Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Identify a single instance of "design" in nature that can be attributed to any gawds.

Identify a single element or function in nature that has supernatural causation.

I have to ad nauseam. Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?

bullshit.

Bullshit ?do you not believe Random Chance is what produces your miracles for your views ?

 

[Hollie]

The only one slithering away is the one avoiding my question.

You're as confused as always.

This is the question you're avoiding.

Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?

Firstly, why do you capitalize "Random Chance"? Is melodrama a necessary part of your post or is it just confusion on your part?

Secondly, this has been addressed previously for you, many times. It seems you make the same phony claims and ask the same questions you have already been given answers to.

Evolutionary principles do not function per random chance. This "random chance" canard is simply a slogan you picked up on Harun Yahya's website.

As usual, you make no sense. I would suggest that you, or any creationist, should become versed in evolutionary theory before you attack it. I have yet to encounter this in a creationist. You should be able to explain how the process works. Common sense says that you cannot criticize what you cannot explain.

Science is more than an accumulated body of knowledge. It is a process of discovery. Unlike Christian creationism which assumes a position of infallible truth, science, as a process of investigation, does not make any such claim to infallibility. It is a process that is built upon error correction, and will remedy its own mistakes. Creationists, by their own admission, hold an infallible truth of the various bibles which are incapable of being in error.

"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."
- Henry Morris
President, Institute for Creation Research

 

[Youwerecreated]

Stuttering and mumbling won't save a false claim.

Here's the question for you again: Identify a single instance of "design" in nature that can be attributed to any gawds.

Identify a single element or function in nature that has supernatural causation.

Dodge!

I already have.

imitation is the highest form of flattery!
especially when you got nothing like now!

oh boy

 

[daws101]

The only one slithering away is the one avoiding my question.

You're as confused as always.

This is the question you're avoiding.

Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?

who say it was random chance? creationist do! with no proof at all !

Random chance

A common claim by creationists is that evolution is nothing but random chance which they then follow by claiming that there is no way random chance could produce a particular adaptation or animal. This is most commonly used in association with an argument from design.

The "random chance" criticism is actually a straw man, since evolution does not rely only on random chance. While some elements of evolution are random, most notably mutation, the cornerstone of Charles Darwin's theory is natural selection, which is the opposite of chance. Natural selection is non-random and is one of the primary shaping forces for adaptation in nature. By ignoring natural selection in evolution, creationists are better able to argue that a god must have intervened, which is completely fallacious.

It is also interesting that because creationism makes no attempt (for it would represent a merely human limitation on divine power) to describe any regularities about the world, or to discriminate between what might happen and what might not happen as a consequence of creation (or intelligent design), there is no difference between the results of divine creation and random chance. While evolutionary biology rules out certain things - it is extremely unlikely that there would be a rabbit with ceramic armor or a supersonic hawk (unless a mad scientist decided to design one) - there is nothing that is less plausible than anything else in a creationist's world.

If we can say that "random chance" operates in evolution, we can say that it operates elsewhere in the world of life. One striking example is in the action of the adaptive immune system in jawed vertebrates. We jawed vertebrates are protected against diseases caused by certain viruses, fungi, bacteria, and parasites by changing our immune system to meet novel assaults. The adaptive immune system is the reason why vaccination works, and why we get certain diseases only once. The adaptive immune system generates great numbers of cells to detect alien biological molecules, and by "random chance" eventually one of these cells makes a match. This then allows our immune system to destroy the source of this novel alien molecule. As it turns out, relying on this "random chance" provides better protection against certain diseases than anything that we humans can "intelligently design".

"Random chance" is not incompatible with "intelligent design", or the achievement of goals. Creative artists often avail themselves of chance effects. There is the crackle glaze in pottery, which deliberately achieves artistic effects by encouraging the random patterns in the cooling of the pottery when it is removed from the kiln. Bronze outdoor sculptures are designed to acquire a patina. Performers respond to the unpredictability of the audience. Composers and playwrights release control over their works to the interpretation of the performers. Photographers and other visual artists respond to what is presented to them, for example the appearance of the model.

