Jump to content


Photo

Robot Cheetah


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

#1 Gerson

Gerson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • El salvador

Posted 06 March 2012 - 01:38 PM

http://www.youtube.c...v=d2D71CveQwo#!

Ok now how people can believe an amazing animal like the cheetah was created by chance if it take several scientists to make a prototype version of the original animal and they call us ignorants for believe in a superior being who created us

#2 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 06 March 2012 - 07:59 PM

Playing devils advocate, there are a few reasons why your analogy doesn't quite go against what evolutionists claim. First, it is an example of semi-intelligent design having a hard time imitating nature, but this does not require nature to have been made supernaturally (according to the evolutionist). Second, robots can't reproduce. The strength I see in your argument is that cheetahs are very complex and specialized. The implication of abiogenesis, and then many irreducibly complex systems that must have self-generated throughout the process of evolution of a cheetah mean that it takes a huge amount of faith to believe in the arguments that naturalists pose. They certainly cannot support these claims with scientific proof.

#3 Gerson

Gerson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • El salvador

Posted 06 March 2012 - 09:25 PM

Playing devils advocate, there are a few reasons why your analogy doesn't quite go against what evolutionists claim. First, it is an example of semi-intelligent design having a hard time imitating nature, but this does not require nature to have been made supernaturally (according to the evolutionist). Second, robots can't reproduce. The strength I see in your argument is that cheetahs are very complex and specialized. The implication of abiogenesis, and then many irreducibly complex systems that must have self-generated throughout the process of evolution of a cheetah mean that it takes a huge amount of faith to believe in the arguments that naturalists pose. They certainly cannot support these claims with scientific proof.


Exactly a robot is less complex than an live animal. So why people believes withouth a reason a complex organ like the brain was created by the nothing + chance beats me. Its like saying a Intel processor was created in the jungle by the time + chance you know that is imposible

#4 Earthling

Earthling

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 00
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Earth

Posted 06 March 2012 - 09:44 PM

So why people believes withouth a reason a complex organ like the brain was created by the nothing + chance beats me.

Me too. Because that's not what evolutionary theory has to say about the emergence of features such as the brain. Chance plays a role in the form of mutations, but these mutations are subsequently acted upon by natural selection (among other things), and that is far from nothing. I hope this short answer clarifies a little bit of your confusion!

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:36 PM

Me too. Because that's not what evolutionary theory has to say about the emergence of features such as the brain. Chance plays a role in the form of mutations, but these mutations are subsequently acted upon by natural selection (among other things), and that is far from nothing. I hope this short answer clarifies a little bit of your confusion!


So how does the process of mutations and natural selection determine what new information is needed and how the end result should work? These processes you claim do it all do not explain how things are determined to mutate and in what direction that mutation should go to reach a certain goal.

#6 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 07 March 2012 - 12:30 AM

Exactly a robot is less complex than an live animal. So why people believes withouth a reason a complex organ like the brain was created by the nothing + chance beats me. Its like saying a Intel processor was created in the jungle by the time + chance you know that is imposible


I think the reason why they do not like that analogy, (whilst it is correct in my mind), is that evolutionists see the computer as manufactured whereas life is something else... Despite that a cell is a mini factory that "manufactures" components it requires for life

#7 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 07 March 2012 - 12:40 AM

Me too. Because that's not what evolutionary theory has to say about the emergence of features such as the brain. Chance plays a role in the form of mutations, but these mutations are subsequently acted upon by natural selection (among other things), and that is far from nothing. I hope this short answer clarifies a little bit of your confusion!


Firstly is that claim backed with evidence? (Dawkins claims we shouldn't accept anything without evidence.... ;) )

Secondly it hasn't been observed that "natural selection" is the cause for any totally new organs / systems in an organism. Hence, (again), where is the evidence.

Thirdly, this defies the law of entropy. Which equates to increasing randomness / chaos over time... For evolution to produce these complex structures it would be creating order from chaos... Of which has not been demonstrated EXCEPT in the presence of an intelligent agent.

#8 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 March 2012 - 07:24 AM



So why people believes withouth a reason a complex organ like the brain was created by the nothing + chance beats me.


Me too. Because that's not what evolutionary theory has to say about the emergence of features such as the brain. Chance plays a role in the form of mutations, but these mutations are subsequently acted upon by natural selection (among other things), and that is far from nothing. I hope this short answer clarifies a little bit of your confusion!


