Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution Responsible?


  • Please log in to reply
155 replies to this topic

#21 Iguana

Iguana

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colombia

Posted 11 June 2015 - 06:34 PM

 

 

You have to tell yourself something you're not saying for it to be hard to answer. I fully accept that God is responsible for creating man. He clearly states, "it was he that made us and not we ourselves". Creators are responsible for their creation. But since you don't believe in God evolution has to be responsible for what evolved. Evolution is man's creator.

By that logic, the sun is responsible for the cancer caused by its UV rays. sometimes no one is responsible.

 

 

 

I would say so. What I'm saying is that no alleged atheist/ evolutionists can realistically claim that God and or religion causes all our problems. And yet Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens et al attack nonexistent entities all the time. Most reasonable people would think that if somebody doesn't exist they can't be blamed for "anything" that happens.

I disagree with them.

 

Yes, religion causes some problems, it also solves and prevents some problems, and it causes good things too, and by the same token it prevents some other good things. Trying to paint every part of something with the same color is usually an oversimplification. Probably what Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens meant is that a lot of the world problems are caused by religion, and there's an argument to be made there. However, I can't go into their minds so I don't know what they meant.



#22 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 11 June 2015 - 08:58 PM

Iguana,
 
 
 

[b]I would say so. What I'm saying is that no alleged atheist/ evolutionists can realistically claim that God and or religion causes all our problems. And yet Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens et al attack nonexistent entities all the time. Most reasonable people would think that if somebody doesn't exist they can't be blamed for "anything" that happens.
I disagree with them.[/b

Yes, religion causes some problems, it also solves and prevents some problems, and it causes good things too, and by the same token it prevents some other good things. Trying to paint every part of something with the same color is usually an oversimplification. Probably what Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens meant is that a lot of the world problems are caused by religion, and there's an argument to be made there. However, I can't go into their minds so I don't know what they meant.

People are causing the problems not religion. In reality, people use their belief systems to determine how they should respond to any stimuli.

Religion is the name of a group of beliefs that usually involves a diety as an authority figure. But since you allege atheism your set of beliefs has no theistic reference. Howevwen, you still have a belief system.
Unfortunately our problems are caused by individuals with varying beliefs about what they think should or shouldn't be.

Since materialism claim there is no free choice something has to be responsible for determining how we respond to stimuli. Since it can't be free choice according to materialism it has to be evolution.

The premise is that cognition serves as a mediating function between stinulus and effect.

When a stinulus presets itself we ask ourselves how we should respond according to our belief system? Are you. We have a repitoire of beliefs stored in our preconscious mind. Our belief system is uniquely individualized. That's why two different people can respond to the same stimuli in a different manner.

You are personifing religion which is creating a god out of a belief system (relogion) like it has some sort of power. It's TEB (think, emote and behave). We think with our beliefs.


So is evolution responsible?



#23 macten

macten

    Bare Assertion Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Nottingham, England

Posted 12 June 2015 - 02:11 AM

 I don't think what iguana says make sense. Isn't evolutin's goal, "survival of the fittest?"
 

 

Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.

 

 

Okay. I have said on many occasions that if evolution were true it seems to have obsoleted itself by causing intelligence. lol :)

 

Yet it still makes no sense.



#24 Iguana

Iguana

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colombia

Posted 12 June 2015 - 01:17 PM

Iguana,
 
 
 

People are causing the problems not religion. In reality, people use their belief systems to determine how they should respond to any stimuli.

Religion is the name of a group of beliefs that usually involves a diety as an authority figure. But since you allege atheism your set of beliefs has no theistic reference. Howevwen, you still have a belief system.
Unfortunately our problems are caused by individuals with varying beliefs about what they think should or shouldn't be.

Since materialism claim there is no free choice something has to be responsible for determining how we respond to stimuli. Since it can't be free choice according to materialism it has to be evolution.

The premise is that cognition serves as a mediating function between stinulus and effect.

When a stinulus presets itself we ask ourselves how we should respond according to our belief system? Are you. We have a repitoire of beliefs stored in our preconscious mind. Our belief system is uniquely individualized. That's why two different people can respond to the same stimuli in a different manner.

You are personifing religion which is creating a god out of a belief system (relogion) like it has some sort of power. It's TEB (think, emote and behave). We think with our beliefs.


So is evolution responsible?

Well, since you are saying that personifying religion is not valid, I'll respond by using the same argumentation back at you. You can't personify evolution either, therefore it is not responsible, saying it is would be personifying it.



#25 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 12 June 2015 - 02:37 PM

Iguana,


I agree. But by claiming that I am personifying evolution you are admitting that evolution is not a process and is a concept or idea not something we can observe, test aad re-test. I agree as I have never observed it nor have you.


bing definition:

1.a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end:


As you can see evolution does not meet the criteria for a process. Note the "achieve a particular end." Evo is claimed not to have a paticular end.

Furthermore, since, as Macten says evolution does not make sense it is beyond reason and therefore would be classified as a supernatural event or a miracle.

#26 macten

macten

    Bare Assertion Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Nottingham, England

Posted 12 June 2015 - 05:41 PM

Furthermore, since, as Macten says evolution does not make sense it is beyond reason and therefore would be classified as a supernatural event or a miracle.

?!?

 

Mike Summers, on 12 Jun 2015 - 02:10 AM, said:snapback.png

Okay. I have said on many occasions that if evolution were true it seems to have obsoleted itself by causing intelligence. lol :)

 

Yet it still makes no sense.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meaning your comment makes no sense!



#27 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 12 June 2015 - 06:13 PM

Macten

 

Oh?   Evolution has an intelligent origin. It was a concept created  to explain away the need for a creator (motive). It doesn't make sense  and is counterintuitive. It can not be observed beause it allegedly takes so long to happen. In short it has all  the signs of a deception. By definition it is  supernatural, a miracle.



#28 macten

macten

    Bare Assertion Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Nottingham, England

Posted 13 June 2015 - 04:09 AM

Macten

 

Oh?   Evolution has an intelligent origin. It was a concept created  to explain away the need for a creator (motive). It doesn't make sense  and is counterintuitive. It can not be observed beause it allegedly takes so long to happen. In short it has all  the signs of a deception. By definition it is  supernatural, a miracle.

 

No, discovering and understanding the natural process of evolution requires intelligence.

It was a concept created to explain the diversity of life borne out of evidence from observation.

I know evolution doesn't make sense to you - maybe it would if you understood it a bit more and you weren't engaged in a campaign against the logical interpretation of data that is the result of your prior commitment to a set of religious beliefs.

We have observed speciation have we not? Nothing supernatural about it.



#29 Iguana

Iguana

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colombia

Posted 13 June 2015 - 04:43 AM

MIke Summers:

 

 

 

I agree. But by claiming that I am personifying evolution you are admitting that evolution is not a process and is a concept or idea not something we can observe, test aad re-test. I agree as I have never observed it nor have you.

Say what?

 

 

 

As you can see evolution does not meet the criteria for a process. Note the "achieve a particular end." Evo is claimed not to have a paticular end.

That's just arguing semantics. Do you really think that arguing that "evolution is not a process because it doesn't have a 100% predictable outcome" invalidates it in some way? Nevermind processes like rolling a die or measuring the decay of a single atom. Those are processes with no set outcome.



#30 Iguana

Iguana

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colombia

Posted 13 June 2015 - 04:46 AM

Macten

 

Oh?   Evolution has an intelligent origin. It was a concept created  to explain away the need for a creator (motive). It doesn't make sense  and is counterintuitive. It can not be observed beause it allegedly takes so long to happen. In short it has all  the signs of a deception. By definition it is  supernatural, a miracle.

I'm pretty sure that's begging the question. Evolution wasn't made to explain away a creator, does make sense, and can be observed on small scales



#31 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 13 June 2015 - 05:47 AM

Macten said:
 

No, discovering and understanding the natural process of evolution requires intelligence.

It was a concept created to explain the diversity of life borne out of evidence from observation.

Evidence is the effect (the plants and animals we both observe). What we disagree on is their causation.Intelligence is first needed to observe anything. Then we ask ourselves what could have caused the effet we see in front of us.

The key words " a conceept created". It's a chcken or egg argument. i am saying gthe chiken most likely came first.

I see you ignored the definitin of "a process." Evo is an explanatin you and others "believe". I don't because "it does not make sense to me since any thing I do has a goal. For example I use a process to bake (create). If I use the prescribed fresh ingrediets and follow its ecipe, get the same results not a different results everrytime I run the process. It would be a miracle or supernatural cevent if everytime I used the process I woulg get a difeent effect say cookies or macarroni and cheese ad nauseum. Evolution is anything but natural (like a law of gravvity) to me.
 

I know evolution doesn't make sense to you - maybe it would if you understood it a bit more and you weren't engaged in a campaign against the logical interpretation of data that is the result of your prior commitment to a set of religious beliefs.

Or maybe "if" you undestood me and yourself--that we ae both intelligent creators and have the ability to create beliefs out of nothng. I am just bringing that issue into the arguement for consideration.

We have observed speciation have we not? Nothing supernatural about it.

Yes, but we have not observed macro evvoution and/ or body type change.

What I have learned from all my years is we create our differences and stand stubbornly behind them claiming they aee "the truth". We don't seem to realize the concept of absolute truth can conflict with our innate creativitty. No one seems to quite realize that posssibility. But I think that's what's going on. It only takes one creator to build a wall. So, I realize I can't out create you--nor you me.



#32 macten

macten

    Bare Assertion Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Nottingham, England

Posted 13 June 2015 - 06:57 AM

I also am not interested in arguing semantics



#33 macten

macten

    Bare Assertion Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Nottingham, England

Posted 13 June 2015 - 07:10 AM

Have we observed speciation?

 


Yes, but we have not observed macro evvoution and/ or body type change.

 

 

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.

 

So although the scientific definition of macrevolution, defined by scientists and used by scientists means speciation is macroevolution you would disagree?



#34 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 13 June 2015 - 07:58 AM

I'm dropping in late, but here are my thoughts:
About the early part:

When people take action, they themselves are responsible. It is only when they have an entity that absolves them from their guilt they no longer claim responsibility. It is that that Richard Dawkins abhors in religions. 

 

To the question about the responsibility of religions and evolution and their difference:

Evolution is a process, it has created distinctions in the past and created a sense of "feel good" in humans together with humans that are alike. So there was a stage in our history when we could not look beyond superficial differences and indeed this let to racism. Sure, evolution is responsible for that, can we ban it for it? No, it is simply a process that happens regardless. Can we learn from the past, of course.

 

Religion is a collection of idea's. Idea's about what people should do and how they should behave. People use these idea's to absolve themselves of responsibility and worldly consequences about actions they undertake. This can be both good and bad. Is religion responsible? Not really, it are the practitioners of religion that are responsible.

 

Regarding the atheist moral code:

Our moral code is indeed subjective, everyone has their own. However, twin studies show (Mike Summers can confirm this) part of our morals are genetic which means they are inbred. This can be explained when looking at social animals which show a lot of resemblance towards us.

I would argue our moral codes are not so different and I even want to bet you feel righteous (a good feeling) when you do an act of kindness. That is also a reward, btw. ;)

 

Regarding the last posts, the chicken and the egg according to Mike Summers:

I'll make it clear for you Mike Summers.

 

You have the "law of nature":

Gravity, the force that attracts based on the mass of objects.

You have the concept:

People describe the concept and create interpretations. These are interpretations of that concept.

 

You have the "law of nature":

 

Evolution, the process that created the diversity of life.

You have the concept:

People describe the concept and create interpretations. These are interpretations of that concept.

 

There is one final statement I'll comment on:

Mike Summers has stated that if evolution were true it seems to have obsoleted itself by causing intelligence.

 

But are we intelligent enough?

When we look at problems like global warming, our arsenal of nuclear weapons, religious fanaticism. Will this species (the humans) survive? Are we smart enough to cope with these problems before we destroy ourselves?



#35 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 13 June 2015 - 10:30 AM



 

Fjuri said:

Posted 13 June 2015 - 08:58 AM

When people take action, they themselves are responsible. It is only when they have an entity that absolves them from their guilt they no longer claim responsibility. It is that that Richard Dawkins abhors in religions.

I couldn't agree more with the first part of your above statement. However, in my experience the emotion guilt, assuming no pathology, is produced by one's own thoughts not an external entity. I often have to try and convince a person from creating painful guilt to back off themselves!
 

To the question about the responsibility of religions and evolution and their difference:Evolution is a process.

