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?

[no evidence no belief]

.

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.

Thank you for your opinion. Would it be too much to ask for you to share some of your reasoning for such a low grade?

You may start with the first premise. What is it about Macroevolution that you object to?

We object to your fundamentally flawed understanding of it.

It's incredible that you are still making the same logical fallacy you were so thoroughly castigated for earlier.

This is what you're saying:

1) Olavisjo's confused absurd utterances are in relation to the topic of macroevolution
2) We all unanimously and completely reject Olavisjo's confused and absurd utterances
3) Therefore we all reject macroevolution

That's like saying this:

1) The statement "2+2=5" is a statement relating to basic arithmetic
2) We all unanimously and completely reject the statement "2+2=5"
3) Therefore we all reject basic arithmetic

Buddy, I don't know whether to implore you to stop in the name of basic human decency, or whether to succumb to selfish guilty pleasure and hope you will continue.

Your statements are like logical car wrecks. You don't want to see them, but you can't look away either.

[Sir Hamilton]

.

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'".

I assume you have at least a rudimentary understanding of chemistry; that you understand that different elements and mixtures behave differently because of their different properties. Even a non chemist like me understands there will be a predictable, non random result if a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is exposed to a flame at room temperature.

It's not as if random blocks of wood were shaken until one day they just happened to land in such a way as to spell 'horse.'

The Miller-Urey experiment is a good example:

One of the most important pieces of experimental support for the "soup" theory came in 1952. A graduate student, Stanley Miller, and his professor, Harold Urey, performed an experiment that demonstrated how organic molecules could have spontaneously formed from inorganic precursors, under conditions like those posited by the Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis. The now-famous "Miller–Urey experiment" used a highly reduced mixture of gases—methane, ammonia and hydrogen—to form basic organic monomers, such as amino acids.[26] This provided direct experimental support for the second point of the "soup" theory, and it is around the remaining two points of the theory that much of the debate now centers. In the Miller–Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of a racemic mixture of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.
_ Wikipedia on abiogenesis

First of all why should I believe this? Secondly, if it is true, what was behind this experiment? Intelligence. These men set up a scenario with the intention to support their beliefs in abiogenesis. Without these men (intelligence) setting up this situation then the only guiding principle would be random chance.

[no evidence no belief]

[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.

I am not sure that trying to deny intelligent design while at the same time deny randomness and chance has anything to do with 'intelligence' either.

Intelligent design and randomness are NOT the only two options.

Imagine there is a group of gazelles in the savanna that run really fast, and another group that run much slower. The ones that run really fast manage to outrun and escape lions trying to eat them, more often than the ones that run slower. The fast ones survive more frequently, and their population grows. The slower ones survive less frequently and their population dwindles. After a long enough time, there are no more slow gazelles, only fast ones.

The weak dying and the strong surviving is NOT random. It's basic common sense. It's natural selection and survival of the fittest. It's a perfectly non-random and non-designed system.

I truly don't understand why you're still confused. In fact, I don't think you are. You understand this perfectly, but cannot admit it because it would be an admission of the absurdity of your worldview.

[no evidence no belief]

.

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'".

I assume you have at least a rudimentary understanding of chemistry; that you understand that different elements and mixtures behave differently because of their different properties. Even a non chemist like me understands there will be a predictable, non random result if a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is exposed to a flame at room temperature.

It's not as if random blocks of wood were shaken until one day they just happened to land in such a way as to spell 'horse.'

The Miller-Urey experiment is a good example:

One of the most important pieces of experimental support for the "soup" theory came in 1952. A graduate student, Stanley Miller, and his professor, Harold Urey, performed an experiment that demonstrated how organic molecules could have spontaneously formed from inorganic precursors, under conditions like those posited by the Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis. The now-famous "Miller–Urey experiment" used a highly reduced mixture of gases—methane, ammonia and hydrogen—to form basic organic monomers, such as amino acids.[26] This provided direct experimental support for the second point of the "soup" theory, and it is around the remaining two points of the theory that much of the debate now centers. In the Miller–Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of a racemic mixture of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.
_ Wikipedia on abiogenesis

First of all why should I believe this? Secondly, if it is true, what was behind this experiment? Intelligence. These men set up a scenario with the intention to support their beliefs in abiogenesis. Without these men (intelligence) setting up this situation then the only guiding principle would be random chance.

Come on man! These intelligent people deliberately designed their experiment to produce the same conditions of random chance that happened to be present at the time of abiogenesis.

Stop it. Seriously.

[olavisjo]

.

What is it about Macroevolution that you object to?

We object to your fundamentally flawed understanding of it.

Can a land animal evolve into a totally different land animal?
Can a reptile evolve into a mammal?
Can a reptile evolve into a bird?
Can a reptile evolve into a sea creature such as a whale?
If the answer to all those is yes, then what is it that prevents a fox from evolving into a whale? What exactly is the limit of macroevolution?
For you and Star, you find the fox evolving into a whale is beyond macroevolution, but Peter thinks it is not, however Peter puts the limit at the fox evolving into the mammal that evolved into a whale.

