Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution Obsolete?


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

#41 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

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

Posted 16 August 2012 - 07:40 PM

For example why would Edison not be a capable creator of the light bulb? Furthermore who would argue that Edison was not intelligent?


Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration - Thomas Edison

Edison was an intelligent creator, but there was also a substantial "trial and error" component to that creativity. To find out what works, one must also find out what doesn't work. He had many great successes because he was willing to also have many great failures.

Evolution is apparently a "trial and error" process (theistic evolutionists and IDists may disagree). Statistically, the bad ideas are weeded out and the better ideas have a chance to be further refined. Now, a powerful God would indeed be able to tighten up the efficiency of evolution. Or he could achieve the ultimate in efficiency and instantly create everything out of nothing.

Moose

#42 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 17 August 2012 - 05:30 AM

Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration - Thomas Edison


So why do I sweat like a pig and don't seem to ever achieve anything?

Seriously, what guarantees that "trial and error" eventually leads towards the truth of anything?

This is what I believe is leading the entire world astray, because the conception that most people seem to have is that nothing could possibly go wrong as long as you adopt a trial and error approach.

In actual fact the complete opposite could be true if what you determine to be the "error" in your trials actually turns out to be true. Having a worldview that excludes the possibility of a creator always makes creation the "error" and natural processes the only thing that could ever be considered "correct".

That means that no matter how much trial and error you apply, it would be guaranteed to lead you away from the truth if your premise is based on a false assumption.

#43 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

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

Posted 17 August 2012 - 05:37 PM

So why do I sweat like a pig and don't seem to ever achieve anything?


I guess you must be lacking that other 1 percent. Posted Image

Seriously, what guarantees that "trial and error" eventually leads towards the truth of anything?


Seriously, a "trial and error" process can lead to the discovery of something new. If the new is not an improvement, it can be discarded. If it is an improvement, it can be kept and tried to be improved on further. Experiments get some sore of result. But this has nothing to do with finding some great philosophical "TRUTH". And I'm not going to get into what "TRUTH" is. As I seem to recall, that was Ringo's questionable adventure.

Moose

#44 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 18 August 2012 - 07:37 AM

I guess you must be lacking that other 1 percent. Posted Image


Haha.. Touché! Posted Image

Seriously, a "trial and error" process can lead to the discovery of something new. If the new is not an improvement, it can be discarded.


Sure, but what is an "improvement"???

The existence of a designer/creator is increasingly being disgarded.

Can you explain to me the lack of improvement involved?

Or how trial and error has determined that there is no creator?

I would have to argue that if there actually IS a designer behind the creation of life and of the universe that lies beyond scientific detection then trial and error would not only be totally useless, it would definitely lead us in the wrong direction if God's detection was restricted to conscience rather than what we can perceive with our sences.

Trial and error teaches us that nothing programs itself to behave in a certain way without the involvement of some kind of deliberation. So what trial and error efforts have led to the conclusion that life created itself?

#45 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 August 2012 - 03:47 PM

= Moose
Edison was an intelligent creator, but there was also a substantial "trial and error" component to that creativity. To find out what works, one must also find out what doesn't work. He had many great successes because he was willing to also have many great failures.

Evolution is apparently a "trial and error" process (theistic evolutionists and IDists may disagree). Statistically, the bad ideas are weeded out and the better ideas have a chance to be further refined. Now, a powerful God would indeed be able to tighten up the efficiency of evolution. Or he could achieve the ultimate in efficiency and instantly create everything out of nothing.

Moose


Ideas are unique to human beings. At a specific moment in time, Edison created the idea for the light bulb. It did not take eons of time to do that. True, fabrication of the light bulb involved a great deal of "trial an error" as no doubt physics and enigneering (higher education) of the time was not as sophisticated as today. Today a light bulb could be designed in a couple of hours or less.

Evolution is not a process as a process is repeatable. Applying a process will always result in the same results. One never knows what evo will evolve.


Moreover, Edison had a specific goal in mind when he created the light bulb. Evolution is based on mutation and natural selection. It has a non-specific goal As an example, a hippo evolving into a whale was not trial and error or puposeful. to achieve a specific "goal." Trial and error is not an evolutionary process, it is a learning process. Evolution can not learn., . As such human "trial and error" gets the job done way faster than evolution any day. Learning is unique to intelligence. Posted Image Just look around you! Intelligence rules.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users