For Inquisitor, et al: What is Evolution?

Hi crashfrog,We seem to have had the same idea there....

Hi Brian,
Glad you liked it
If you want more one liners that are similar look for threads with
ten-sai or zephan...most "debates" with him are clones of the ones he has had here as Inquisitor...but we have to forgive the guy..he is just plain dense as a brick.The most disappointing aspect of it is I thought the entire legal evidence versus scientific evidence debate would be interesting and a new angle. Also, it would have been interesting to see someone try to "prove" epigenetic modification or epistasis in a mock court room setting. Unfortunately, Apple/Ten/Zeph/Inq was never up to the task...perhaps a real lawyer..or an intelligent one at least, will come aboard one day and actually make a go at it...until then, there will surely be more of the ritalin deprived rantings of our resident troll to chuckle over.cheers,
M

Thread moved here from the Welcome, Visitors! forum.

quote:

---

It's a well-known fact that many (possibly a majority) of those who support the theory of evolution believe in or accept the existence of the supernatural, myself and many others here included. This alone invalidates definition #1. Some day you will have to accept that evolution was not invented to take the place of a god.

---

Methinks the need to explain away the supernaturalness of the supernatural, miracle, if you will, spawned the idea in the first place. When you really deeply think about it, what is observed necessitates inteligent design all the way. The odds of random natural selection is simply too impossible to explain it all. To think a supreme supernatural being would be so impotent as to have the need to progressively create a being such as man all the way from rock to slime to wigglers to creeper, to walker to grunter to intelligent praying communicating being, is imo, nonsense. Leaving it all to chancy collisions of this's n thats, bumping into one another at precise occasions so rare that the odds are nigh unto impossible, says little to the supernatural ability of any being.It would be interesting to hear what sort of supernatural you believe in and what sort of supernatural happenings you accept as bonafide. Can you name a few, Zephyr?[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-07-2003]

Thread moved here from the Free For All forum so that Inquisitor may participate.Inquisitor, the posting privileges for your Zephan account can be reenabled at such time as I receive positive indications of your willingness to follow the forum guidelines.--------------
EvC Forum Administrator[This message has been edited by Admin, 05-08-2003]

Far from it.The ability of a creator who can indeed create a universe in which His will is worked out unfailingly through the contingencies of chance is very great indeed.Far greater than one who does it one way and then covers His tracks to make it look like He didn't.

quote:

---

Methinks the need to explain away the supernaturalness of the supernatural, miracle, if you will, spawned the idea in the first place.

---

Actually, it was the inability of the Genesis creation account to harmonize with factual observations that first caused scientists to question its accuracy.

quote:

---

When you really deeply think about it, what is observed necessitates inteligent[sic] design all the way.

---

Only when one is conditioned or persuaded to enter such a mindset as requires that interpretation.

quote:

---

The odds of random natural selection is simply too impossible to explain it all.

---

Natural selection is not random. It is determined by environmental factors which may change over time, but in a particular population it can be expected to favor the same traits for many generations.Now we're back to the calculations of probability after the fact. Have you ever asked a statistician how useful that is?I was once impressed in a "sermon" by some of the numbers frequently cited as evidence that abiogenesis and evolution could not occur. Now that I know more about math, I resent being manipulated by such an inappropriate use of it. All the "evidence" I ever saw while I was a YEC has now fallen into that same category: facts twisted to comfort the flock and turn their minds from intelligent inquiry based on the real evidence as observed in nature.

quote:

---

To think a supreme supernatural being would be so impotent as to have the need to progressively create a being such as man all the way from rock to slime to wigglers to creeper, to walker to grunter to intelligent praying communicating being, is imo, nonsense. Leaving it all to chancy collisions of this's n thats, bumping into one another at precise occasions so rare that the odds are nigh unto impossible, says little to the supernatural ability of any being.

---

The validity of a theory isn't determined by how it makes you feel or how it causes you to perceive a supposed higher power. You seem to be objecting to evolution because of its lack of purpose and imprecise means, which doesn't affect the evidence that many, many fields of science have provided in its favor.

quote:

---

It would be interesting to hear what sort of supernatural you believe in and what sort of supernatural happenings you accept as bonafide. Can you name a few, Zephyr?

---

I don't think this thread needs another tangent, and my beliefs wouldn't be as interesting as you might hope. I'm still looking for the truth, and open to many possibilities. The point is, large-scale surveys have disproven the idea that evolution simply provides comfort to those who are afraid to believe in a god to whom they might be accountable. I and some of the scientists who post here are simply examples of a large cross-section of society.

quote:

---

Actually, it was the inability of the Genesis creation account to harmonize with factual observations that first caused scientists to question its accuracy.

---

It all depends on how you interpret what you observe. This's a classic example of how so called creationists who believe in evolution
discount the supernatural factor we fundamentalistic Biblicalists consider. Imo, as the Bible puts it they are "denying the power of god," if you will, the supernaturalness of the supposedly supernatural.

quote:

---

Only when one is conditioned or persuaded to enter such a mindset as requires that interpretation.

