Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution Obsolete?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
44 replies to this topic

#21 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 01 August 2012 - 04:47 PM

First let me say that no matter how thorough a Google search may be it does not access everything that is said. I have every bit of confidence that what I quoted was said by a woman evo scientist. Enough said about that.

I guess I really need to explain my oroginal OP a little more thoroughly as an understanding of your evolutionary point of view (atheistic evolution).
1. An atheist (core meaning) is someon that somehow knows who can exist and who can't. God therefore can't exist.

2. Evolution caused all the diversity of life on earth.

3. Since starement 2 is a fact, evo is deemed responsible for the mixture of good and evil on earth.

4. Moreover, given point three, it (evo) is responsible for what Stalin, Hitler, Marx, you, me and the rest of its charges have done. That would include all the wars, murders etc--totally everything that has happened on planet earth either--good or bad since evo started.

5. Furthermore, evo is responsible for evolving all religions, worldviews, philosophical concepts etc as well as my God dillusion--including your atheism as well.

6. Evo's Natural Selection, as a valid and proven selection force, acted on all the creatures that existed in the past allowing their decendents to exist today.

Since all of the above statements are true and in keeping with evolution,the events that happened to Jim Jones, the adults that followed him including their children are properly explained via Evo's Natural Selection Process. Jim Jones, his adult followers and their children were obviously "unfit' and therefore were not "selected" for.

Apparently "selection pressures" were so great on them that it caused them to kill themslves. The gene pool is now dereft of their unfit genitic material. It periished with the unfit miscreants that harbored it.


1. Correct. This is the basic understanding of what atheist means, the theist claims God does exist, the atheist claims God doesn't exist. The word agnostic was made for people who lacked the knowledge to affirm one way or the other.

2. This is a central claim of evolutionists and is taught at universities and schools alike.

3. Correct. This is demonstrated by the evolutionist's use of game theory to try and put behaviours into the perspective that they "evolved". Morality is determined by behaviour so this it follows that your point here is correct.

4. This is the reverse of the atheist, "if God exists then why did he cause all the bad things in the world". Mike is asking if evolution is true then it would be the cause of the bad things in the world... Hence the point is moot.

5. This stems from the same line of thinking as 4. If evolution were true then it would be responsible for thus....

6. This is another central claim.



Cannot see any form of slander here, I guess MB wanted to promulgate some slander of his own

#22 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 02 August 2012 - 11:11 AM

1. Correct. This is the basic understanding of what atheist means, the theist claims God does exist, the atheist claims God doesn't exist. The word agnostic was made for people who lacked the knowledge to affirm one way or the other. 2. This is a central claim of evolutionists and is taught at universities and schools alike. 3. Correct. This is demonstrated by the evolutionist's use of game theory to try and put behaviours into the perspective that they "evolved". Morality is determined by behaviour so this it follows that your point here is correct. 4. This is the reverse of the atheist, "if God exists then why did he cause all the bad things in the world". Mike is asking if evolution is true then it would be the cause of the bad things in the world... Hence the point is moot. 5. This stems from the same line of thinking as 4. If evolution were true then it would be responsible for thus.... 6. This is another central claim. Cannot see any form of slander here, I guess MB wanted to promulgate some slander of his own



That's what I thought too. He didn't dispute any of the points I made but rather insinuated that I lied about the woman evo scientist. I did correct myself to say that only some evo scientis might think that we are little more than "expendable metabolic units." However, I do tend to believe that evolution with its 'survival of the fit" mantra does strongly infer that some of us are unfit. Yet, I find it difficult to understand how anyone that is alive could be unfit? Actually, I would like to take credit for the phrase "expendable metabolic units." I think it's rather witty and clever. LOL

Another question I'd like to ask an evo scientist is if they think creationists are unfit and won't be selected for? furthermore since no one is above evolution's slimy fingers and since evo is responsible for everything, how is it that some people don't believe in the process or force that caused them to exist? lol Is evolution fighting or contradicting itself? I'd also ask them if life is more powerful than evo & natural selection? I personally think life is doing all the choosing but, evo's are giving all the credit to to their imaginary friend natural selection. lol

#23 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 02 August 2012 - 12:27 PM


Well, I don't dispute the "natural selection" as such. But it isn't really survival of the fittest, it's the death or lack of reproduction of the weaker. Or it's just shear "luck". And that for sure doesn't explain the "arrival of the fittest" either.
The other issue would be "adaption". That those that can't adapt do die. There is some capacity of adaption in any species I think. But that's built in. It isn't really that they adapt via mutations, rather epigenetics and covering a broad scope of traits that help them to live. It may just not those that "adapt" that die, but to the contrary those that did remain the same. Guess we won't dispute the survivability of canis lupus over his domestic off spring, would we?


