your reasoning falls apart because the chance that a human being would evolve is 1:1. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here.
Unless Intelligent Design is right.:-) Then we'd be here without evolution.
Also, if the chance of a human being evolving is 1:1, then why haven't we evolved in all the time since current man first "appeared" on this earth? Just curious!
This is easily proven incorrect. For example, let's say that two "average" parents copulate and produce a pro-wrestler or some other extremely exceptional person.
Problem. You presuppose that those parents are the "creators". In reality, there is not explanation, yet, for how that life is created. Sure, sperm swim to the egg, break through the shell and one gets in. Yet, the problem comes that we cannot even predict(we can make good guesses, but girls get pregnant who were "careful" and women who try to get pregnant, even using scientific advancements, cannot do so) such an event without conditions set up for large probabilities of success. We know a lot about the process, but we still don't know why it works when it does and not other times. Therefore, I submit that you cannot truly call those parents creators. Now, could "average" parents give birth to a person who is able to strengthen themselves or seeks to make themselves better or smarter? Sure, improvement of an individual is always possible. As well, intelligence quota can fluctuate from generation to generation depending on multiple circumstances.
a "creator" (in most cases, a human) can create something that is suicidally dangerous
However, we must attempt to engineer things that do not "normally" occur or, if they do occur, do so in such small amounts that they are rarely, if ever seen. In other words, we must mess around with genomes and DNA strands to create such dangerous creatures. Yet, evolution is said to have occurred naturally. So, we can rule out these creatures as a possible explanation to not needing a deity or other beginning creator since they cannot come to be without intelligent intervention.
As well, I did include "better" in my statement. Therefore, even I would concede that we could create something suicidally dangerous. Truth!
Someone didn't watch The Matrix.
I did watch the Matrix. However, it seems someone is mistaking fiction for reality. (Clue: it's not me!).
You seem to be forgetting a fundamental aspect of evolution: DNA that produces unsuccessful species is discarded.
As well, I did take into account that "DNA that produces unsuccessful species is discarded." Hence the calculation of 1 in 10 x e^40. That's the likelihood of getting 1 good piece of DNA from this theoretical evolution. That's pretty bad odds to me. Hence, it would be more likely (as I said) to believe that my library came about as described since a book takes less intelligence and ability than human DNA, let alone the rest of the body.
It's sad that you all have had so many interactions with under-educated or under-informated creationists. Even I have to admit some of their arguments are ridiculous. Yet, the fools who follow a thought do not make the thought wrong. If that were true, I would not even give evolution the bat of an eye. I've met plenty of fools who follow evolution only because that's what they were taught in public school. That being said, on with what isn't being said.
Occam's Razor. Yes, the wonderful thought that the simplest answer is almost always the right one. Aside from the fact that this has been disproven by at least a few of the philosophers who followed him, let's examine the arguments here. Which is simpler, there is an eternal God, able to create an entire universe including all creatures contained there in, or that somehow that universe came to be out of a ball of energy and matter that exploded spreading out and cooling into planets in amazing precision to allow at least one of those planets to sustain life. Not only did it come together to be able to sustain life, but that life started as small amino acids that slammed together and began to become more complex creating all the species on the face of this planet (which we know as Earth) through a process of complex evolution by survival of the fittest and amazing strides by which these species found new abilities that allowed them to surpass all other species. I'm sorry, but that seems a heck of a lot more complex.
Then we have the contention that if an eternal God could exist for eternity, then we could also. Yet, there is an additional problem there. We know we are bound by time. We even know that we do not come from nowhere, that every being had a beginning. Yet, it is contended that if every being had a beginning, then this eternal being would have to have a beginning. Not true. In fact, I am surprised by the lack of imagination, given that most of you profess a belief in evolution. If there is a Creator and a creation, that Creator MUST, by default, be more powerful and better than its creation. Consequently, if this Creator created a finite being, it would not be impossible, nor unreasonable, for it to exist, or have existed, for an infinite amount of time, especially given the presumption that it is not bound by time, another portion of the creation.
DNA and further understanding of the human body has shown that evolution is a statistical improbability. Could it have happened? Yes, but did it happen? It'd be more likely that my library came about from an explosion in a room with a printing press. DNA points clearly to intelligent design. In fact, if you want to say that humans evolved from monkeys, then you might as well start with chickens since our DNA comes closer to their DNA than a primates. Sorry! Even the complexity and interaction of the human body, DNA aside, creates monumental doubt that evolution had even a fingernail (if that much) in this creation. It has even been figured that the possibility of evolution occuring is 1 in 10 x e^40. Wow! I really think that is something that should be taught as flawless!
I know I'm stepping on some toes and likely to tick at least some people off. Yet, the reality is that if you want to say that evolution is viable, you HAVE to, no choice, say that intelligent design is viable. Evolution has less evidence for it than ever before. It made for a nice theory, but it never panned out. I'm not saying Christians are right. What I am saying is that there is more evidence for intelligent design than evolution. If you desire to be honest with yourself and your children, you've got to admit that much. Remember Occam's Razor.:) Yeah...
By the way, it might be important for many of you evolutionists to note that even Charles Darwin recinded his belief in it before he passed. He doubted it substantially and eventually denied it.
