No Evolution No Way
- Started
- Last post
- 191 Responses
- Brookoioioi0
Evolution doesn't have specific goals or endpoints, its a human conceit to assume that we are the deliberate planned climax to this process.
- flagellum0
Again, we come back to what we mean when we say "evolution". The notion of Darwinian Evolution is a non-goal oriented, ranom process. It's the synthesis of Natural Selection acting on Random Variation. But I do not believe Darwinian evolution occurs because the evidence points away from it. I believe the evidence points to a telic process which was not gradual.
- bolus0
do you "follow" a specific religion?
and, what evidence?
- flagellum0
I'm a follower of Jesus.
and what evidence are you looking for specifically?
- bolus0
never mind the evidence ( you mentioned evidence pointing towards a telic process)
why christianity?
- flagellum0
oh, the evidence for telic "evolution"... here are some brief examples:
- The information in the cell. Specifically the four nucleotide ribosome encoding alphabet along the DNA molecule. Gigabytes upon gigabytes. Specified Complex Information always precedes mind.
- A vast infrastructure of cellular machinery including, transport shuttles, transcription machines, pulleys, clasps, rotary motors, etc... which defy naturalistic explanations.
- The fact that, in a Darwinian scenario, mutations, even "neutral" ones, are ultimately deleterious and ensure extinction. Rather than adding beneficial specified information and producing biological novelty. Natural Selection is a conserving force, not a creative one.
- A fossil record that defies Darwinian gradualism. It rather shows the abrupt appearance of distinct phyla without intermediates. It indicates that major biological novelty happened abruptly without precursors.
- The fine tuning of the cosmologic constants. Gravity and other physical constants are tuned to a rediculous precision to support organic life.
These are just a few. There are many other evidences.
- bolus0
and why christianity?
- bolus0
The information in the cell. Specifically the four nucleotide ribosome encoding alphabet along the DNA molecule. Gigabytes upon gigabytes. Specified Complex Information always precedes mind.
- A vast infrastructure of cellular machinery including, transport shuttles, transcription machines, pulleys, clasps, rotary motors, etc... which defy naturalistic explanations.
- The fact that, in a Darwinian scenario, mutations, even "neutral" ones, are ultimately deleterious and ensure extinction. Rather than adding beneficial specified information and producing biological novelty. Natural Selection is a conserving force, not a creative one.
- A fossil record that defies Darwinian gradualism. It rather shows the abrupt appearance of distinct phyla without intermediates. It indicates that major biological novelty happened abruptly without precursors.
- The fine tuning of the cosmologic constants. Gravity and other physical constants are tuned to a rediculous precision to support organic life.
those are things that are difficult to rhyme with Darwins theory
but none of it actually points towards a creator (creative force) right?
The fact that you and I can't grasp something isn't a reason to think it must be 'planned'
- lemmys_wart0
fyi, id has yet to make one single positive observation.
they got nothing.
zip.
zero.
zilch.
nada.
that's it....
nothing.
- bolus0
of course not, but i'm still trying to find out how one can believe id-theory and be a christian at the same time
- Brookoioioi0
The creationist argument is a complete logical fallacy, it's the ultimate skyhook. To postulate a solution that is more complex than the problem doesn't solve anything. It just regresses the problem back one stage. Who or what created the creator? Or did it come about by a process like natural selection, which does have the power to create complex living creatures from simple beginnings.
- Mimio0
Somebody just read "The God Delusion".
Great book and a great argument.
- bolus0
Somebody just read "The God Delusion".
Great book and a great argument.
Mimio
(Jan 10 07, 10:38)---------------
didn't everybody
- Mimio0
didn't everybody
bolus
(Jan 10 07, 10:39You would hope.
- acescence0
i can see the future... the response will be... no one created the creator... the creator has always been...
- bolus0
no one created the creator... the creator has always been...
- Brookoioioi0
How convenient.
- bolus0
i can see the future... the response will be... no one created the creator... the creator has always been...
acescence
(Jan 10 07, 10:45)no one created the creator... the creator has always been...
bolus
(Jan 10 07, 10:47)oh my god, it's a miracle
- flagellum0
Unfortunately the God delusion is being torn apart even by Dawkins's atheist colleagues. It's a disaster from every single review i've read. And I've read many. Here a few of them:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_art…
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/11…
http://www.evolutionnews.org/200…
Everybody here should save themselves time and energy and read Angus Mengue's "Agents Under Fire".
- lemmys_wart0
no i think the response is "i dont make calims on the nature of god"
id skirts the god issue...
id skirts science as well.