Actually, I don't think its survival of the fit (fittest) either.It's just that that is the term that evo's often use. On the other hand someone like Hawkings might be considered unfit but nevertheless could reproduce and his offspring might be more fit than him.

#24 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 02 August 2012 - 12:32 PM

I do not want to derail this thread and actually come back to the point raised by the OT. All the other issues can be discussed in threads where they are on topic. And after your last post in reply to me, I guess there are a couple of things to take issue with.

Cool but, I am dying of suspense. What do you take issue with?

#25 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 02 August 2012 - 01:08 PM

That highlights the issue of the materialist outlook on the world (and that's the basic presupposition for the philosophy of science that privileges Darwinian Evolution). Original Life arose from chemical processes in a primordial soup, humans evolved from this, hence humans are just a collection of chemical processes. If they are just chemical processes, how can there be anything wrong with disposing of them?

I couldn't agree with your more. Yet, we are all thinking intelligent beings and are capable of disagreeing with evo science's mental constructs. In fact many of us do.

The scientist may however have a point that food aid is overall futile. In fact a good case can be made for food aid causing famine.

Now this I really don't follow. Surely feeding someone couldn't cause famine. However, I fully believe the old addage; "Feed a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for life" if that's what you mean.

Communism is even a bad idea without sinful human nature. The problem is that economic calculation and decision making becomes a serious problem, since there are no market actors that can use profits and prices as indication for what has to be produced. So this will produce tremendous inefficiencies in the end.



Perhaps so. However,the the market actors in such a system would be the number of people in the system that need to be fed as well as have goods & services provided to support said population. Human nature (greed) would ruin such a syystem.

Here is a synopsis of the currrent system(that has no place for everybody; An entepeneur(soon to be an employer decides he needs someone to help him mfgr. a particular good such as a car or whatever. As more and more demand occurs for his product, he hires more workers to help him. As his profits increase there are also demands made on him by "would be workers." He soon realizes that "would be wokers" are in competition to work for him. To maximize his profits he lowers his wages. some workers may quit but, others will replace the ones that quit (as you pointed out in one of your posts). He stops paying a "living wage" and takes more profit for himself.Some ceo's make as much as 10,000 times more than their workers. Conequently, workers may need several jobs to support themselves. This is an example of how greed plays a major part in the current system.

Christ said a worker is worthy of his hirer. He also, in the parable of the pound, paid all the workers the same even though some seemed to contribute less work than others.

The ceo mentioned in the above scenario has forgotten all the people that contributed to helping him become "rich." He has more than he needs to live on but, seems not to care how his workers fare even though they often can barely make ends meet and sometimes not at all. God is not the author of such a system.

#26 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 06 August 2012 - 01:38 AM

Actually, I don't think its survival of the fit (fittest) either.It's just that that is the term that evo's often use. On the other hand someone like Hawkings might be considered unfit but nevertheless could reproduce and his offspring might be more fit than him.


And so can a prize winning bull / boar etc have offspring that are runts... Yet none of this is taken into account with evolution

#27 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 14 August 2012 - 01:43 PM

Now then, back to the OP. Is creationism more efficent than evolution--any takers pro or con? I can only assume by the silence that "it" is.Posted Image

#28 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 15 August 2012 - 11:11 AM

I guess I don't understand the OP. Is evolutionary thinking obsolete in what regard, biological explanation of origins, within capitalism, within invention and design? I think all of these are different processes that should be evaluated separately.

Certainly in capitalism, there is a pseudo-evolutionary "survival of the most popular/adaptable/robust/etc etc businesses" but no business can last forever. It seems to be a flawed application of the term "evolution". I would say businesses adapt to an ever changing socio-economic environment or they disappear. It is the same with the products or services they sell.

Within product design, by all means critical analysis trumps random changes. I don't think you could truly use random changes in a design process. You use trial and error mixed with critical analysis is radically different than random changes to an existing system. Even a computer model used to streamline these trials is incredibly finite, and dependent on the programmers critical analysis of what might work. Why program in something that would absolutely not make an invention better? Therefore in a program like this, there is no such thing as evolution, only intelligent design and progression.

Within biological systems, it seems highly unlikely that random mutations would be able to produce functional, integrated results such as new arms and legs, eyes, wings, etc but my skepticism is not conclusive evidence. I just merely find a lot wrong and a lot of lack in evidence with regards to evolution as an explanation for biodiversity. It's either right or wrong. Was it once a good explanation for biodiversity and now is not? Please explain what you meant Mike.

