Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Goat]

[replying to McColluch's casino analogy]
Ahh....so evolution is equivalent to the 'house' in the gambling casino. You are aware that the 'house' always wins aren't you? Because it was designed that way by intelligence. I wonder what intelligence and design is behind evolution?

There is no contradiction between belief in god and belief in evolution. Evolution merely presents a method by which an 'intelligent designer' is not necessary. There is no reason to suggest evolution 'proves there is no god.'

That being said, I don't think the casino analogy is perfect, at least say, with roulette. Chemicals interact with each other according to their properties. The interaction is not simply random. To return to the casino analogy, it is apt when talking about craps. When dice are rolled, the odds are quite different when rolling two die, each with dots from one to six, then if one rolled a single die, a dodecahedron, with numbers from 1 to 12. In the latter case the odds for rolling any particular number from 1 to 12 are equal. But with two die the odds of rolling a '7' are much higher than for rolling a '2' or a '12' since there are 6 ways to roll a '7' and only 1 way to roll a '2' and only 1 way to roll a '12.' The closer the number is to '7', the more likely you are to roll it. In the same sense, evolution and abiogenesis are not 'blind chance' since, just like with dice, some results are more likely than others.

To claim evolution is mere 'blind chance' or purely random is like not understanding the difference between the dodecahedral die and rolling two standard dice.

So what are you trying to say? You believe that God is the intelligence behind the evolutionary process? Rolling a dice is still chance whether it is a dodecahedral dice or two standard dice. You just can't admit it can you?

No. .the 'filter' involved in evolution, which removes the 'randomness' , has nothing to do with 'intelligence'.

That is just a straw man you are using.

[Star]

You are absolutely wrong. If there was or is no Intelligence designing or guiding this natural selection then it is indeed RANDOM. It is indeed chance. It is indeed blind-luck. So which is it? Oh wait a minute I get it...these molecules just decided one day to get together in just the precise manner in order to become a simple living cell....is that it?

You are incorrect again because you keep arguing about that which you don't understand. It's not that simple. From Berkeley...

MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.

CORRECTION: Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation,

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... faq.php#a2

Your quote admits that randomness and chance do play apart in evolution and the history of life. You can't have your cake and eat it to. We were either created by a higher power or intelligence OR we got here by dumb blind-luck. Which is it?

Maybe it's reading comprehension, I don't know, but I'm fairly certain it explained precisely and concisely what is random and what is not. I'm sorry you were unable to glean any useful information from it. You are arguing that either all variables in abiogenesis and evolution are random, or, god did it. That is a false dichotomy. I'd try to help you more if you actually displayed an interest in learning, but I interpret your posts as being belligerent.

[instantc]

Your quote admits that randomness and chance do play apart in evolution and the history of life. You can't have your cake and eat it to. We were either created by a higher power or intelligence OR we got here by dumb blind-luck. Which is it?

Obviously chance plays a part, all the mutations through generations happen by chance in my understanding. 'Dumb blind-luck' might also be accurate. Nothing in the process of evolution is intelligent, so I guess dumb and blind are correct. You might also consider yourself lucky that your genes happen to be the ones fit for survival so that they were passed on through all the generations. As a conclusion, you are here by virtue of an unintelligent, blind and lucky process.

[olavisjo]

.

A fox is a land animal, a land animal turned into a whale, therefore a fox can turn into a whale.

Everybody feast your eyes on the mother of all logical fallacies: the category error. Savor this moment because such succinctly put essence of complete nonsense is very hard to find.

This is what you're saying:

1) A land mammal once turned into a whale
2) A fox is a land mammal
3) Therefore a fox can turn into a whale

This reasoning was not intended for those who do not understand evolution, but rather for those like Peter who do understand evolution.

There is absolutely no reason why the modern Fox cannot evolve into a whale like animal given the right selective pressure and enough time. They're both mammals so most of the evolving is already done. We'd just need to work on the form. I don't know, maybe 6 million generations? Definitely a long term project!

To include the assumed premises, so that even those readers who have never studied evolution can understand the argument, we have the following...

1) Any land animal can evolve into any other land animal
2) A fox is a land animal
3) A fox can evolve into any other land animal
4) Some land animal did evolve into a whale
5) A fox can evolve into the land animal that did evolve into a whale
6) Therefore a fox can evolve into a whale

[olavisjo]

.

Do you seriously believe that what you have written here is evidence? Perhaps you may benefit from some very basic education in the use of the English language.

If whales did not evolve from land animals, why would they have pelvic bones? I think that is strong evidence that land animals can evolve into whales.



So, are you going to tell us why you would not believe that land animals can become whales?

You've changed your story?

How has it changed?

That is what I said.

There is not the slightest doubt that marine whales are descended from land animals...

A fox is a land animal, a land animal turned into a whale, therefore a fox can turn into a whale.

So, are you going to tell us why you would not believe that land animals can become whales?

[olavisjo]

.

