Evolution (and abiongenesis, Cosmology, etc) vs ID, again

[Neutraligon]

Anyone want to see a crockoduck?

[Sun Wukong]

Anyone want to see a crockoduck?

Wouldn't that just be an Archosaur?

[Xmara]

Could be worse. See the 20% who still believe that the sun orbits the earth and the Flat Earth Society.

[Neutraligon]

Anyone want to see a crockoduck?

Wouldn't that just be an Archosaur?

Yep
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatosuchus

[Conscentia]

Anyone want to see a crockoduck?

Behold!

[Neutraligon]

Anyone want to see a crockoduck?

Behold!

I can't see it

[Conscentia]

Behold!

I can't see it

It's because you do not truly believe in the almighty Atheismo. Only true believers can see.

(Does the link not open for you?)

[Neutraligon]

I can't see it

It's because you do not truly believe in the almighty Atheismo. Only true believers can see.

(Does the link not open for you?)

I get something that says this image has been linked without permission...unless that is supposed to be what i see.

[Conscentia]

It's because you do not truly believe in the almighty Atheismo. Only true believers can see.
(Does the link not open for you?)

I get something that says this image has been linked without permission.

Weird. Works for me.
Just use google images.

[Sun Wukong]

Wouldn't that just be an Archosaur?

Yep
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatosuchus

I suppose Spinosaurus also sort of counts. It is, of course, more closely related to birds then to crocodiles, but it sort of resembles a crocodile, and probably behaved quite a bit like a duck.

[The Foxes Swamp]

how does evolution explain alive?

[Infected Mushroom]

There's no mechanism that we have discovered =/= there isn't a mechanism (scientific, paranormal, or otherwise) and there can never be such a mechanism (not equivalent)

You're assuming the truth of the theory you support.

I can also say:

''There's no need for evolution to be advanced as a theory because we know that things can be created by bigger and more intelligent beings.''

No, I'm saying it's fucking impossible for the exact same mutation even to occur in a billion different species, producing the exact same effect in all of them, with 100% participation, no holdovers, and be a mutation that transforms a fully functional system into another completely different fully functional system in one step.

If that actually happened, in would prove intelligent design.

Thus is the stupidity of your comment: that which you think would happen in the absence if ID, requires ID.

how do you know it is impossible?

you may have never seen it and no one has ever seen it (or at least lived to report it), but how's that proof that its impossible?

And don't say ''Because the theory of evolution says it impossible.''

That's just assuming what you're trying to prove.

[Conscentia]

Yep
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatosuchus

I suppose Spinosaurus also sort of counts. It is, of course, more closely related to birds then to crocodiles, but it sort of resembles a crocodile, and probably behaved quite a bit like a duck.

I doubt it.

[Infected Mushroom]

How's intelligent design dismissed?

How's evolution ''common sense''? I don't find it common sensical at all. It essentially requires you to believe that everything is random chance and that we came from nothing.

Nope.

Evolution says that a species of organism will change to adapt to its environment or social requirements through the natural selection of genes and behaviours over the generations.

Random chance is the opposite of evolution.

but the environment seems to be the result of random chance (ex Big Bang), and so the adaptations flow from the random combination...

[-Ebola-]

It's not my field of study, but I have my doubts on the validity of any paper that studies any kind of text or scripture compared to - for example - a paper on antibiotics resistance in soil bacteria. I'm used to using data and test results, whereas that kind of academic paper seems almost entirely dependent on interpretation.

The validity is fairly concrete. I mean, keeping in mind that it's not the type of peer-reviewed text where numbers (although some people have really gone in-depth with using the Bible to calculate the age of the Earth) or statistics would be prevalent, the papers on the subject are still very academic. Most people who do these peer-reviews are theologists (take that as you will), but I've rarely come across a paper that wasn't extremely academic. The kind of stuff these papers deal with is, narrow, to say the least (like comparing eschatology in the Old Testament to typology in the New Testament), but the explanations given are far more academic than you might think.

