format_quote Originally Posted by
lavikor201
Stay with me ranma. Either way you look at an apple, whether it was made for people or people were made for it, it shows awareness of human needs, and the human body shows awareness of what the apple offers.
Could you clarify what you mean by this? It sounds as if you are saying the apple is aware. IM sure im misunderstanding you.
No matter which "adapted" to which, the question is: the ability to adapt, the fact that the body knew exactly how to digest those apples, how to grow in order to reach the apples, what limbs it needed to reach the apples, etc -- was that accident or intelligence?
The body did not know how to digest the apple, however through evolution the digestive system was formed. Limbs were not formed for reaching apples no more than my finger was made to clean my nose.
SO i would have to say that this is due to evolution.
That is the issue here - there are only two possibilities: (a) accident or (b) intelligence.
or (c) random mutations that are selected through natural means...
or (d) randome mutations that are selcted through natural and intelligent means.
or (d) many other possiblites.
To say that it adapted or evolved just evades the question: adaptation and evolution are either accident or intelligence.
It evades no question and you are missing the point of evo.
Either a string of billions and trillions of perfectly aligned accidents or there is something in the organism that knows what direction it needs to evolve.
Or have a billion and trillion accidents that are either selected through natural means in or out of the gene pool.
And don't forget - the organism needs the ability to be able to "evolve" to begin with. If we were all made of stone we couldn’t "evolve" lungs, etc.
sigh... you clearly need to read about evo and perhaps natural selection.
The majority of our organs and structures as humans were developed long before we were human in our ancestors.
So the proof still remains: the perfectly designed and aligned natural phenomenon could not have, by any reasonable odds, accidentally ended up this way.
ignoring your horrible example. How then would you explain a god coming into being? Just popping? Always existing?
And the only alternative to accident is intelligence.
nope.
It doesn't matter if the apple "adapted" for people or people "adapted" for the apple. Either way, accident is beyond believable odds.
your entire argument is flawed thats all i can.
What is referred to as "likelihood" of life evolving, still amounts to staggering odds. The numbers are too large to describe.
Did you know that no matter how small the chance of something happening it will likely happen. You might think that a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of someting happen wont but ask lottery winners.
The fact that elements got together and life came from them is itself ridiculous by accident.
I think i understand what you said, it sounds kind of odd, but it is much less ridiculous and more likely than your possiblities.
And the fact that life "knows" how to evolve is also impossible by accident.
True, life does not know how to evolve. Evolution is basicly caused by imperfect replication or mutations. Those mutations are not directed. A beaver will never evolve a chainsaw because he wants one. However if a mutation occurs that gives an advantage then it is more likely to be selected through natural means into the gene pool.
You may not realize the level of coincidence that is needed to do this. Did your stomach "evolve" before the lining that protects it from the acids? If so, it would have been destroyed after the first meal. If the lining evolved before the acids, then nature must also be endowed with prophecy, because it was burdened for millions of years with some useless lining, until the acid evolved.
sigh... i have already refuted this argument.
recap... these things evolved along time ago. Some evolved as very basic form of what they are now. Some initially evolved for completely different functions and eventually changed to what they are now.
The chicken egg needed to be the right thickness - not too thick and not too thin - to allow the development and hatching of the chicken, from the start. Or else even one generation of chicken would not have been able to survive.
the egg evolved way before the chicken.
And even if, theoretically, all this did evolve,
as it is said and shown to be supported by the evidence.
the fossil evidence would have to show the billions and billions of species that did not survive -
I would recommend learning about fossils and the fossilisation proccess. That will answer this arugment.
the "non fittest" that fell by the wayside. For every survivable species, you are talking about countless non-survivors. The odds are ridiculous. And the fossil record so far has ONLY COME UP WITH VIABLE LIFE FORMS.
The viable forms are more abundant and more likely to be fossilized, the non viable forms as you say would more likely be eaten or not even survive childhood.
We still have no answer to the question; How does anyone account for the staggering odds of life forming by accident?
We do, natural selection, although your question is flawed.
What the scientists are saying in essence is, "Yes, but it could happen."
Well, that is of course true, but then you would be unable to prove anything at all, because similarly, "It could always happen."