In the same sense, evolution and abiogenesis are not 'blind chance' since, just like with dice, some results are more likely than others.

Given our last tango, I should know better, but would you please support your claim that "abiogenesis is not 'blind chance'".

[Star]

To include the assumed premises, so that even those readers who have never studied evolution can understand the argument, we have the following...

1) Any land animal can evolve into any other land animal
2) A fox is a land animal
3) A fox can evolve into any other land animal
4) Some land animal did evolve into a whale
5) A fox can evolve into the land animal that did evolve into a whale
6) Therefore a fox can evolve into a whale

1, 3, 5, and 6 are incorrect. Your score is only 33.33%, an F.

You do not demonstrate a basic understanding evolution.

You do not demonstrate a basic understanding of formal logic.

[no evidence no belief]

.

A fox is a land animal, a land animal turned into a whale, therefore a fox can turn into a whale.

Everybody feast your eyes on the mother of all logical fallacies: the category error. Savor this moment because such succinctly put essence of complete nonsense is very hard to find.

This is what you're saying:

1) A land mammal once turned into a whale
2) A fox is a land mammal
3) Therefore a fox can turn into a whale

This reasoning was not intended for those who do not understand evolution, but rather for those like Peter who do understand evolution.

There is absolutely no reason why the modern Fox cannot evolve into a whale like animal given the right selective pressure and enough time. They're both mammals so most of the evolving is already done. We'd just need to work on the form. I don't know, maybe 6 million generations? Definitely a long term project!

To include the assumed premises, so that even those readers who have never studied evolution can understand the argument, we have the following...

1) Any land animal can evolve into any other land animal

false

2) A fox is a land animal

true

3) A fox can evolve into any other land animal

False! Dude, come on! Really?

4) Some land animal did evolve into a whale

True

5) A fox can evolve into the land animal that did evolve into a whale

False again!

6) Therefore a fox can evolve into a whale

And false again!

Olvaisjo, we can disagree on whether evolution is true or not, and I can respect our disagreement... to a certain extent. But trust me, you do NOT have an accurate understanding of the basic facts of evolution. You are disagreeing with a warped and absurd parody of evolution that has nothing to do with reality.

I can try to explain the details and try to help you understand, but only if you're interested. If you think you already understand evolution and nothing can persuade you that your knowledge of it is less than complete, then there's probably little I can do to help. Please let me know.

For now I will just say this, and maybe it will be enough: Genetic mutation is virtually irreversible. It's practically impossible for a genome to mutate in the exact way that would cause it to match the genome of a "cousin" species or to revert back to the ancestral species. For the sequence of countless mutations necessary for a fox to turn into a whale to all happen back to back would be about as likely as winning the lottery a million times in a row, and then getting hit by lightning a million times in a row at the precise same moment as a bird poops on your head.

Maybe the paragraph above will point you in the right direction. If not, and if you're interesed, I can elaborate a little bit.

[no evidence no belief]

God is another dimension.

Meaningless statement. No more and no less meaningful than "Batman operates on a different level".

abiogenesis in outer space produces aliens

I don't think there's any valid reason to speculate that life can exist in outer space. The speculation is that life can exist on other earth like planets.

dianaiad knew it before we did

Ridiculous non sequitur. I'm assuming you're referring to the mormon belief that when you die you get to become the ruler of a separate planet.

(raising hand) er, we don't believe that. We've never believed that. We have often been accused of believing that, but we don't believe that. Sorry. We do believe that we can become like God, and He isn't in charge of one measly planet, is He? At least, not in the belief system under discussion, He isn't.

Not that it matters in the context of the point you are attempting to make, here, mind you; I'm just correcting a mistaken impression of Mormon doctrine.

Sorry Diana I freely admit that I am not as familiar with the Book of Mormon as I should be. I will get round to reading it in full some day. Are beliefs on cosmology spelled out in it, or is there separate literature I should look at?

[no evidence no belief]

re Star Post3062-- Even if life was so rare that only one galaxy on average had life, there'd still be hundreds of billions of instances of life, intelligent or not.



I agree with you Star. You failed to include super intelligent to the point of being inter dimensional and Godlike. What are the odds in all this that we are the top team even by our own understandings which almost amounts to, can we kill more of them than they can of us if they visit.

As a distinguished scholar who's name escapes me once said, "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

All the mumbo jumbo you write about interdimensionality and "Godlike" seem a stretch in an already speculative topic. After all, I don't think you can even define interdimensionality. But it's entirely possible that if alien civilizations exist, they may be a few millennia ahead of us in some aspects of technological development, and thus would look as awe inspiring (and "magical" to the gullible among us) as we would certainly look to the bronze age barbarians who wrote the Bible. Show up in 2000BC Israel with an alarm clock, and you'll be considered a God. Show up with a gun, a camera or a helicopter, and as they say in Little Italy, F'get about it. Similarly, if aliens showed up with teleportation or superluminal flight, we'd be impressed indeed.