|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How does Complexity demonstrate Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It has to work. The game is rigged, you see.
It's unlimited bingo with all the cards. The balls come up in random sequence. Each ball helps some card. There is going to be a winner. Given lots of time, and all the cards, you win every single time. That's Evolution. It simply cannot fail. No design. No creation. No Faith needed. No designer needed. Just the surety that simple random chance is the only absolutely positively guaranteed way for it to happen. No faith, just the numbers. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
AdminNosy writes: DarkStar writes: Whenever data is subject to interpretation, any interpretation can be considered valid if no law of science is violated. Since it is clear that this is an utterly useless way to make any progress at all we need to recognize that some interpretations (out of all those that don't violate fundamental laws) are more likely to be useful, productive or valid than others. How would you suggest selecting those that are more likely to be useful and meaningful? To be perfectly honest with you, I am not sure how to answer that question. Were my thought processes more scientific in nature, I may be in a better position to answer but as it is, I would only be able to select the one or ones that I personally viewed as being useful and meaningful, based upon my own personal opinion and bias. As a writer, when working to interweave subplots into the framework of the main plot of a story, I am much more adept at recognizing what does and does not fit well enough within that framework to carry through without becoming confusing to the reader. Sorry I am not better equipped to supply a more scientifically oriented answer. Cheers BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
It seems obvious that you have completely ruled out any possibility of some sort of creator, an intelligent designer. That may be fine for you but for me, no matter how convinced I may become of evolution actually happening, there would always remain a percentage of doubt, even if it was only a minute percentage, because nothing has been proven to the point of becoming an absolute. That evolution happened has not been proven to the point that it has become an unquestionable absolute. The existance of a creator has not been proven to the point that it has become an unquestionable absolute. That is why I said earlier that absolutistic views are not based in logic and reason, but rather they are based upon one's own personal view, their opinion, and their bias toward any given subject. Logic and reason dictate that no absolute position should taken until absolute proof has been acheived. That is not the case with evolution or creation. That is why I choose to keep my mind open to new possibilities, to new discoveries, to new truths, and to legitimate and unquestionable absolutes. Cheers BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
That evolution happened has not been proven to the point that it has become an unquestionable absolute. And we all understand that complex things may always leave some room for doubt. However, we will make no progress and will waste a lot of time if we don't allocate somethings as having so little doubt that it has become foolish to continue to spend a lot of effort continuing to operate as if they are not "abosolute". In the case of evolution happening (not how it happened but that it did, indeed, happen) we have reached that point. It happened. Life on Earth has undergone large changes over long periods of time. As I understand it, most of the proponents of ID agree that it did. What they are talking about is how it happened. Which are you? When new discoveries are made things will change. Don't worry about that. In the meantime, we operate with the best explanation of the already made discoveries. To remain perpetually confused waiting for some final answer is to make no progress This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-24-2004 09:06 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6052 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Logic and reason dictate that no absolute position should taken until absolute proof has been acheived. Just for reference, (and maybe you are already aware of this), you'll be hard pressed to find a true scientist claim to have absolute proof of anything. Generally a scientific "Law" is considered proven, but even then new info can add caveats. And a note on some earlier posts you made regarding dismissing another scientist's conclusions without repeating their experiments: Scientific experiments are commonly carried out incorrectly - either in the technical details or in the entire plan of the experiment (like forgetting to do proper control studies). In those cases it is completely logical to dismiss the conclusions, since the experiments they rest on are necessarily inconclusive. (I think that was the nature of the criticism MrHambre was laying on your references, but I don't want to speak for him.) Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1422 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
DarkStar asserts:
quote:I assume you understand that the aim of the scientific method is to limit this subjectivity. Empirical evidential inquiry is conducted to arrive at a consensus about causes and effects, and what factors are relevant in any given physical setting. Perhaps you feel that scientific methodology is just another set of opinions, but its success in expanding our understanding of natural phenomena leads us to believe that it constitutes a useful set of tools for the job. regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Bingo!!! Your first steps in becoming a true scientist. Nothing is ever truly accepted as an absolute within science. The question is in how you try to disprove the current paradigm. Do you use miracles to prove physical realities wrong? Or do you let reality prove your point for you by using objective, empirical evidence? I would shoot for the latter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DarkStar Inactive Member |
Loudmouth writes: Nothing is ever truly accepted as an absolute within science. The question is in how you try to disprove the current paradigm. Do you use miracles to prove physical realities wrong? Or do you let reality prove your point for you by using objective, empirical evidence? I would shoot for the latter. What is "empirical evidence"? Using the standard definition, any creationist can put a serious snag in the theory of evolution. Empirical: Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws. Hypothetical creationist: Continued observation of a specific species, hypothesizing that the species will reproduce itself but will not evolve into a different form of life. Microevolutionary changes may occur, and even reverse themselves again, but macroevolution will not happen. That is a pretty easy claim to make and as yet has not been dubunked to my satisfaction. Cheers BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hypothetical creationist argument irrelevant to ID.