Slashdot Mirror
your reasoning falls apart because the chance that a human being would evolve is 1:1. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here.
:-) Then we'd be here without evolution.
Unless Intelligent Design is right.
Also, if the chance of a human being evolving is 1:1, then why haven't we evolved in all the time since current man first "appeared" on this earth? Just curious!
This is easily proven incorrect. For example, let's say that two "average" parents copulate and produce a pro-wrestler or some other extremely exceptional person.
Problem. You presuppose that those parents are the "creators". In reality, there is not explanation, yet, for how that life is created. Sure, sperm swim to the egg, break through the shell and one gets in. Yet, the problem comes that we cannot even predict(we can make good guesses, but girls get pregnant who were "careful" and women who try to get pregnant, even using scientific advancements, cannot do so) such an event without conditions set up for large probabilities of success. We know a lot about the process, but we still don't know why it works when it does and not other times. Therefore, I submit that you cannot truly call those parents creators. Now, could "average" parents give birth to a person who is able to strengthen themselves or seeks to make themselves better or smarter? Sure, improvement of an individual is always possible. As well, intelligence quota can fluctuate from generation to generation depending on multiple circumstances.
a "creator" (in most cases, a human) can create something that is suicidally dangerous
However, we must attempt to engineer things that do not "normally" occur or, if they do occur, do so in such small amounts that they are rarely, if ever seen. In other words, we must mess around with genomes and DNA strands to create such dangerous creatures. Yet, evolution is said to have occurred naturally. So, we can rule out these creatures as a possible explanation to not needing a deity or other beginning creator since they cannot come to be without intelligent intervention.
As well, I did include "better" in my statement. Therefore, even I would concede that we could create something suicidally dangerous. Truth!
Someone didn't watch The Matrix.
I did watch the Matrix. However, it seems someone is mistaking fiction for reality. (Clue: it's not me!).
You seem to be forgetting a fundamental aspect of evolution: DNA that produces unsuccessful species is discarded.
As well, I did take into account that "DNA that produces unsuccessful species is discarded." Hence the calculation of 1 in 10 x e^40. That's the likelihood of getting 1 good piece of DNA from this theoretical evolution. That's pretty bad odds to me. Hence, it would be more likely (as I said) to believe that my library came about as described since a book takes less intelligence and ability than human DNA, let alone the rest of the body.
It's sad that you all have had so many interactions with under-educated or under-informated creationists. Even I have to admit some of their arguments are ridiculous. Yet, the fools who follow a thought do not make the thought wrong. If that were true, I would not even give evolution the bat of an eye. I've met plenty of fools who follow evolution only because that's what they were taught in public school. That being said, on with what isn't being said.
:) Yeah...
Occam's Razor. Yes, the wonderful thought that the simplest answer is almost always the right one. Aside from the fact that this has been disproven by at least a few of the philosophers who followed him, let's examine the arguments here. Which is simpler, there is an eternal God, able to create an entire universe including all creatures contained there in, or that somehow that universe came to be out of a ball of energy and matter that exploded spreading out and cooling into planets in amazing precision to allow at least one of those planets to sustain life. Not only did it come together to be able to sustain life, but that life started as small amino acids that slammed together and began to become more complex creating all the species on the face of this planet (which we know as Earth) through a process of complex evolution by survival of the fittest and amazing strides by which these species found new abilities that allowed them to surpass all other species. I'm sorry, but that seems a heck of a lot more complex.
Then we have the contention that if an eternal God could exist for eternity, then we could also. Yet, there is an additional problem there. We know we are bound by time. We even know that we do not come from nowhere, that every being had a beginning. Yet, it is contended that if every being had a beginning, then this eternal being would have to have a beginning. Not true. In fact, I am surprised by the lack of imagination, given that most of you profess a belief in evolution. If there is a Creator and a creation, that Creator MUST, by default, be more powerful and better than its creation. Consequently, if this Creator created a finite being, it would not be impossible, nor unreasonable, for it to exist, or have existed, for an infinite amount of time, especially given the presumption that it is not bound by time, another portion of the creation.
DNA and further understanding of the human body has shown that evolution is a statistical improbability. Could it have happened? Yes, but did it happen? It'd be more likely that my library came about from an explosion in a room with a printing press. DNA points clearly to intelligent design. In fact, if you want to say that humans evolved from monkeys, then you might as well start with chickens since our DNA comes closer to their DNA than a primates. Sorry! Even the complexity and interaction of the human body, DNA aside, creates monumental doubt that evolution had even a fingernail (if that much) in this creation. It has even been figured that the possibility of evolution occuring is 1 in 10 x e^40. Wow! I really think that is something that should be taught as flawless!
I know I'm stepping on some toes and likely to tick at least some people off. Yet, the reality is that if you want to say that evolution is viable, you HAVE to, no choice, say that intelligent design is viable. Evolution has less evidence for it than ever before. It made for a nice theory, but it never panned out. I'm not saying Christians are right. What I am saying is that there is more evidence for intelligent design than evolution. If you desire to be honest with yourself and your children, you've got to admit that much. Remember Occam's Razor.
By the way, it might be important for many of you evolutionists to note that even Charles Darwin recinded his belief in it before he passed. He doubted it substantially and eventually denied it.