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?

[zeromeansnothing]

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. Look at our popular culture on these things. Is it science or religion that is making these new imaginings. Think about it. That takes you straight to Mormon Cosmology as a specific example ie beings coming to earth with purposes that are believed. I did not invent Mormon Cosmology, it is there on the internet and I am really becoming irritated with the touchiness of certain people here. I do not want to entertain Scientific speculation re abiogenesis replication in the outer universe for two reasons.
1.It is a portal to the bizarre where anything is possible and
2.My world view and that of the human in general will derive no benefit from this, and I see this as an area with less relevance and practical application than The Tooth Fairy.

That is my opinion and not yours and I respect all opinion here that does not promote evil ie sectarianism, racial hatred, fear etc. Thank God I see none of this here. Just let me be.

[Sir Hamilton]

there is more evidence for precise intelligent design than accidental

The notion that the complexity of life arose accidentally or randomly is absurd. Of course that's not what happened. You are definitely winning this argument that you're having against yourself. But that's not an argument you're having against any evolutionary biologist. That's because no evolutionary biologist would EVER say that evolution is random/accidental.

I can't stress this enough: Evolution is not random. EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM. EvOlUtIoN Is NoT rAnDoM. Evolution is not random. Evolution is not random.. Evolution is not random.. Evolution is not random. Evolution is not random. Evolution is not random

EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM

Do you understand?

When you say that "Intelligent design is more likely than random accident" it's as though you were saying 'The earth being flat is more likely than the earth being the shape of a 1950s telephone". NOBODY IS SAYING the earth is the shape of a 1950s telephone, and nobody is saying the complexity of life arose randomly or by accident. The earth is a globe, and the complexity of life arose through cumulative processes over billions of years through natural selection guided by the survival of the fittest.

Please stop arguing against imaginary opponents who say evolution is random, and start arguing against actual proponents of evolution - WHO SAY THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

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 confusing the origin of life (abiogenesis) - the way in which primordial replicating material came into existence, with evolution by natural selection, which is the process by which these primordial lifeforms increased exponentially in complexity and variety.

Abiogenesis does seem to be guided by nothing more than blind luck, which is not unreasonable to assume given the antropic principle (given enough opportunities, even unlikely things will eventually happen). Evolution on the other hand is NOT guided by chance, but by cumulative processes propelled by survival of the fittest.

Oh, why do I bother....

So you do agree that blind luck got us to the point of life...thank you for admitting that. Now tell me more about these cumulative processes....

[Sir Hamilton]

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?

[zeromeansnothing]

re dianaiad Post3060
Star done good here.

God is another dimension.
abiogenesis in outer space produces aliens
dianaiad knew it before we did

Star followed up on olivasjo's fox to whale point. I thought it was excellent debating. I gave him 200 tokens. You put a name to the process of reasoning involved which impressed me. no evidence no belief had a humorous thread which attempted to replicate the debating error. I was responding to him and the above is my attempt at creating one of these. It is not meant to be valid as you explained.

Can you think of one reason on earth or in the outer universe, on the internet or within my being why I would consider it even worthwhile to ridicule you. Do you still believe that I am smarting at your correction of me earlier in the thread? I could have chosen another religion as an example but one of your posts pointed me towards Mormon cosmology. I have visited Salt Lake City and I have had Mormons in my house .Why would I ridicule you. If I am going to ridicule everything that I do not believe I will need to get up early tomorrow.
This thread from my limited experience of it has been a bear pit where you are on the back foot from the minute you write. I am just protecting myself. I can't even get out of here without another unsolicited inquiry to one of my posts. I initially came into this post with one intention To try and stop people continually misstating Sir Hamilton's position which is not one that I have any particular allegiance to. If you see a person continuously misstated to the point where they have no option but to shut up or fight it is difficult for me as a debater to look on. The thread in general seems to have improved in my opinion but only slightly.
I am not the easiest to engage with and I will try and improve in this regard if only for my own protection. My opinions are rarely received without resistance. I will have the same problem on the Religion Threads . You are a moderator dianaiad and my advise to you is to moderate. If your query is outside of your moderating duties then my answer is the same.

[Joab]

.

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?

[McCulloch]

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?

Evolution is indeed mindless and arbitrary. Randomness does play a part, but evolution itself is not random. Let me explain with an example that does use randomness: a casino. Any given game, any given bet is truly random. You might win, you might lose. But the what is know as the law of large numbers in probability theory, removes the random effect. Many people playing games of chance at a casino, will overall show a net loss. In other words, in a very predictable and non-random way, the house always wins. The house does not depend on luck, it depends on the law of large numbers. It is the same with evolution. If the genetic variations are truly random, then if you have enough of them, some of them will increase the suitability for survival. That is all that is needed for evolution to work.

[Sir Hamilton]

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?

Evolution is indeed mindless and arbitrary. Randomness does play a part, but evolution itself is not random. Let me explain with an example that does use randomness: a casino. Any given game, any given bet is truly random. You might win, you might lose. But the what is know as the law of large numbers in probability theory, removes the random effect. Many people playing games of chance at a casino, will overall show a net loss. In other words, in a very predictable and non-random way, the house always wins. The house does not depend on luck, it depends on the law of large numbers. It is the same with evolution. If the genetic variations are truly random, then if you have enough of them, some of them will increase the suitability for survival. That is all that is needed for evolution to work.

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?

[Danmark]

[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.

[dianaiad]

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. Look at our popular culture on these things. Is it science or religion that is making these new imaginings. Think about it. That takes you straight to Mormon Cosmology as a specific example ie beings coming to earth with purposes that are believed. I did not invent Mormon Cosmology,

Ok, you didn't invent it. The problem is...from what you have been telling us here, Mormons didn't, either.

.. it is there on the internet

Now, why am I forcibly reminded of a commercial I just saw recently where a woman claims that 'they can't put anything that isn't true on the internet?" You've probably seen it, where her date, an unmistakable nerd (and not the smart sort) is introduced by her as a 'French model?'

and I am really becoming irritated with the touchiness of certain people here.

Sorry. I do tend to be touchy when people misrepresent my beliefs, especially when they do so for the purpose of ridiculing them. I mean, if you are going to make fun of them, I personally would appreciate it if you would make fun of beliefs I actually hold, rather than some weird straw construct.

...though I will admit that the Wikipedia article on Mormon Cosmology ain't too bad.

[Sir Hamilton]

[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?