What's new
By:

Science vs. Creationism

Tarkanian said:
^^^he is right.
more complexity ::::> smaller probability of evolution
Click to expand...

This is true only in the case of "evolution" from a purely materialistic origin.

A general understanding of statistical probabilities is sufficient for this "a priori" position.

Some evolutionists observe and report. . . . and theorize. . . . about how favorable events are "conserved" and propagated rapidly through multiple "applications" of successful strategies. That kind of thinking borders on ID. While denying an organizing intelligence or more specifically a "Creator" or "Designer" or "God", it acknowledges a fundamental trend in living things. . .. the capacity to act and respond in a way that favors "life". And diversity in life.

If you believe in a "God" or even "Cognition/Response" capacity inherent in "life", the probability of "evolution" is 1. Because "evolution" in that sense would be the certainty of an intelligent effort to propagate life by all possible means.
 
babe said:
This is true only in the case of "evolution" from a purely materialistic origin.
Click to expand...

It is in no way true for a purely materialistic version of evolution. Complexity is an expected result from an ungoverned system.
 
One Brow said:
You don't think mutation and selection happen?
Click to expand...

...oh, I believe "mutations" happen and some aspects of the animal kingdom do survive better than others when presented with various environments. However, 99% of mutations are harmful to the organism AND mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals!

And decades ago, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams began questioning whether natural selection had such power. In 1999, evolutionary theorist Jeffrey H.*Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new.
 
carolinajazz said:
...oh, I believe "mutations" happen and some aspects of the animal kingdom do survive better than others when presented with various environments. However, 99% of mutations are harmful to the organism AND mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals!

And decades ago, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams began questioning whether natural selection had such power. In 1999, evolutionary theorist Jeffrey H.*Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, then where did these things come from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaXEzvosnSE
Bacon?
 
One Brow: Complexity is an expected result from an ungoverned system.
One Brow: [System]= A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.

So complexity is an expected result from a complex whole.
Darwiniac: Hey guys, a complex whole is complex!

An oxymoron wrapped in a redundancy is even better than a plain old oxymoron.

*******
One Brow: Systems don't need to be governed. for example, the water cycle is a system.

I'm going to follow your liberal "logic":
Patterns don't need to be repetitive. for example, the water cycle is a pattern.
Oceans don't need to be salty. for example, the Pacific is an ocean.
American Presidents don't need to live in the white house. for example, Obama is the president.
 
One Brow said:
https://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/system

1. A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/system

a group of related parts that move or work together

Systems don't need to be governed. for example, the water cycle is a system.
Click to expand...

Of course you would view the water cycle, solar system, etc etc as "ungoverned", except perhaps by the natural laws or principles operating upon them. . . . sunlight, heat, vapor pressure and condensation point, and gravity, etc. . . . . but you cannot materially address the root cause of these laws or systems. Your assertion that they are "ungoverned" is a claim based on blind faith in the Godlessness of the world and universe.

nice of you to set so clearly out for all to see the baselessness of your position. Being blind to the axioms of the other side of a debate is a quick way to lose it, in the eyes of most debate judges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top