Malaria: A case study

The efficacy of evolution vs. design can be studied with respect to the malaria parasite and the ways of combatting it.[1] The standard evolutionary explanation for the development of sickle-cell anemia in humans is that it provides protection against the malaria parasite. Sickle-cell anemia is generally recognized as a result of a random mutation. It can cause a debilitating disease in humans, yet it also, more often, provides a defense against malaria. There are also several other random mutations in humans which can both cause diseases and defend against malaria. In the hemoglobin alpha chain, there are point mutations HbS, HbC, HbE; in the hemoglobin gamma chain, there is HPHF; in various parts of hemoglobin, there is thalassemia; and others.(page 39)[1] These various random mutations have provided defenses against malaria which have been working for a long time. We may characterize the competition between the random human evolution and the random malaria evolution as a stand-off. In contrast, there are the human-designed defenses against malaria. It is famous how malaria has evolved resistance to just about everything that we can design to go against it. Despite our best designs, not limited to drugs, the deaths from malaria continue in great numbers. (page 17)[1] "Resistance to one recent drug, atovaquone, arose in the lab scant weeks after a small culture of malaria was exposed to it. Almost a hundred thousand times as many clicks of the clock have passed since [the first appearance of sickle-cell]. About that much time since [HbC] ... and since thalassemia first appeared. Yet they are all still effective against malaria."(page 52)[1] On the other hand, the drug which was not designed seems to be somewhat intermediate: "Quinine, the natural drug that first turned the tide of battle toward humanity's side, is still pretty effective against [the malaria parasite]. But the bug is slowly gaining ground ... ."(page 260)[1]

In summary, in a contest between "random evolution" and "design", random is not just effective, but more effective; the closest contest is between the "random evolution" and the "chance discovery" of quinine.

[edit] So what does the Bible say about random chance?

Are the two elements needed for natural selection -- time and chance -- heretical or biblical? Bible thumpers should check out Ecclesiastes 9:11.


“”I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.[2]


Where as the verse is true, in it's context that it's place in above it is not true. If one was to read the verse further (or all of Ecclesiastes) we would see:


“”For man also does not know his time: Like fish taken in a cruel net, Like birds caught in a snare, So the sons of men [are] snared in an evil time, When it falls suddenly upon them


The point of the verse and all of Ecclesiastes (if one was to actually read it) would be that man is nothing but random chance without God, that there is no value in a life without God. That is exactly the point of creationists. If this is taken in context with the rest of the bible we know that God is all knowing, so things to man may seem random, but they aren't to God. God creating the world with purpose would mean there would be no random chance, or selection.

Random chance - RationalWiki

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're as confused as always.

This is the question you're avoiding.

Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?

Firstly, why do you capitalize "Random Chance"? Is melodrama a necessary part of your post or is it just confusion on your part?

Secondly, this has been addressed previously for you, many times. It seems you make the same phony claims and ask the same questions you have already been given answers to.

Evolutionary principles do not function per random chance. This "random chance" canard is simply a slogan you picked up on Harun Yahya's website.

As usual, you make no sense. I would suggest that you, or any creationist, should become versed in evolutionary theory before you attack it. I have yet to encounter this in a creationist. You should be able to explain how the process works. Common sense says that you cannot criticize what you cannot explain.

Science is more than an accumulated body of knowledge. It is a process of discovery. Unlike Christian creationism which assumes a position of infallible truth, science, as a process of investigation, does not make any such claim to infallibility. It is a process that is built upon error correction, and will remedy its own mistakes. Creationists, by their own admission, hold an infallible truth of the various bibles which are incapable of being in error.

"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."
- Henry Morris
President, Institute for Creation Research

Let me point something out to you. Life was a product of purposeful design or random chance.

This planet is a product of purposeful design or random chance. Do you believe random chance is responsible for all we observe ?

