Creation vs. Evolution

[Hedshaker]

Originally Posted by 6days View Post
Evidence supports the Biblical Creator.

Bald assertions butter no parsnips.

I keep waiting to see the scientific evidence for talking critters, burning bush, virgin birth (no male of the species required), clinically dead people coming back to life, stilled Sun in the sky...... and so on.

After all, science supports the Biblical model, does it not :idunno:

Or did I mistake science for apologetics :argue:

 

[DFT_Dave]

The irrationality of the theory of evolution

1. "Natural selection" is a contradictory phrase, an oxymoron, for morons.

se·lec·tion [si-lek-shuhn]
noun 1. an act or instance of selecting or the state of being selected; choice.

The very idea that nature, which is not intelligent or free and does not make choices, produces by accident, without plan or purpose, mutations that become characteristics in living things that by chance serve a purpose and adapt to changes in environment is absurdly contradictory.

A purposeless process cannot produce purpose. All cells serve a purpose. Cells are not the result of a purposeless process, not the result of nature.

Purpose logically implies God.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

OK Mr. Callahan. Next time I'm there I'll let you know. Then we can see all your "wisdom" when confronted with a real challenge.

Feel lucky, punk?

:AoO:

 

[noguru]

Feel lucky, punk?

:AoO:

Let's see, did I fire 6 shots or 5? I lost count. I guess you have to ask yourself if you are feeling lucky today.

 

[DFT_Dave]

The irrationality of the theory of evolution

2. "Mutations are random", "natural selection is not random" is a contradiction of joined concepts.

"Natural selection can be contrasted with artificial selection, in which humans intentionally choose specific traits. In natural selection there is no intentional choice. In other words, artificial selection is teleological and natural selection is not teleological."--Wiki

teleological: adjective Philosophy: of or pertaining to teleology, the philosopical doctrine that final causes, design, and purpose exist in nature.

random: lacking any definite plan or prearranged order; haphazard: a random selection

at random: in a purposeless fashion; not following any prearranged order

Natural selection cannot be a "non teleological" process and also be a "non random" process, by definition of terms. Evolution is the "illusion" of non random natural selection. The theory of evolution is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. Equivocation("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

Evolution means change. Everyday we see things change. Everything is evolving, fossil record not required.

A fallen tree is a bridge.

--Dave

 

[noguru]

The irrationality of the theory of evolution

1. "Natural selection" is a contradictory phrase, an oxymoron, for morons.

se·lec·tion [si-lek-shuhn]
noun 1. an act or instance of selecting or the state of being selected; choice.

The very idea that nature, which is not intelligent or free and does not make choices, produces by accident, without plan or purpose, mutations that become characteristics in living things that by chance serve a purpose and adapt to changes in environment is absurdly contradictory.

A purposeless process cannot produce purpose. All cells serve a purpose. Cells are not the result of a purposeless process, not the result of nature.

Purpose logically implies God.

--Dave

Dave that is a philosophical question that is outside the scope of the philosophy of science. Science cannot make such a determination, although I know you would like to use it for that purpose.

Even outside of the scope of science it is not as clear cut as you seem to think. If it were that clear cut and easy this philosophical debate regarding the existence of God would have been resolved many years ago, by minds much more thorough and rigorous than yours.

Your concept of purpose is exactly that, your concept. You cannot force your ideas upon nature. Nature is free of your authoritarian views.

 

[noguru]

2. "Mutations are random", "natural selection is not random" is a contradiction of joined concepts.

That's like saying you cannot have a shirt that is both black and white. Or that water cannot go from being hot to cold and back, Your assertions are absurd given what we can clearly see about nature.

"Natural selection can be contrasted with artificial selection, in which humans intentionally choose specific traits. In natural selection there is no intentional choice. In other words, artificial selection is teleological and natural selection is not teleological."--Wiki

Yes, it can. Natural selection is dependent on the requirements of the environment. Artificial selection is dependent on the requirements of the breeder.

teleological: adjective Philosophy: of or pertaining to teleology, the philosopical doctrine that final causes, design, and purpose exist in nature.

Science is incapable of determining final cause. It can determine design if one is aware of the methodology of the designer. But since humans cannot know God's ways, it is an exercise in futility to try and gauge nature (God's way) by our human standards of design.

random: lacking any definite plan or prearranged order; haphazard: a random selection

Yup.

at random: in a purposeless fashion; not following any prearranged order

You are getting better.

Natural selection cannot be a "non teleological" process and also be a "non random" process, by definition of terms. Evolution is the "illusion" of non random natural selection. The theory of evolution is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. Equivocation("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

You are the one equivocating here. Non random does not mean teleological. You continue to make logical errors in your analysis, yet you never seem to recognize your own fallacies.

Evolution means change. Everyday we see things change. Everything is evolving, fossil record not required.

A fallen tree is a bridge.

--Dave

Yup.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave that is a philosophical question that is outside the scope of the philosophy of science. Science cannot make such a determination, although I know you would like to use it for that purpose.