This is where the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument is extremely important. Valid arguments can still arrive at false conclusions if they start with faulty premises. If you're getting your information from the Bible, that's not a reliable source, and you're going to have a lot of faulty premises.

So basically those papers can prove, "The Bible means X, Y, and Z," but they don't prove, "X, Y, and Z are true."

[Maqo]

Nope.

Evolution says that a species of organism will change to adapt to its environment or social requirements through the natural selection of genes and behaviours over the generations.

Random chance is the opposite of evolution.

but the environment seems to be the result of random chance (ex Big Bang), and so the adaptations flow from the random combination...

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection doesn't deal with anything before the emergence of life. It has nothing to do with the Big Bang or the initial conditions of the universe. As far as the Theory is concerned, God could have created the cosmos and Earth and started the initial spark of life. From that point, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection provides an explanation for pretty much all of biology without the need to refer to the supernatural.

If you want to look backwards to the Big Bang and say that the 'random' initial conditions of the universe therefore make the Theory of Evolution reliant on randomness, then you can say that for EVERY scientific theory and law: eg 'the Theory of Gravity relies on the random initial conditions of the universe to create the constants and interactions we have today'. But no-one does this, because it is not necessary nor helpful.


Some might not know this, but there are a lot of complicated computer systems that use the theory of evolution to compute very good answers to problems that are far too difficult for humans to solve in any kind of planned manner. Its called Genetic Algorithms. Using only the empirically proven base assumptions of evolution you can see your solution 'evolving'. And we can turn that back around and say: 'using only these 4 axioms we can make our solution evolve: those 4 assumptions are empirically proven to occur in nature, therefore we should see evolution in nature'. It proves that *even if* the Christian God created the world in pretty much its current state 6000 years ago, we should still see evolution occurring.

[Sun Wukong]

No, I'm saying it's fucking impossible for the exact same mutation even to occur in a billion different species, producing the exact same effect in all of them, with 100% participation, no holdovers, and be a mutation that transforms a fully functional system into another completely different fully functional system in one step.

If that actually happened, in would prove intelligent design.

Thus is the stupidity of your comment: that which you think would happen in the absence if ID, requires ID.

how do you know it is impossible?

you may have never seen it and no one has ever seen it (or at least lived to report it), but how's that proof that its impossible?

And don't say ''Because the theory of evolution says it impossible.''

That's just assuming what you're trying to prove.

How is it impossible for the same absurdly improbable thing to happen exactly the same way billions of times? And never fail to happen?

And indeed, not only do that, but leave no evidence that it happened at all?

Are you actually that stupid?

[Sun Wukong]

I suppose Spinosaurus also sort of counts. It is, of course, more closely related to birds then to crocodiles, but it sort of resembles a crocodile, and probably behaved quite a bit like a duck.

I doubt it.

Well, I'm not implying that they had a duck's aggressive sexual behavior or distinctive call, but in terms of being semi-aquatic fish-eating creatures that lurk at the waters surface with part of their head submerged... yeah. Similar.

[Infected Mushroom]

how do you know it is impossible?

you may have never seen it and no one has ever seen it (or at least lived to report it), but how's that proof that its impossible?

And don't say ''Because the theory of evolution says it impossible.''

That's just assuming what you're trying to prove.

How is it impossible for the same absurdly improbable thing to happen exactly the same way billions of times? And never fail to happen?

And indeed, not only do that, but leave no evidence that it happened at all?

Are you actually that stupid?

well one possibility is that a highly intelligent life form caused it to happen, and then for reasons of his own, erased all traces of that having happened in the past

so to analogise; we're looking at a white board and we see that it is blank. Unbeknownst to us, its been erased many many times. We just can't detect those things with science (here assume, science is our eyes). A highly intelligent life form knows how to completely erase.

See what I'm getting at?