Using the bing internet definitin of a process, evolution would not be qualified to be called a process. See my post.

it has created distinctions in the past and created a sense of "feel good" in humans together with humans that are alike. So there was a stage in our history when we could not look beyond superficial differences and indeed this let to racism. Sure, evolution is responsible for that, can we ban it for it? No, it is simply a process that happens regardless. Can we learn from the past, of course

Religion is a collection of idea's. Idea's about what people should do and how they should behave.

Very well stated.

People use these idea's to absolve themselves of responsibility and worldly consequences about actions they undertake. This can be both good and bad. Is religion responsible? Not really, it are the practitioners of religion that are responsible.

Exactly!

Regarding the atheist moral code:

Our moral code is indeed subjective, everyone has their own. However, twin studies show (Mike Summers can confirm this) part of our morals are genetic which means they are inbred. This can be explained when looking at social animals which show a lot of resblance towards us.

I mostly agree with the exception we can override our predispositions with cognition.

I would argue our moral codes are not so different and I even want to bet you feel righteous (a good feeling) when you do an act of kindness. That is also a reward, btw. ;)

I agree but with the exception I don't think anyone has the knowledge base to claim who can and can't exist.
 

Regarding the last posts, the chicken and the egg according to Mike Summers:

I'll make it clear for you Mike Summers.
You have the "law of nature":

Gravity, the force that attracts based on the mass of objects.

You have the concept:

People describe the concept and create interpretations. These are interpretations of that concept.

You have the "law of nature":
Evolution, the process that created the diversity of life.

Here is where you "jump to a conclusion".
We do not agree that "evolution" caused the diversity we both observe. Neither one of us
observed "the method used to bring what we both now observe into existence.neither has either of us debated the existance of gravity.

You have the concept:

People describe the concept and create interpretations. These are interpretations of that concept.

Yep!

There is one final statement I'll comment on:

Mike Summers has stated that if evolution were true it seems to have obsoleted itself by causing intelligence.

But are we intelligent enough?

When we look at problems like global warming, our arsenal of nuclear weapons, religious fanaticism. Will this species (the humans) survive? Are we smart enough to cope with these problems before we destroy ourselves?

You seem to be smart enough. So, what do you think?

PS: Happy birthday. :)



#36 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 13 June 2015 - 11:19 AM

Posted 13 June 2015 - 08:58 AM

I couldn't agree more with the first part of your above statement. However, in my experience the emotion guilt, assuming no pathology, is produced by one's own thoughts not an external entity. I often have to try and convince a person from creating painful guilt to back off themselves!

I should have used the word "responsibility" instead of "guilt". People hurt each other, in the name of religion, an action which they might not have done without that religion.

 

Using the bing internet definition of a process, evolution would not be qualified to be called a process. See my post.

You only produced the first part of that definition, it is clear to me you should also read the other and other might apply.

2. a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner:
example: the process of decay.
 

 

I mostly agree with the exception we can override our predispositions with cognition.

I fully agree with that. It is not an exception to what I wrote.

 

Here is where you "jump to a conclusion".

We do not agree that "evolution" caused the diversity we both observe. Neither one of us
observed "the method used to bring what we both now observe into existence.neither has either of us debated the existance of gravity.

What I have shown you is the context in which we use "evolution" when we talk about it. I did not claim it is true, I claimed how the words should be used. The acceptance of the use of words is regardless of the acceptance of the theory of evolution.

 

 

You seem to be smart enough. So, what do you think?

I think we will suffer a lot more before we realize what we are doing to our environment. 

 

PS: I just recently updated the age in my avatar, it wasn't my birthday or anything, I'll be 31 next month. ;)



#37 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 13 June 2015 - 08:28 PM

Fjuri said:
 

You only produced the first part of that definition, it is clear to me you should also read the other and other might apply.

2. a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner:

example: the process of decay.

Procsses are predictable such as your example. When something dies it deterioratates and does not become more complex. Processes have predictable and logical steps and outcomes. They are typically guided and initiated by intellignce. Example; the engineering process.

I think we will suffer a lot more before we realize what we are doing to our environment.

I totally agree!
That's the hassle when two equals fight and make "the truth" more important than our relationships.