Science shows what is likely. It deals in possiblity and chance and what is likely. If you want proof go to math. Ill stick with the theories of gravity and evolution since they are the most likely reasons for what they try to answer.
If G-d Himself would come and reveal Himself to the entire world an say "I am Hashem", that, too, by atheist standard wouldn't prove anything because a happy string of coincidences could account for natural sounds and sights that happened to have coincidently united at the right time and place to cause such a phenomenon.
Personally I think Hashem should do that. It would make things a lot easier. Of course I imagine that many an atheist would say, prove it. "in the figuritive sense" Or perhaps they may say... Yeah and so what. Or perhaps they would comment on how bad a job he did in creation. Of course it an alien showed up and said it created us the christians and muslims would go like... Deciever... the scientologists might be scratching their heads too..
It could happen.
But science goes into what is likely and base the theories of science off of evidence.
Proof, in any other context other than atheists talking about G-d, is not expected to reach the level of absolute impossibility. There is no such thing as absolute impossibility. Anything "could" happen, as long as it is not an absurd concept that cannot exist (such as a triangle that is round).
You would send someone to the electric chair if you were a juror and the defendant’s fingerprints were found on the strangled victim's neck. A video of the murder, and perhaps 20 witnesses would make the verdict a no brainier.
But witnesses could lie, a video could be forged - one may even go so far as to claim that some technology exists out there that we are as yet unaware of that synthesized such a realistic video.
As for lying, science uses a process called peer review to help weed out those dirty fibbers. It also helps weed out mistakes and bad data.
And please note, that there is no proof anywhere that says two people cannot have the same fingerprints. In fact, there is absolutely nothing in nature at all that precludes duplicate fingerprints.
However we can theorize that no one had the same fingerprint and we can back it up with evidence such as how fingerprints are formed and what effects their formation. Also all we need to disprove it is just something like 2 people having the same fingerprints. Then it is falsified.
How in the world would my fingers know, when I am born, the patterns of fingerprints that have already been "placed" on the fingers of every other human being? How do my fingers know which fingerprints are "used" already so as to avoid duplicating them?
Know? sigh... i suggest reading about fingerprints and their formation.
The only reason that we assume - yes, assume! - that two sets of fingerprints cannot be alike, or that two snowflakes cannot be alike
Snowflakes actually can be alike for that you need to also look at the formation of snowflakes.
, is because there are so many billions of possible fingerprint patterns, and snowflake patterns, that the odds of two like patterns existing are so staggering that we don’t even consider it a possibility.
Even though it could happen.
So if you are a juror and the defense attorney claims that nobody "proved" that the fingerprints on the victim's neck were really the defendants - because it could happen that by coincidence two identical sets exist, and that you can't "prove" that the 20 witnesses told the truth (they could have all lied and coincidently made up the same exact details in the story), and that you cant "prove" that the video cannot be faked, he would be laughed out of the courtroom.
Even though it all "could happen".
And you would send the defendant to his death, because you saw proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that this man is guilty.
You have no proof that your desert is not poisoned, but you would take the chance of eating it anyway.
However based on evidence I can pretty much assume that its not. "of course i did get food poisoning once."
Once the odds reach a certain point, we don't consider the alternative as viable.
We are looking at evidence in science too.. Thats probably the biggest factor.
Even though your desert could be poisoned.
.....
We live our lives laughing at such claims. We would call the ambulance at someone who really believes those things.
Except for the atheist discussing G-d.
For the most part the majority of scientists that see the theory of evo being the most likely explaination for why there is a variety of species are theists.
It's amazing how, on that level of reasonableness, a person would risk his life and send others to their death, but to avoid eating pork, for that, he needs "absolute proof".
Huh? Your loosing me even morethan have before.
The question is not "can we prove G-d?" The question is, given the proof that we do have, why in the world would anybody NOT believe in G-d???
Because there is no evidnce for a god or gods, the def of a god varies as well, the evidence that there are supposedly billions of different gods and only one is supposedly the right one. There is no evidence for a god so why believe in one. Heck lets say there is a god, what evidence is there that its not Zeus, GFSM, the pink invisibly unicorn, me, Earl... etc...
And to that, so far, no atheist has come up with anything close to a sensible answer.
Laughable.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks