Chance is not a creative force.

Discussion in 'Science' started by bricklayer, Nov 12, 2019.

  1. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The same mechanism that evolution uses to explain complexity is used to explain life. They propose that life itself came to be by chance. In fact, the vast majority of evolution happened before life came to be according to evolutionists. That is because much more ground work is required for life to occur than would be for life to evolve. The idea that life came to be by chance or that it increases in complexity by chance is ridiculous.
     
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is not true. Entropy simply does not apply.

    Earth is not a closed system. Energy is being added constantly.

    Also, entropy is about the average of a volume. It does not suggest that energy can not be moved to more densely occupy part of the volume. Humans can build electrical transmission lines to move energy around. Entropy does not prevent that.

    You just aren't familiar with laws of entropy.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are those who consider all sorts of change to be "evolution". But, for this discussion evolution needs to be limited to biological evolution - evolution of life forms.

    Yes, science does not have a solid answer to the question of abiogenesis. But, that's not evolution - its abiogenesis.

    Science does have some interesting progress on that question.

    The fact that science doesn't have a firm answer means "I don't know" - not "god did it".
     
  4. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You do realize that transmission lines do not happen by chance don't you? I'm not suggesting that entropy cannot be decreased; I simply stating that entropy cannot be decreased by chance.
     
  5. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not by chance. Definitely not by chance. This, all of this, most certainly did not happen by chance. Something cannot come from nothing, and chance is not a creative force.
     
  6. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nobody in science believes that ANYTHING came from nothing.

    That certainly includes evolution.

    I've pointed out several cases where evolution has resulted in improvement.
     
  7. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. No you haven't. You have pointed out no example, because there is no observed example, of a chance mutation increasing functional complexity. That is mostly due to the fact that a single mutation is no enough to produce an change significant enough to be of benefit. The changes you refer to as evolutionary include innumerable changes over extraordinary periods of time, each of which aiding the survivability of the creature until the full culmination of such as hemoglobin or an eye. Give me a break. That's absurd.
     
  8. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet eyes exist in numerous varieties! The very varieties of eyes that exist in the animal kingdom suggests chance rather than "direction."
     
    WillReadmore and Meta777 like this.
  9. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except there are not 10 to the 77th "possible" combinations. As a chem engineer you well know that atoms do not naturally combine into molecules, and molecules into more complex molecules according to some mathematical calculation of all the possible permutations of the atoms involved, but according to the VALENCE electrons in the outer shell. Thus if you combine H2 and O2 you don't naturally get H2O2 or OH but you only get H2O even though H2O2 and OH are "possible" combinations.
     
    WillReadmore and Meta777 like this.
  10. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    19,292
    Likes Received:
    7,606
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    And Conservation of species is anti Evolution.




    BTW - - is entropy or chaos a "creative force"?


    Moi :oldman:




    How about :flagcanada: ?
     
  11. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why?

    Again, they don't have to all be beneficial.
    But the non-beneficial/harmful ones will be weeded out over time. Agreed?

    You're not making any arguments here. It seems to me you're simply asserting
    it to be ridiculous because the process of fully understanding it is complicated.
    But how is what you're saying any different from those who claimed once upon
    a time that it was ridiculous to think the earth was anything but flat??...

    Well... we've gone over the big picture..perhaps we should take this step by step instead...
    Do you agree that a chance mutation within a DNA sequence is possible???

    -Meta
     
  12. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are those bricks able to reproduce? Are they subject to natural selection?
    If not, then they aren't a suitable analogue to DNA/other biological components.

    BTW, you really ought to decide if you want this to be a discussion about evolution
    or if you'd rather it'd be one about the initial origins of life. The two topics are related,
    but they are not one and the same and really shouldn't be conflated with one another.

    Or, to put it another way... this conversation is starting to go off into too many directions imo.
    And it isn't clear what it is you're trying to say. Are you attempting to prove evolution doesn't exist?
    Or is supplying proof that God created life your goal? Or is it something else? What claim are you ultimately aiming to make?
    And furthermore, what do you think we as human's should be doing in response to your claim, assuming you could prove it?...

    -Meta
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  13. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you familiar with The Eyeless Huntsman?
    And if so, can you explain exactly why it does not have eyes
    despite both its ancestors as well as all of its known living relatives having them???

    -Meta
     
  14. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't understand why you think repeating the same argument, after it's been proven false, is an effective debate tactic?
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  15. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    your incredulity has no bearing on proven science. Think it's wrong? publish your scientific paper and collect your nobel prize.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  16. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WOW!!! So close, yet so far. Using only your words, this is what I am left to believe.

    And yet eyes exist in numerous varieties! The very varieties of eyes that exist in the animal kingdom suggests direction rather than chance.

    One person can look at a statue and plainly see that the details of the statue are revealed via a process that takes away from what was once a larger body of material. Another person can look at that same statue and plainly see that that details of the statue are have been added to a smaller body of material. Then a third person comes along with his theory. He says that it's a little of both. He says that the statue rolled down a hill very slowly over a very long period of time. During that process some material was broken off (all the better because those were the weak parts anyway) and some material was added. He suggested that the statue that all three of them looked at was the product of purely mechanical forces without any forethought, design or intent. It happened by chance he exclaimed with absolute certainty.
     