Me too. Because that's not what evolutionary theory has to say about the emergence of features such as the brain. Chance plays a role in the form of mutations, but these mutations are subsequently acted upon by natural selection (among other things), and that is far from nothing. I hope this short answer clarifies a little bit of your confusion!


If that is the case, then it begs the question; who is doing all this selecting? Obviously there MUST be some rationale behind the selection process (and that itself flies in the face of any randomness). So, where did this selector come from? From whence did this “chance” and “selector” spring?

#9 Earthling

Earthling

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 00
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Earth

Posted 07 March 2012 - 08:27 AM

One thing at a time.

Are we in agreement that mutations occur?

#10 Earthling

Earthling

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 00
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Earth

Posted 07 March 2012 - 08:32 AM

This one can be dealt with separately, since it is simply not true and has nothing to do with evolution.

Thirdly, this defies the law of entropy. Which equates to increasing randomness / chaos over time...

Except for the fact that this doesn't necessarily apply locally within systems, and that it doesn't necessarily apply to open systems. If you want to debate this further, please make a separate thread, although I have no idea whether I have time (or interest, since this argument is - I am sorry but I can't put it any other way - so obviously wrong) to look into it. Feel free though to answer my question above, on whether you accept that mutations occur.

#11 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 March 2012 - 10:54 AM




So why people believes withouth a reason a complex organ like the brain was created by the nothing + chance beats me.


Me too. Because that's not what evolutionary theory has to say about the emergence of features such as the brain. Chance plays a role in the form of mutations, but these mutations are subsequently acted upon by natural selection (among other things), and that is far from nothing. I hope this short answer clarifies a little bit of your confusion!

Me too. Because that's not what evolutionary theory has to say about the emergence of features such as the brain. Chance plays a role in the form of mutations, but these mutations are subsequently acted upon by natural selection (among other things), and that is far from nothing. I hope this short answer clarifies a little bit of your confusion!


If that is the case, then it begs the question; who is doing all this selecting? Obviously there MUST be some rationale behind the selection process (and that itself flies in the face of any randomness). So, where did this selector come from? From whence did this “chance” and “selector” spring?


If that is the case, then it begs the question; who is doing all this selecting? Obviously there MUST be some rationale behind the selection process (and that itself flies in the face of any randomness). So, where did this selector come from? From whence did this “chance” and “selector” spring?



One thing at a time.

Are we in agreement that mutations occur?


Without reason for the origonal thing, the "One thing" means nothing...

Anyway, regardless of whether or not "mutations occur", there is absolutely NO empirical scientific evidence that Macroevolution occures.

#12 Earthling

Earthling

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 00
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Earth

Posted 07 March 2012 - 11:17 AM

Without reason for the origonal thing, the "One thing" means nothing...

Anyway, regardless of whether or not "mutations occur", there is absolutely NO empirical scientific evidence that Macroevolution occures.

You seem unwilling to answer my question. I guess I will not be having this discussion with you. No problem. I can wait for others.

Oh, and just out of curiosity, what kind of evidence would you accept for what you call 'macroevolution'?

#13 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 March 2012 - 11:36 AM



Without reason for the origonal thing, the "One thing" means nothing...

Anyway, regardless of whether or not "mutations occur", there is absolutely NO empirical scientific evidence that Macroevolution occures.


You seem unwilling to answer my question. I guess I will not be having this discussion with you. No problem. I can wait for others.

Oh, and just out of curiosity, what kind of evidence would you accept for what you call 'macroevolution'?



As you’ll notice, YOU side stepped my question with “One thing at a time. Are we in agreement that mutations occur”. See posts 8 and 9

And Macroevolution is the gradual transitional change of one kind/species into another. A famous evolutionist model of macroevolution is the gradual transitional change from some land dwelling mammal (a wolf type creature is the favorite so far) into what is now known as the whale. Of course, there is no logical, rational and empirical scientific evidence for this. It is mere opinion based upon presupposed speculation.

#14 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 07 March 2012 - 12:15 PM

This one can be dealt with separately, since it is simply not true and has nothing to do with evolution.

Except for the fact that this doesn't necessarily apply locally within systems, and that it doesn't necessarily apply to open systems. If you want to debate this further, please make a separate thread, although I have no idea whether I have time (or interest, since this argument is - I am sorry but I can't put it any other way - so obviously wrong) to look into it. Feel free though to answer my question above, on whether you accept that mutations occur.


Thread made

#15 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 07 March 2012 - 12:19 PM

Are we in agreement that mutations occur?


