggests" the religious idea that the universe had a beginning and there was a "Prime Movement" which began it. Learn to read. The Big Bang suggests no such thing. Learn to think.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 6, 2019 16:59:54 GMT
This is the worst anti-science flat-earth excuse for not believing evolution since the watch analogy (the human eye is so complex it could not have evolved without a miracle just like you wouldn't expect to find a watch that had formed naturally). Ask any third grader and she can debunk that bunk. What makes it worse is that it, I guess, is supposed to be satirically funny. It is just pathetic. Go back to school - and not that evangelical or Pentecostal church school you graduated from. That is not necessarily anti-evolution. It just says that evolution is a designed system. The question then becomes whether evolution, with all its elements, can be said to reflect the existence of an all-good, caring God. listverse.com/2009/03/04/top-10-worst-things-in-nature/ listverse.com/2013/06/25/10-sadistic-killers-of-the-natural-world/ There are some higher mammals that flirt with emotions such as tenderness, particularly when it comes to babies of various species, and there have been some amazing examples of purported predators showing something akin to “mercy”, to infants of their traditional prey species; particularly when there is some aspect of maternal instinct involved. But for the most part, the way of the world is to kill to eat, without the hindrance of conscience, over and over. Is this cavalcade of cruelty-as-process really the design of a moral entity?
|
|