  17. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bricks do not evolve into living beings. That never happened. Not with bricks, not with any primordial ooz.
    Chance? You really think that all of this happened by chance?
     
  18. edthecynic

    edthecynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All that to say nothing.
    Some animal's eyes can see color, some see heat, logic dictates that the eyes evolved that way because one animal will survive better seeing heat and the other seeing color. If eyes were created by "direction" one would expect all eyes to see both heat and color.
    Get it?
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  19. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're asking me if I think bricks evolved into living beings by chance???....
    Again, you seem to be making some statement on the initial origins of life, or as another poster in the thread referred to it, abiogenesis. But again, this is a very specific type of evolution and shouldn't be confused with the larger concept of evolution as a whole. Like I was saying before you really need to decide which of those topics you want the discussion to be about...

    Once more, what exactly are you trying to say? Are you attempting to prove evolution doesn't exist? Is supplying proof that God created life your goal? Or is it something else? What claim are you ultimately aiming to convince us of? And furthermore, what do you think we as human's should be doing in response to your claim, assuming you could prove it?...

    -Meta
     
  20. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Either way, the origins of life or the complexity of life, the idea that they came about by chance is not in keeping with every observable out come of chance let alone the odds. Nothing, not the animate or the inanimate, becomes more functionally complex by chance.
     
  21. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I ask again, what is your main point here?
    Are you attempting to prove evolution doesn't exist? Is supplying proof that God created life your goal? Or is it something else? What are you ultimately aiming to convince us of? And what do you think we as human's should be doing in response to your claim, assuming you could prove it?...

    -Meta
     
    roorooroo and WillReadmore like this.
  22. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Far more complicated than you will ever admit, much less understand.

    He is trying to discuss the insuperable statistics of Neo-Darwinism with you and you get condescending with
    your "flat earth" attack. How offensive of you. How anti-scientific.

    Well, no you have NOT "gone over the big picture." Earlier you waxed pseudo-scientific over the wonderfulness of DNA and how Neo-Darwinism could make everything. Let's examine DNA, even without my returning to cite your earlier words on all the possible combinations mutations could "find" - somehow, anyhow.

    Human DNA is a sequence of four nucleotides, adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine, ~3,000,000,000 combinations in length.
    There are four different ways of arranging these. The logarithm of 4 is 0.6 So the number of possible combinations is 4 to the 3,000,000,000 which is ~10 to the 1,800,000,000. Ten to the 1.8 BILLION.

    Ten to the fiftieth grains of sand would fill 15 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto!!! So one chance in 10 to the 50th power is clearly impossible. ONE chance, NOT an infinite number of chances. That's the definition, 1 in 10^50.
    If you keep doing it for Darwinian Purposes, it's no longer 1 in 10^50. It's nonsense.

    Impossible is a piece of cake compared to winnowing down 10 to the 1.8 billion by random mutation, followed by Magical Selection.

    THAT is "the big picture."
     
  23. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He is trying to reason with you, and you will have none of it.

    I'll wrap it all up very simply in a very few points.
    1. Darwinism is archaic and primitive. It's not science, it's the ignorant antics of an uneducated man who knew nothing of modern science.
    2. Many tens of thousands of evolutionary biologists profit very handsomely from doing *research* on Neo-Darwinism and they do NOT want their hog trough pulled away from them. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been squandered and hundreds of millions more will be squandered in the name of Charles Darwin.
    3. Careers have been ruined by many brilliant scientists who had the courage to challenge Neo-Darwinism. They were ostracized, not promoted, not given raises, or fired for their heresy. This is anti-science and it is dangerous to the process of education.
    4. Don't bring up God when the subject is evolution.
    5. Don't bring up flat earth or gravity or anything else. Darwinism has to stand on its own or it falls completely and utterly, which is clearly the case to those who think rationally and honestly.
    6. No other "scientific theory" is necessary to reject one that fails, and many have in the past. Paradigms die hard.
     
  24. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How so?

    Chill dude, that wasn't an attack.
    And I guess I'll ask the same question of you;
    If your "argument" only consists of calling some particular idea ridiculous,
    how is that any different from the folk's who once called it ridiculous to believe that the Earth wasn't flat?
    Also note I'm not suggesting that's the only argument bricklayer is using in this thread as a whole,
    but at least in the quote that was being responded to there wasn't anything else to it.

    I don't know what specifically you're replying to here,
    care to answer the question you quoted though?....
    Is it or is it not possible for a mutation to occur within a DNA sequence by chance??

    -Meta
     
  25. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think you should allow bricklayer to speak for himself.
    In your case though, it seems that your main point here, if I'm reading your post correctly,
    is that Evolution, specifically Darwinian Evolution, does not exist,
    and you want us human's to discontinue funding researcher's who study it...
    That about right?...

    -Meta
     

Share This Page