#29 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 15 August 2012 - 12:04 PM

Werner Gitt one of the contributors to information theory made the conclusion that "information" can not originate from matter and/ or energy. However, he makes a contradiction that he and Claude Shannon share. That is that the converse is true--information can be stored in code (matter) the smbols on your computer, sound (i.e sound pressure) etc.

I know I am challenging two well respected minds. But, it makes sense that if information can not originate from mater or energy, it can not be stored in matter or energy.

Rather intelligence (information) controls matter and energy. Information can only be stored in a mind (spirit). Claude Shannon believed information and code were essentially the same thing. Gitt concludes that information is non physical and originates in a mental state. However he does not acknowlege the actual pupose of code as an interface to evoke information in a mental state. That mental state is called spirit in the Bible.

TeeJay had a great description of information (ideas) in which he made the conclusion that thought (informatio) does not have physicical attributes. The following quote is from member TeeJay;

How much does a thought weigh?
How much space does it occupy?
Have you ever smelled a thought?
Have you ever seen a thought?
What does a thought look like?
Have you ever tasted a thought?



As one can easily conclude information is not subject to the laws of physics. Moreover, human personality does not obey the laws of physics either. A human personality can not be stored in DNA (code). This is blatantly obvious.


The human body contain over 70 organs. In an alleged common ancestor similar organs must be present also. It is inconceiable that 75 organs could have originated concurrently through micro-evolution. Since mutations are random, that alleged process could not possible provide the ingredients necessary to create a human body with all its sytems. Nothing on earth is built with random ingedients--using whatever randomness would supply. The mutation process could not provide "natural selection" the materials in a consistent fashion to build anything! Only the human mind with all its creative ability is capable of creating such a rediculous idea as evolution. Creation is the ability to bring something into existence that did not exist before

#30 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 15 August 2012 - 02:27 PM

Werner Gitt one of the great contributors to information theory made the conclusion that "information" can not originate from matter and/ or energy. However It seems he makes a contradiction that he and Claude Shannon share. That is that the converse is true. gitt concludes that information can be can be stored in code (matter)--such as the symbols on your screen, light, sound (i.e sound pressure). I know I am challenging two well respected minds,but from what I see information can not be stored in matter!.Nor can it be stored on computer disks books etc.. rather code is associate with information stored in a mental state (spirit).

Shannon believed that information and code were essentially the same thing. Gitt concludes that information is non physical and originates in a mental state. That mental state is called spirit in the Bible.TeeJay had a great description of information (ideas) in which he made the conclusion that thought (informatio) does not have physicica attributes.

The following quote is from member TeeJay;
[/color][/b]

As one can easily conclude information is not subject to the laws of phsics. Moreover human personality does not conform to the laws of physics either. Therefore the origin of human personality is not stored in DNA. This is blatantly obvious.

Humans contain over 70 organs which function in the body. In an alleged common ancestor similar organs must be present. It is inconceiable that 75 organs could have orinated concurrently through microevolution. Since mutations are random that alleged process could not possible provide the ingredients necessary to create a human body with all its sytems. Nothing on earth is built with random ingedients--using whatever randomness would supply. The mutation process coulld not provide "natural selection" the materials in a consistent fashion to build anything! Only the human mind with all its creative ability could be capable of creatin such a rediculous idea as evolution.


I tend to agree.
  • Information is not related to the physical. A CD weighs no more if there is no data on it, or if it is full, the same with any information. All the atoms and molecules in a single cell all pulled apart would still have the same collective weight but would no longer be a living, reproducing thing.
  • Also, this data is useless without something to interpret it and understand it enough to execute it's commands. Adding a random new organ to a body is a bit like attaching a new printer to a computer. Unless you install the driver (the software that instructs the computer how to use the printer) you cannot use the printer.
  • Without a cell to protect the DNA and provide a working area for DNA to be decoded and processed, the data in the DNA would be worthless. This is no small task considering a section of DNA could be used in multiple processes.
The code is simple, and seemingly redundant, but the processing power is far better than anything we have ever dreamed up, and we will be studying it far into the future to figure out how to speed up computer processing.

#31 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 15 August 2012 - 03:03 PM

I must have still been editing my post when you quoted it. I would appreciate your thoughts on the purpose of code in reference to information.