 

[daws101]

Then you would have no problem detecting design in nature but you cling to coincidence after coincidence in other words you believe in miracles. I find it hard to believe that you're educated as you claim with the level of your ignorance and the inability to carry on a debate concerning origins and biological organisms without you running off to wiki or talk origins to respond to questions. What is more absurd is when you copy and paste nonsense that does not address the question.

another false declarative ,you or your dogma infested pseudoscience have proven nothing of the kind.
you talking about copying and pasting is farcical.
when that's all that you do and then try to pass it off as your own.
slap dick!

So what is my false declarative that I made ?

all of the above!

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're as confused as always.

This is the question you're avoiding.

Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?

who say it was random chance? creationist do! with no proof at all !

Random chance

A common claim by creationists is that evolution is nothing but random chance which they then follow by claiming that there is no way random chance could produce a particular adaptation or animal. This is most commonly used in association with an argument from design.

The "random chance" criticism is actually a straw man, since evolution does not rely only on random chance. While some elements of evolution are random, most notably mutation, the cornerstone of Charles Darwin's theory is natural selection, which is the opposite of chance. Natural selection is non-random and is one of the primary shaping forces for adaptation in nature. By ignoring natural selection in evolution, creationists are better able to argue that a god must have intervened, which is completely fallacious.

It is also interesting that because creationism makes no attempt (for it would represent a merely human limitation on divine power) to describe any regularities about the world, or to discriminate between what might happen and what might not happen as a consequence of creation (or intelligent design), there is no difference between the results of divine creation and random chance. While evolutionary biology rules out certain things - it is extremely unlikely that there would be a rabbit with ceramic armor or a supersonic hawk (unless a mad scientist decided to design one) - there is nothing that is less plausible than anything else in a creationist's world.

If we can say that "random chance" operates in evolution, we can say that it operates elsewhere in the world of life. One striking example is in the action of the adaptive immune system in jawed vertebrates. We jawed vertebrates are protected against diseases caused by certain viruses, fungi, bacteria, and parasites by changing our immune system to meet novel assaults. The adaptive immune system is the reason why vaccination works, and why we get certain diseases only once. The adaptive immune system generates great numbers of cells to detect alien biological molecules, and by "random chance" eventually one of these cells makes a match. This then allows our immune system to destroy the source of this novel alien molecule. As it turns out, relying on this "random chance" provides better protection against certain diseases than anything that we humans can "intelligently design".

"Random chance" is not incompatible with "intelligent design", or the achievement of goals. Creative artists often avail themselves of chance effects. There is the crackle glaze in pottery, which deliberately achieves artistic effects by encouraging the random patterns in the cooling of the pottery when it is removed from the kiln. Bronze outdoor sculptures are designed to acquire a patina. Performers respond to the unpredictability of the audience. Composers and playwrights release control over their works to the interpretation of the performers. Photographers and other visual artists respond to what is presented to them, for example the appearance of the model.

Malaria: A case study

The efficacy of evolution vs. design can be studied with respect to the malaria parasite and the ways of combatting it.[1] The standard evolutionary explanation for the development of sickle-cell anemia in humans is that it provides protection against the malaria parasite. Sickle-cell anemia is generally recognized as a result of a random mutation. It can cause a debilitating disease in humans, yet it also, more often, provides a defense against malaria. There are also several other random mutations in humans which can both cause diseases and defend against malaria. In the hemoglobin alpha chain, there are point mutations HbS, HbC, HbE; in the hemoglobin gamma chain, there is HPHF; in various parts of hemoglobin, there is thalassemia; and others.(page 39)[1] These various random mutations have provided defenses against malaria which have been working for a long time. We may characterize the competition between the random human evolution and the random malaria evolution as a stand-off. In contrast, there are the human-designed defenses against malaria. It is famous how malaria has evolved resistance to just about everything that we can design to go against it. Despite our best designs, not limited to drugs, the deaths from malaria continue in great numbers. (page 17)[1] "Resistance to one recent drug, atovaquone, arose in the lab scant weeks after a small culture of malaria was exposed to it. Almost a hundred thousand times as many clicks of the clock have passed since [the first appearance of sickle-cell]. About that much time since [HbC] ... and since thalassemia first appeared. Yet they are all still effective against malaria."(page 52)[1] On the other hand, the drug which was not designed seems to be somewhat intermediate: "Quinine, the natural drug that first turned the tide of battle toward humanity's side, is still pretty effective against [the malaria parasite]. But the bug is slowly gaining ground ... ."(page 260)[1]

In summary, in a contest between "random evolution" and "design", random is not just effective, but more effective; the closest contest is between the "random evolution" and the "chance discovery" of quinine.

[edit] So what does the Bible say about random chance?

Are the two elements needed for natural selection -- time and chance -- heretical or biblical? Bible thumpers should check out Ecclesiastes 9:11.


“”I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.[2]


Where as the verse is true, in it's context that it's place in above it is not true. If one was to read the verse further (or all of Ecclesiastes) we would see:


“”For man also does not know his time: Like fish taken in a cruel net, Like birds caught in a snare, So the sons of men [are] snared in an evil time, When it falls suddenly upon them


The point of the verse and all of Ecclesiastes (if one was to actually read it) would be that man is nothing but random chance without God, that there is no value in a life without God. That is exactly the point of creationists. If this is taken in context with the rest of the bible we know that God is all knowing, so things to man may seem random, but they aren't to God. God creating the world with purpose would mean there would be no random chance, or selection.

Random chance - RationalWiki

Sorry but evolutionist in the other thread said it was random chance. The bullshit you just posted is simply that. If by your views it was not random chance it was purposeful design.

I knew you could not resist copying and pasting a bunch of nonsense and you don't have a thought of your own.

 

[Youwerecreated]

another false declarative ,you or your dogma infested pseudoscience have proven nothing of the kind.
you talking about copying and pasting is farcical.
when that's all that you do and then try to pass it off as your own.
slap dick!

So what is my false declarative that I made ?

all of the above!

Uh oh can't explain your own accusation in detail this is typical of you.

 

[daws101]

This is the question you're avoiding.

Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?

Firstly, why do you capitalize "Random Chance"? Is melodrama a necessary part of your post or is it just confusion on your part?

Secondly, this has been addressed previously for you, many times. It seems you make the same phony claims and ask the same questions you have already been given answers to.

Evolutionary principles do not function per random chance. This "random chance" canard is simply a slogan you picked up on Harun Yahya's website.

As usual, you make no sense. I would suggest that you, or any creationist, should become versed in evolutionary theory before you attack it. I have yet to encounter this in a creationist. You should be able to explain how the process works. Common sense says that you cannot criticize what you cannot explain.

Science is more than an accumulated body of knowledge. It is a process of discovery. Unlike Christian creationism which assumes a position of infallible truth, science, as a process of investigation, does not make any such claim to infallibility. It is a process that is built upon error correction, and will remedy its own mistakes. Creationists, by their own admission, hold an infallible truth of the various bibles which are incapable of being in error.

"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."
- Henry Morris
President, Institute for Creation Research

Let me point something out to you. Life was a product of purposeful design or random chance.

This planet is a product of purposeful design or random chance. Do you believe random chance is responsible for all we observe ?

there you go attempting to make your opinions sound like evidence.

 

[Hollie]

This is the question you're avoiding.

Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?

Firstly, why do you capitalize "Random Chance"? Is melodrama a necessary part of your post or is it just confusion on your part?

Secondly, this has been addressed previously for you, many times. It seems you make the same phony claims and ask the same questions you have already been given answers to.

Evolutionary principles do not function per random chance. This "random chance" canard is simply a slogan you picked up on Harun Yahya's website.

As usual, you make no sense. I would suggest that you, or any creationist, should become versed in evolutionary theory before you attack it. I have yet to encounter this in a creationist. You should be able to explain how the process works. Common sense says that you cannot criticize what you cannot explain.