Even outside of the scope of science it is not as clear cut as you seem to think. If it were that clear cut and easy this philosophical debate regarding the existence of God would have been resolved many years ago, by minds much more thorough and rigorous than yours.

Your concept of purpose is exactly that, your concept. You cannot force your ideas upon nature. Nature is free of your authoritarian views.

So, we must accept your irrational theory instead. :rotfl:

I guess you're admitting that the theory of evolution is outside of rational thought. :the_wave:

Thanks for making my point! :up:

--Dave

 

[noguru]

So, we must accept your irrational theory instead. :rotfl:

I guess you're admitting that the theory of evolution is outside of rational thought. :the_wave:

Thanks for making my point! :up:

--Dave

Opposing forces existing together in nature is not irrational. It is your proclamation that such is irrational, which is the real irrational factor here. You are trying to force your views on nature. You are not as bright as those idiots in the park think. You are just a loud mouth pig headed moron (ad hom intended). Because it is your fallacious argument which is based on your mind set.

 

[DFT_Dave]

That's like saying you cannot have a shirt that is both black and white. Or that water cannot go from being hot to cold and back, Your assertions are absurd given what we can clearly see about nature.

Yes, it can. Natural selection is dependent on the requirements of the environment. Artificial selection is dependent on the requirements of the breeder.

Science is incapable of determining final cause. It can determine design if one is aware of the methodology of the designer. But since humans cannot know God's ways, it is an exercise in futility to try and gauge nature (God's way) by our human standards of design.

Yup.

You are getting better.

You are the one equivocating here. Non random does not mean teleological. You continue to make logical errors in your analysis, yet you never seem to recognize your own fallacies.

Yup.

Teleological means with purpose, with purpose means not at random.

Non teleological means without purpose, without purpose means random.

Natural selection is "non teleological", without purpose, random.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Opposing forces existing together in nature is not irrational. It is your proclamation that such is irrational, which is the real irrational factor here. You are trying to force your views on nature. You are not as bright as those idiots in the park think. You are just a loud mouth pig headed moron (ad hom intended). Because it is your fallacious argument which is based on your mind set.

Her come the ad hominems!

:angrymob: Get Dave that loud mouth pig headed moron!

The rational law of non contradiction is a real b...brick wall for you evolutionists. :bang:

--Dave

 

[noguru]

Teleological means with purpose, with purpose means not at random.

Non teleological means without purpose, without purpose means random.

Natural selection is "non teleological", without purpose, random.

--Dave

You are equivocating Dave. As anyone who has a basic understanding of philosophy knows words have a vague penumbra of meaning attached to them. Teleological means "final cause". Purpose does not have to be about "ultimate purpose" as it would mean in a teleological sense. It could simply mean immediate or more short term purpose.

I do agree that without life the universe might seem rather purposeless in a teleological sense, but that might be because we as living beings are placing our idea of purpose on a universe that might not have an "ultimate purpose".

I wrestled with this for 17 years during my agnostic phase. But then I decided to have faith that there was an "ultimate" purpose, though I might not be able to completely ascertain what that purpose is.

Atheists seem quite content with not having to believe in an "ultimate purpose" to the universe, and in living their lives according to their own self made purpose. In the end atheists and theists alike are looking at many mysteries and coming to conclusions about these ideas of purpose/non-purpose in their own minds. Because even as a theist you cannot know the mind of God.

 

[noguru]

Her come the ad hominems!

:angrymob: Get Dave that loud mouth pig headed moron!

The rational law of non contradiction is a real b...brick wall for you evolutionists. :bang:

--Dave

Dave, your head is a brick wall. You seem incapable of understanding reality when you are not comfortable with it. I am simply pointing out that it is your "mind set" that is faulty here. If you don't like that, then you might want to petition your understanding of God for some relief.

The law of non-contradiction does not apply to opposing forces in nature. It only applies to the existence of some entity, IOW God cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. Not in the sense of random and non-random aspects of the universe (we call that stochastic), which do coexist based on empirical evidence. The law of non-contradiction does not negate the fact that black and white coexist. You are misusing the law and equivocating meanings of words to support your misrepresentations of the empirical evidence. If you have a problem with the empirical evidence you might be better off arguing with that rather than people who are just observing that evidence.

The law of non-contradictions can also apply to the state of something, IOW an object cannot be both hot and cold at the same time. But this does not apply to genetic variation coupled with natural selection. The "random" genetic variation creates a physical canvas with an image. Then natural selection the "non-random" part acts on that physical image, through reproductive advantage. Your twisted mind might not be able to conceive of this reality, but it is still there.

Feel free to bring your irresponsible misrepresentations to WS any time you feel the need to impress laymen with your "vast" knowledge of philosophy and science. :chuckle: But you ought to be aware that there are people who can see you for what you really are, a charlatan. And that is based on your attitudes and behaviors.