 



#38 Iguana

Iguana

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colombia

Posted 13 June 2015 - 09:50 PM

Procsses are predictable such as your example. When something dies it deterioratates and does not become more complex. Processes have predictable and logical steps and outcomes. They are typically guided and initiated by intellignce. Example; the engineering process.

I totally agree!

The evolutionary process does have a certain degree of predictability to its outcomes. Consider S the set of all possible organisms, consider A the subset of S of of organisms a given creature can evolve into in a given timeframe, and B the subset of S of the set of organisms which are fit to the creature's environment. If you apply the evolutionary process to the creature the outcome will be within the intersection of A and B

 

Of course, this is oversimplified, fitness is not a dichotomy, it's a spectrum. Among other things.

 

This is analogous to the process of throwing a die. you cannot predict the exact outcome, but you can have a range of possible results, and if you have a weighted die, the process of throwing it will produce random results, but there's still an element of predictability in that you can say the probability of each outcome, if only qualitatively. So the end result of the process throwing a weighted die can be "Any number from 1 to 6, 4 is more likely".

 

In the same way, the process of evolution's end result is "Any viable creature for which differences to the original aren't drastic enough that it's unreasonable to expect them to evolve given the timeframe (A longer timeframe allows bigger changes), a creature that is well-suited to its environment is more likely"



#39 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 14 June 2015 - 10:03 AM

Iguana said:
 
 

 

Procsses are predictable such as your example. When something dies it deterioratates and does not become more complex. Processes have predictable and logical steps and outcomes. They are typically guided and initiated by intellignce. Example; the engineering process.

I totally agree!

The evolutionary process does have a certain degree of predictability to its outcomes. Consider S the set of all possible organisms, consider A the subset of S of of organisms a given creature can evolve into in a given timeframe, and B the subset of S of the set of organisms which are fit to the creature's environment. If you apply the evolutionary process to the creature the outcome will be within the intersection of A and B

Of course, this is oversimplified, fitness is not a dichotomy, it's a spectrum. Among other things.
[/quoe]
Guess who is doing the appying? An intelligent creative being.

 

 

 

This is analogous to the process of throwing a die. you cannot predict the exact outcome, but you can have a range of possible results, and if you have a weighted die, the process of throwing it will produce random results, but there's still an element of predictability in that you can say the probability of each outcome, if only qualitatively. So the end result of the process throwing a weighted die can be "Any number from 1 to 6, 4 is more likely".


Where would the weighted die come from?
 

 

n the same way, the process of evolution's end result is "Any viable creature for which differences to the original aren't drastic enough that it's unreasonable to expect them to evolve given the timeframe (A longer timeframe allows bigger changes), a creature that is well-suited to its environment is more likely"


OK we agree on some things. But may I point out the die is very limited as to outcome. And if you want to consider it a process that imitated itself has not ever been observed doing so. The die was created and thrown by an intelligent being. Have you observed it any differently? You created the idea of evolution to do what you can't.

The variables you have seemed to ignore are "I" (intelligence) and "C" (creativity). You can create anything you want to be the truth in the privacy of your mind. The rest of us can buy or not buy your exports.

The ideas that you claim not to be a bigot when you demonstrate differently causes me to conclude you have issues thinking. How do you "know" who or what can't exist in a universe that you have never explored? Your claim diminishes credibility and establishes the presence of bigotry you claim not to have. So why would you try to sell us on the idea you know all truth?

I've tried to sell you the idea that our innate intelligence and creativity can be abused and by makng the dogmatic statements you "seem" to make are heavily inferring you are absolutely "right". You need to acknowledge your creative ability.



#40 Iguana

Iguana

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colombia

Posted 14 June 2015 - 12:06 PM

Mike Summers:

 

 

 

Where would the weighted die come from?

Why would that matter?

 

 

 

OK we agree on some things. But may I point out the die is very limited as to outcome. And if you want to consider it a process that imitated itself has not ever been observed doing so. The die was created and thrown by an intelligent being. Have you observed it any differently? You created the idea of evolution to do what you can't.

True, no process initiates itself. The process or darwinian evolution starts whenever you have something that can self-replicate with the possibility of there being changes in the replicated thing, and there's a selective pressure upon the things. Life is the quintessential example of something which fulfills these criteria.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users