So what is the rule, what is the line that even macroevolution can't cross?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 3094://

First of all why should I believe this? Secondly, if it is true, what was behind this experiment? Intelligence. These men set up a scenario with the intention to support their beliefs in abiogenesis. Without these men (intelligence) setting up this situation then the only guiding principle would be random chance.

"Random chance", in evolutionary terms, has now 'interacted' (if we accept this 'intelligence' argument) with other evolutionary deals. Random chance, by way of creating the human species, has just set out to impact evolution.

I kinda get your intelligence angle, but disagree on the conclusions you draw therefrom. That an 'intelligence' might interfere, or otherwise affect evolutionary processes, does not mean those processes ain't sitting there being all processy.

If we follow your reasoning, we must conclude that humans are the intelligence behind it all. After all, we observe humans, as 'intelligence', doing all this. We don't observe gods a-doin' it.

[Danmark]

.

What is it about Macroevolution that you object to?

We object to your fundamentally flawed understanding of it.

Can a land animal evolve into a totally different land animal?
Can a reptile evolve into a mammal?
Can a reptile evolve into a bird?
Can a reptile evolve into a sea creature such as a whale?
If the answer to all those is yes, then what is it that prevents a fox from evolving into a whale? What exactly is the limit of macroevolution?
For you and Star, you find the fox evolving into a whale is beyond macroevolution, but Peter thinks it is not, however Peter puts the limit at the fox evolving into the mammal that evolved into a whale.

So what is the rule, what is the line that even macroevolution can't cross?

I think the point you are missing is that the logic you employed in your original statement that went something like:
A pig is a mammal.
Man is a mammal.
Therefore man is a pig.

Is simply bad logic. It was your logic that was attacked, not the possibility.

Yes, indeed, given enough time and the right ecological pressures, theoretically anything could evolve into anything*, but it is extremely unlikely that some absurd scenario you suggest would happen the way you suggest.

_________________
*I don't pretend that my limited understanding of biology in general and evolution in particular assures me there are not some technical issues which might cause issues.
NENB's example of the Gazelle puts it well. So well that you and most creationists have given up the fight against evolution, conceding what you call 'microevolution' to be a fact. For reasons I can only guess, you have drawn an arbitrary iron curtain against 'macroevolution.' It's simply a matter of scale and time.

[Goat]

_ Wikipedia on abiogenesis

First of all why should I believe this? Secondly, if it is true, what was behind this experiment? Intelligence. These men set up a scenario with the intention to support their beliefs in abiogenesis. Without these men (intelligence) setting up this situation then the only guiding principle would be random chance. [/quote]

The only 'intelligence' was reproducing the environment of the early earth, to see what would happen. In that environment, which was similar to the early earth, those reactions would happen, and it wouldn't be 'random chance'. It would just be straight chemistry.

The moon of Titan has an atmosphere similar to the early earth, but is not nearly as warm. It too has similar compounds , all without this 'random chance' or 'intelligence' link

[olavisjo]

.

I think the point you are missing is that the logic you employed in your original statement that went something like:
A pig is a mammal.
Man is a mammal.
Therefore man is a pig.

Is simply bad logic. It was your logic that was attacked, not the possibility.

Yes, indeed, given enough time and the right ecological pressures, theoretically anything could evolve into anything*, but it is extremely unlikely that some absurd scenario you suggest would happen the way you suggest.

_________________
*I don't pretend that my limited understanding of biology in general and evolution in particular assures me there are not some technical issues which might cause issues.
NENB's example of the Gazelle puts it well. So well that you and most creationists have given up the fight against evolution, conceding what you call 'microevolution' to be a fact. For reasons I can only guess, you have drawn an arbitrary iron curtain against 'macroevolution.' It's simply a matter of scale and time.

Since you say "Yes, indeed, given enough time and the right ecological pressures, theoretically anything could evolve into anything." Then it is settled, a fox can evolve into a whale.

[olavisjo]

.

I assume you have at least a rudimentary understanding of chemistry; that you understand that different elements and mixtures behave differently because of their different properties. Even a non chemist like me understands there will be a predictable, non random result if a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen is exposed to a flame at room temperature.

A chemical reaction looks like this 2H₂ + O₂ -> 2H₂O

This, on the other hand, is not a chemical reaction...

[youtube][/youtube]

It's not as if random blocks of wood were shaken until one day they just happened to land in such a way as to spell 'horse.'

That is exactly what they need to do, you need to shake the wooden blocks so that they spell 'reproduce'. And all you have to rely on is chance.

The Miller-Urey experiment is a good example:

It is the only example, and it is a failed example. It does not support abiogenesis, in fact it is evidence that abiogenesis is impossible. If it were possible we would expect to have seen it by now.