I don't think the problem is whether or not we believe that mutations occur, but whether we believe mutations can be coordinated in a specific direction. There are multiple survival benefits available to an animal, but survival benefits don't have the power to select any specific direction.

So let me ask you a counter-question. How many mutations do you think it would take for the human brain to advance so much in comparison to our "cousins". Why did these beneficial mutations only effect us to the degree that we can do the things that no other animal is capable of doing today?

#16 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 March 2012 - 04:11 PM



Are we in agreement that mutations occur?



I don't think the problem is whether or not we believe that mutations occur, but whether we believe mutations can be coordinated in a specific direction.



And thus the question he was dancing around when I asked him. Which begs the question; if there is coordination, there must be a coordinator(s). There was more to it than that, but he was in full-on evasion mode.

I’ll leave the rest of your probe alone, as I am highly interested in how he’s going to handle the collapse of his hypothesis.

#17 Earthling

Earthling

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 00
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Earth

Posted 07 March 2012 - 09:10 PM

As you’ll notice, YOU side stepped my question with “One thing at a time. Are we in agreement that mutations occur”. See posts 8 and 9

Actually, you are right there. The reason for that is that all replies so far display a fundamental lack of understanding of basic concepts (i.e. mutation and natural selection) of the theory of evolution. For that reason I want to start from the basics, try to find common ground there, clarify how terms are used in science and then build on that. So I ask again: do you agree that mutations occur?

And Macroevolution is the gradual transitional change of one kind/species into another. A famous evolutionist model of macroevolution is the gradual transitional change from some land dwelling mammal (a wolf type creature is the favorite so far) into what is now known as the whale. Of course, there is no logical, rational and empirical scientific evidence for this. It is mere opinion based upon presupposed speculation.

Read my post again. I did not ask you what you think macroevolution is. I asked you: "what kind of evidence would you accept for what you call 'macroevolution'?

#18 Earthling

Earthling

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 00
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Earth

Posted 07 March 2012 - 09:13 PM

I don't think the problem is whether or not we believe that mutations occur,

So you agree that mutations occur? A simple yes or no will do, and then we can move on.

#19 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 08 March 2012 - 12:17 AM

I agree mutations occur, however it has been observed that most, (and I mean almost all), of such mutations are detrimental... (Many just leading to the death of the cell, which goes unnoticed). Now will you answer the question/s that have been directed at you?



I believe Uppsala did agree to your question

" I don't think the problem is whether or not we believe that mutations occur, but whether we believe mutations can be coordinated in a specific direction."

Ergo implying that mutations occur... You really should read people's answers more thoroughly...

#20 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 March 2012 - 08:52 AM


As you’ll notice, YOU side stepped my question with “One thing at a time. Are we in agreement that mutations occur”. See posts 8 and 9


Actually, you are right there. The reason for that is that all replies so far display a fundamental lack of understanding of basic concepts (i.e. mutation and natural selection) of the theory of evolution. For that reason I want to start from the basics, try to find common ground there, clarify how terms are used in science and then build on that. So I ask again: do you agree that mutations occur?



The problem you are having here, is that regardless of whether or not mutations occur, microevolution is nothing more than adaptation WITHIN a kind/species, and macroevolution is nothing more than a hypothesis based upon “adaptation” plus millions (or billions) of years.

Those are the basics that we can start from. Anything else is mythology, fairytale, and hypothesis.



And Macroevolution is the gradual transitional change of one kind/species into another. A famous evolutionist model of macroevolution is the gradual transitional change from some land dwelling mammal (a wolf type creature is the favorite so far) into what is now known as the whale. Of course, there is no logical, rational and empirical scientific evidence for this. It is mere opinion based upon presupposed speculation.


Read my post again. I did not ask you what you think macroevolution is. I asked you: "what kind of evidence would you accept for what you call 'macroevolution'?


Since macroevolution is nothing more than “adaptation” plus millions (billions) of years, we therefore cannot empirically test macroevolution. Therefore there is NO evidence FOR macroevolution.

Hence, my answer is what it was in my previous post: “Macroevolution is the gradual transitional change of one kind/species into another. A famous evolutionist model of macroevolution is the gradual transitional change from some land dwelling mammal (a wolf type creature is the favorite so far) into what is now known as the whale. Of course, there is no logical, rational and empirical scientific evidence for this. It is mere opinion based upon presupposed speculation."

The reason you are no longer here, is because you continually attempted to side-step those facts, in order to further push your agenda (amongst other rules violations).





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users