creationism has a basic conflict with ID that prevents one from being legitimately used for the other. ID does not necessarily have a problem with "macro"evolution -- the reasons are many, but can also be found on: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?http://EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? at the genetic level (DNA) there is nothing to distinguish "micro" from "macro" nor is there any mechanism available that says one is okay and the other is not. enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Continued observation of a specific species, hypothesizing that the species will reproduce itself but will not evolve into a different form of life. When you say "different form of life", what do you (or the hypothetical creationist) mean, exactly? All individuals are concievably "different forms of life", for I'm different than either of my parents, in fairly substantial ways. So, from that perspective, it's already debunked - we observe individuals give rise to forms different from themselves trivially, every time they reproduce sexually. If you meant something else, you need to tell me what kind of "form" you're talking about, that makes me fundamentally the same "form" as my parents and not as, say, a chimpanzee.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Logic and reason dictate that no absolute position should taken until absolute proof has been acheived. And what people are telling you is that that principle is "built into" science as the principle of tentativity. When people tell you here that evolution is true, and that creationism is false, they're doing so in an understood context of scientific tentativity - that evolution is currently the most likely explanation, and that the odds of creationism, or even ID, being at all accurate are so astronomically low that for all practical purposes they are dismissed. But if you can't handle coming to a conclusion - even a tentative one- on less than perfect data and absolute proof, there's only one field for you - mathematics.
That is why I choose to keep my mind open to new possibilities, to new discoveries, to new truths, and to legitimate and unquestionable absolutes. As do we all. But the rest of us, who choose not to be paralyzed by imperfect knowledge, are willing to come to tentative conclusions - such as "evolution is an accurate description of life on Earth" - that we hold provisionally until disconfirming evidence is presented. After all, that's the only way to get any work done. If we did it your way, where we were never willing to accept a conclusion, even provisionally, in the face of significant (but not absolute) proof, there'd be no progress whatsoever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That post would be a good argument for the religious nature of evolution. No. It's not a statement of faith, it's a statement of mathematics. Evolution is like a random walk. (In the random walk, a drunk on a sidewalk flips a coin to determine his next step. Heads, he takes a step forward towards home. Tails, he takes a step back towards the bar for another round, after which he'll try to get home again.) Like the random walk, it's not possible for evolution not to succeed. The drunk makes it home to bed, no matter what. It's not faith, it's mathematics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nasa Inactive Member |
"Life -- you too have forgotten the fundamental difference between pens, F16's and living things. Pens don't fu*k"-
The paper my firend, is the child. The fundamentals? Materials forming complex understanding?Form from form-less. The difference is none. You are made of the same lego bricks! Just highly involved with interalated colors and sizes, creating a house for you to live in. Does anyone share your house with you. The house that is your body? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nasa Inactive Member |
It's not faith, it's mathematics.
Evolution a drunk mans walk, more like fall.The triping stone being mathematics. Give a number to every component of your body.The number you find at the end?- Is a word, LIFE. Take away just one number F, and LIE is written. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nasa Inactive Member |
Evilution is evils solution.
To hide the problem of a heart open. To say the door is untrue, he never came to say you. Evilution is evils heart open, its solution is death.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024