As you infer and I conclude also "software"(a set of instructions) would be necessary to operate any and all organs of the body. Evo-scientists do not even approach such an idea. Evo has no mechanism for the origin of instructions(information) to operate new limbs etc that have allegedly evolved through evolution. No instructions--nothing works.

#32 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 15 August 2012 - 03:12 PM

I would appreciate your thoughts on the purpose of code in reference to information.


I am not sure I follow.

#33 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 15 August 2012 - 03:18 PM

What I mean to say is that information is not stored in code as generally believed. Code is physical and is essentially a stimuli to evoke information in a mental state through one or more of the five senses.

For example, sound is a mental function derived from a physical stimuli (code) sound pressure. sound does not exist outside of the human mind.

#34 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 15 August 2012 - 03:18 PM

Code is a way to express information. I can store a picture in many different file formats. All are different types of code which have the same basic result. Information is what a processor derives from the code. If I made up my own random meaning of a code, it would be nonsense:

If this is a picture: *º₧ò|äÄÑ╤╕» and I interpret it randomly, I could say that all * should be replaced with the letter a, all º with m, ₧ with j etc. I might come out with something like "amjerodscl". Or I could interpret it as "American's", but it still would not be the picture that the originator intended when writing the code. In order to properly interpret a code, we must be in agreement of how to interpret code to derive information.


I can say the word "car" or I can say "자동차" (jadongcha which means car in Korean). Both mean the same thing. Both are the same information stored in different codes.

#35 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 15 August 2012 - 03:36 PM

Again and with all due respect. Information is associated to code via a learning process. Information is non physical . Code is physical. Information can not be stored in code. If it could be then extract information from the following code; dcsa gflie deg lopu., You can't do it because you (we) have not associated any information to it.

#36 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 15 August 2012 - 03:59 PM

Code is a way to express information. I can store a picture in many different file formats. All are different types of code which have the same basic result. Information is what a processor derives from the code. If I made up my own random meaning of a code, it would be nonsense:

If this is a picture: *º₧ò|äÄÑ╤╕» and I interpret it randomly, I could say that all * should be replaced with the letter a, all º with m, ₧ with j etc. I might come out with something like "amjerodscl". Or I could interpret it as "American's", but it still would not be the picture that the originator intended when writing the code. In order to properly interpret a code, we must be in agreement of how to interpret code to derive information.


I can say the word "car" or I can say "자동차" (jadongcha which means car in Korean). Both mean the same thing. Both are the same information stored in different codes.

Vision is one of the five senses that serves as an interface to the human mind ( a state of information). The other four senses are interfaces to the human mind also. The vision process allows us to reconstruct an image (from the physical world) into our conciousness (our mental state).

Code can be associated to any information we agree to associate it to. We are its master not it ours. How many languages (code systmems) are there? And yet core meaning is the same in all human beings. a rose by any other name...

#37 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 15 August 2012 - 06:56 PM

Mike Summers (also said) in the "Bias" topic:

As I argued in my post, "'Is Evolution Obsolete?' which is more efficient intelligent creationism or an an inherently long winded system (evolution).


Iinteligent creationism is more efficient. Quite possibly way more efficient But things don't always happen in the efficient way.

Does the geologic record and fossil record look to be a mater of efficiency to you? Not to me. Are you trying to do a sneaky endorsement of evolution? Posted Image

Moose

#38 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 16 August 2012 - 08:58 AM

Mike Summers (also said) in the "Bias" topic:



Iinteligent creationism is more efficient. Quite possibly way more efficient But things don't always happen in the efficient way.

Does the geologic record and fossil record look to be a mater of efficiency to you? Not to me. Are you trying to do a sneaky endorsement of evolution? Posted Image

Moose


Wow! I can't believe it! we agree on something!

#39 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 16 August 2012 - 03:22 PM

Wow! I can't believe it! we agree on something!


Apparently I needed to qualify my statement a bit.

Make it "If you have a capable creator, then Intelligent creationism is more efficient."

Moose

#40 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 16 August 2012 - 06:00 PM

Apparently I needed to qualify my statement a bit.

Make it "If you have a capable creator, then Intelligent creationism is more efficient."

Moose


I was not necessisarily referring to creativity by God only, but creativity in general. It would be hard to deny the creativity of Edison, Bell, Tesla etc--even that of Darwin, Hawking , Dawkins and numerous other evo scientists who help create and sustain the evo theory by their rhetoric.

I would say your qualification is internally illogical. It conflicts itself. A creator would of necesity be capable of creating or we could not consider him, her, or God creative. For example why would Edison not be a capable creator of the light bulb? Furthermore who would argue that Edison was not intelligent?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users