 

[DFT_Dave]

You are equivocating Dave. As anyone who has a basic understanding of philosophy knows words have a vague penumbra of meaning attached to them. Teleological means "final cause". Purpose does not have to be about "ultimate purpose" as it would mean in a teleological sense. It could simply mean immediate or more short term purpose.

I do agree that without life the universe might seem rather purposeless in a teleological sense, but that might be because we as living beings are placing our idea of purpose on a universe that might not have an "ultimate purpose".

I wrestled with this for 17 years during my agnostic phase. But then I decided to have faith that there was an "ultimate" purpose, though I might not be able to completely ascertain what that purpose is.

Atheists seem quite content with not having to believe in an "ultimate purpose" to the universe, and in living their lives according to their own self made purpose. In the end atheists and theiss alike are looking at many mysteries and coming to conclusions about these ideas of purpose/non-purpose in their own minds. Because even as a theist you cannot know the mind of God.

The meaning of teleological does not have to mean "ultimate or divine purpose".

"In natural selection there is no intentional choice. In other words, artificial selection is teleological and natural selection is not teleological."

The article in Wiki does not use teleological in the ultimate or divine sense, it compares artificial selection, breeding, as to natural selection, evolution.

You are the one who wants to change the meaning of the word teleological, which has more than one meaning, and change how this argument has been framed by the article in Wiki and me. You are equivocating and are guilty of the "tu quoque", avoiding having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - answering criticism with criticism.

--Dave

 

[noguru]

The meaning of teleological does not have to mean "ultimate or divine purpose".

And your point is? How are you using it? Are you or are you not trying to establish "ultimate or divine purpose" from the empirical evidence we have in biology?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, your head is a brick wall. You seem incapable of understanding reality when you are not comfortable with it. I am simply pointing out that it is your "mind set" that is faulty here. If you don't like that, then you might want to petition your understanding of God for some relief.

The law of non-contradiction does not apply to opposing forces in nature. It only applies to existence of some entity, IOW God cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. Not in the sense of random and non-random aspects of the universe (we call that stochastic), which do coexist based on empirical evidence. The law of non-contradiction does not negate the fact that black and white coexist. You are misusing the law and equivocating meanings of words to support your misrepresentations of the empirical evidence. If you have a problem with the empirical evidence you might be better off arguing with that rather than people who are just observing that evidence.

By empirical evidence you must also mean the fossils we have not found. How did that work for you? Oh, I remember, not required. Rational thought seems also not required.

The law of non-contradiction is not even about the fact that black and white coexist. It's that no particular thing can be both black and white at the same time in the same way.

It is not possible for nature to be purposeless (random) and selective (non random) at the same time and in the same way. Natural selection is the exact same thing as "purposeless selection" because nature is with out purpose, and because selection has purpose, it's the exact same thing as saying, natural selection is a "purposeless purpose"--which is utter nonsense.

--Dave

 

[Hedshaker]

T
A purposeless process cannot produce purpose.

So how did your god come about then Dave? :idunno:

Ooops sorry, forgot about the special pleading bit. Your God doesn't have to follow your rules because he's the pure actu-wots-a-name, the ground of thingy, the unmoved what-have-you.

Silly me. I forgot about your Gods magic powers there for a minute. Your God did not come about by a purposeless process because he's God. And if any questions arise just evoke the supernatural.

Love it. It would be fool proof if it wasn't so bat-crap-crazy

 

[DFT_Dave]

And your point is? How are you using it? Are you or are you not trying to establish "ultimate or divine purpose" from the empirical evidence we have in biology?

Dodging the issue because you're trapped.

--Dave

 

[noguru]

The law of non-contradiction is not even about the fact that black and white coexist. It's that no particular thing can be both black and white at the same time in the same way.

It is not possible for nature to be purposeless (random) and selective (non random) at the same time and in the same way. Natural selection is the exact same thing as "purposeless selection" because nature is with out purpose, and because selection has purpose, it's the exact same thing as saying, natural selection is a "purposeless purpose"--which is utter nonsense.

--Dave

I addressed this already in the earlier post. But you chose not to respond to that. So here it is again;

The law of non-contradictions can also apply to the state of something, IOW an object cannot be both hot and cold at the same time. But this does not apply to genetic variation coupled with natural selection. The "random" genetic variation creates a physical canvas with an image. Then natural selection the "non-random" part acts on that physical image, through reproductive advantage. Your twisted mind might not be able to conceive of this reality, but it is still there.

 

[DFT_Dave]

So how did your god come about then Dave? :idunno:

Ooops sorry, forgot about the special pleading bit. Your God doesn't have to follow your rules because he's the pure actu-wots-a-name, the ground of thingy, the unmoved what-have-you.

Silly me. I forgot about your Gods magic powers there for a minute. Your God did not come about by a purposeless process because he's God. And if any questions arise just evoke the supernatural.

Love it. It would be fool proof if it wasn't so bat-crap-crazy

My God is not pure actuality a.k.a. Unmoved Mover. What is the nature of God is not the subject at the moment, or hadn't you noticed, or have you no answer?

--Dave