---

..........or how much common sense one exercises in that interpretation.

quote:

---

Natural selection is not random. It is determined by environmental factors which may change over time, but in a particular population it can be expected to favor the same traits for many generations.

---

In my dictionary random definition includes "without aim or purpose." In this sense it is random, imo. Without intelligence, there is no driving reason/purpose/aim. For example, after a species of bird would evolve wings, there is no driving reason or cause for those wings to evolve feathers. Common sense demands there be a driving reason or cause for the feathers to evolve. In the first place, I would surmise the bird brain must preceed the evolution of anything pertaining to the bird and the assemblage of even a bird brain would require sooooo many improbabilities without intelligence to make it happen.

quote:

---

Now we're back to the calculations of probability after the fact. Have you ever asked a statistician how useful that is?

---

\In determining the interpretation of what is observed as to origins, one must always do so after the fact. Any unbiased statistician calculating even the probabilities of a living human cell with dna and all would have to conclude that all that is required for it to formulate without intelligence, as observed, is nigh unto impossible.

quote:

---

The validity of a theory isn't determined by how it makes you feel or how it causes you to perceive a supposed higher power. You seem to be objecting to evolution because of its lack of purpose and imprecise means, which doesn't affect the evidence that many, many fields of science have provided in its favor.

---

Did I leave the impression I was going on feeling and supposition here? I believe this is more about probabilities and common sense based on what is observed than about emotional things like feelings.------------------
Surely the Lord Jehovah will do nothing except he reveal the secret to his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-10-2003]

You're off topic.

quote:

---

You're off topic.

---

It's tough to keep on keeping on defining an ideology that somehow magically does things like turning pumpkins into coaches at precisely 12 midnight as in Cinderella. Imo, this subject requires some digression as to reasons why this's scientifically impossible.

Or, say, turning water into wine? Raising the dead? Parting the Red Sea? That does sound hard to defend. Best of luck with that.This was a topic for Mike the Wiz and others to pose honest questions about the modern theory of evolution and what it claims, not for wiseguys to shoot their mouths off.You don't have to believe the theory to post in this topic; just be genuinely interested in what the theory actually claims.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-11-2003]

quote:

---

In determining the interpretation of what is observed as to origins, one must always do so after the fact. Any unbiased statistician calculating even the probabilities of a living human cell with dna and all would have to conclude that all that is required for it to formulate without intelligence, as observed, is nigh unto impossible.

---

NO!Any unbiased statistician will tell you that the likelihood of a particular event happening is UTTERLY USELESS in determining whether it has in fact happened in the past. Stop confusing unlikely with impossible! Do you know how unlikely it was that you, exactly, would be produced from the hundreds of eggs your mother will have released in her lifetime and the hundreds of millions of sperm put into her on each of (probably) hundreds of occasions? You do the math and there it is, "nigh unto impossible." Yet, here you are. This is EXACTLY the type of logic that you find convincing, but which I circular-filed as soon as I had taken one basic stats course.You have been used.

quote:

---

Any unbiased statistician calculating even the probabilities of a living human cell with dna and all would have to conclude that all that is required for it to formulate without intelligence, as observed, is nigh unto impossible.

---

In addition to what Zephyr said, you're confusing your statistics.For instance, the likelihood that you will win the lottery is remote enough that you can safely say it will never happen. The likelihood that someone will win the lottery is very different.The universe is a very, very big place. Plenty of planets with losing lottery tickets.------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

quote:

---

Or, say, turning water into wine? Raising the dead? Parting the Red Sea? That does sound hard to defend. Best of luck with that.

---

But Evolution is not suppose to be magic or miracle, though it's odds would require magic or miracle as in Cinderella. It's suppose to be scientific and natural. On the other hand, The things you cite from the Bible are suppose to involve the supernatural and miracle.

quote:

---

This was a topic for Mike the Wiz and others to pose honest questions about the modern theory of evolution and what it claims, not for wiseguys to shoot their mouths off.

---

.But I'm not being frivolus here. I'm dead serious. You need to reread and think a bit about what I posted if you think what I said is foolishness.

quote:

---

You don't have to believe the theory to post in this topic; just be genuinely interested in what the theory actually claims.

---

Lighten up a bit, Crashfrog. It appears from the response that my little pithy post apprised a point for providence.

quote:

---

Do you know how unlikely it was that you, exactly, would be produced from the hundreds of eggs your mother will have released in her lifetime and the hundreds of millions of sperm put into her on each of (probably) hundreds of occasions? You do the math and there it is, "nigh unto impossible.

---

Oh c/mon, Zephyr. Comparing me personally among human eggs to the likelyhood of life, cells and dna errupting from inorganic mass is as apples and oranges as you can get. We know the likelyhood of human eggs producing a human, don't we?