[Maqo]

How is it impossible for the same absurdly improbable thing to happen exactly the same way billions of times? And never fail to happen?

And indeed, not only do that, but leave no evidence that it happened at all?

Are you actually that stupid?

well one possibility is that a highly intelligent life form caused it to happen, and then for reasons of his own, erased all traces of that having happened in the past

so to analogise; we're looking at a white board and we see that it is blank. Unbeknownst to us, its been erased many many times. We just can't detect those things with science (here assume, science is our eyes). A highly intelligent life form knows how to completely erase.

See what I'm getting at?

If said 'highly intelligent life form' completely erases any proof of its existence, what reason do we have of believing in it? If this highly intelligent life form' replaces all evidence of its existence with repeatable phenomena, what is the difference between that life from existing or not existing?

Have you heard of the religion of Last Tuesdayism? (Not to be confused with the heathen belief of Last Thursdayism). The belief goes that the universe was created in its whole, as we observe it now and remember it, last Tuesday. Orthodox Last Tuesdayism suggests that this happens every Tuesday.

Of course, its an absurd parody religion, but it demonstrates the uselessness of suggesting that some being perfectly erases evidence of its existence. Even if it was true, it is inherently unproveable: and even if it is true, it still doesn't prevent the apparent history from before Last Tuesday from ALSO being effectively true.

[New DeCapito]

Influenza, amphibious fish, and the homo species, ranging from homo habilis to homo sapiens.
My proof of evolution.

[Creepoc Infinite]

How is it impossible for the same absurdly improbable thing to happen exactly the same way billions of times? And never fail to happen?

And indeed, not only do that, but leave no evidence that it happened at all?

Are you actually that stupid?

well one possibility is that a highly intelligent life form caused it to happen, and then for reasons of his own, erased all traces of that having happened in the past

so to analogise; we're looking at a white board and we see that it is blank. Unbeknownst to us, its been erased many many times. We just can't detect those things with science (here assume, science is our eyes). A highly intelligent life form knows how to completely erase.

See what I'm getting at?

Yeah, and we COULD be living in the matrix.
But is there evidence for it? No!
So what the fuck would be the point of believing that?? A hunch?

Intelligent design has no evidence, it is more likely to be aliens than a god sure, but that doesn't prove it true. Evolution however, has tons of evidence.

[Des-Bal]

well one possibility is that a highly intelligent life form caused it to happen, and then for reasons of his own, erased all traces of that having happened in the past

so to analogise; we're looking at a white board and we see that it is blank. Unbeknownst to us, its been erased many many times. We just can't detect those things with science (here assume, science is our eyes). A highly intelligent life form knows how to completely erase.

See what I'm getting at?

It was me. I created all life.

[Sun Wukong]

How is it impossible for the same absurdly improbable thing to happen exactly the same way billions of times? And never fail to happen?

And indeed, not only do that, but leave no evidence that it happened at all?

Are you actually that stupid?

well one possibility is that a highly intelligent life form caused it to happen, and then for reasons of his own, erased all traces of that having happened in the past

so to analogise; we're looking at a white board and we see that it is blank. Unbeknownst to us, its been erased many many times. We just can't detect those things with science (here assume, science is our eyes). A highly intelligent life form knows how to completely erase.

See what I'm getting at?

Except for that's entirely opposite of the degeneration you proposed earlier. You know, the thing I'm arguing against.

Try to at least keep track of your own bullshit.

[Creepoc Infinite]

well one possibility is that a highly intelligent life form caused it to happen, and then for reasons of his own, erased all traces of that having happened in the past

so to analogise; we're looking at a white board and we see that it is blank. Unbeknownst to us, its been erased many many times. We just can't detect those things with science (here assume, science is our eyes). A highly intelligent life form knows how to completely erase.

See what I'm getting at?

Except for that's entirely opposite of the degeneration you proposed earlier. You know, the thing I'm arguing against.

Try to at least keep track of your own bullshit.

Talk about inconsistent right?