Science is more than an accumulated body of knowledge. It is a process of discovery. Unlike Christian creationism which assumes a position of infallible truth, science, as a process of investigation, does not make any such claim to infallibility. It is a process that is built upon error correction, and will remedy its own mistakes. Creationists, by their own admission, hold an infallible truth of the various bibles which are incapable of being in error.

"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."
- Henry Morris
President, Institute for Creation Research

Let me point something out to you. Life was a product of purposeful design or random chance.

This planet is a product of purposeful design or random chance. Do you believe random chance is responsible for all we observe ?

As usual, your posts are silly "because I say so", commentaries. Do yourself a favor and scour your comments from someplace other than Harun Yahya.

 

[daws101]

So what is my false declarative that I made ?

all of the above!

Uh oh can't explain your own accusation in detail this is typical of you.

all is self-explanatory no more detail is needed..
I love it when you try that old ploy...btw that was not an accusation it in fact a statement of fact.

 

[daws101]

This is the question you're avoiding.

Do you believe that Random Chance is capable of producing coincidence after coincidence and these coincidences were absolutely needed ?

who say it was random chance? creationist do! with no proof at all !

Random chance

A common claim by creationists is that evolution is nothing but random chance which they then follow by claiming that there is no way random chance could produce a particular adaptation or animal. This is most commonly used in association with an argument from design.

The "random chance" criticism is actually a straw man, since evolution does not rely only on random chance. While some elements of evolution are random, most notably mutation, the cornerstone of Charles Darwin's theory is natural selection, which is the opposite of chance. Natural selection is non-random and is one of the primary shaping forces for adaptation in nature. By ignoring natural selection in evolution, creationists are better able to argue that a god must have intervened, which is completely fallacious.

It is also interesting that because creationism makes no attempt (for it would represent a merely human limitation on divine power) to describe any regularities about the world, or to discriminate between what might happen and what might not happen as a consequence of creation (or intelligent design), there is no difference between the results of divine creation and random chance. While evolutionary biology rules out certain things - it is extremely unlikely that there would be a rabbit with ceramic armor or a supersonic hawk (unless a mad scientist decided to design one) - there is nothing that is less plausible than anything else in a creationist's world.

If we can say that "random chance" operates in evolution, we can say that it operates elsewhere in the world of life. One striking example is in the action of the adaptive immune system in jawed vertebrates. We jawed vertebrates are protected against diseases caused by certain viruses, fungi, bacteria, and parasites by changing our immune system to meet novel assaults. The adaptive immune system is the reason why vaccination works, and why we get certain diseases only once. The adaptive immune system generates great numbers of cells to detect alien biological molecules, and by "random chance" eventually one of these cells makes a match. This then allows our immune system to destroy the source of this novel alien molecule. As it turns out, relying on this "random chance" provides better protection against certain diseases than anything that we humans can "intelligently design".

"Random chance" is not incompatible with "intelligent design", or the achievement of goals. Creative artists often avail themselves of chance effects. There is the crackle glaze in pottery, which deliberately achieves artistic effects by encouraging the random patterns in the cooling of the pottery when it is removed from the kiln. Bronze outdoor sculptures are designed to acquire a patina. Performers respond to the unpredictability of the audience. Composers and playwrights release control over their works to the interpretation of the performers. Photographers and other visual artists respond to what is presented to them, for example the appearance of the model.

Malaria: A case study

The efficacy of evolution vs. design can be studied with respect to the malaria parasite and the ways of combatting it.[1] The standard evolutionary explanation for the development of sickle-cell anemia in humans is that it provides protection against the malaria parasite. Sickle-cell anemia is generally recognized as a result of a random mutation. It can cause a debilitating disease in humans, yet it also, more often, provides a defense against malaria. There are also several other random mutations in humans which can both cause diseases and defend against malaria. In the hemoglobin alpha chain, there are point mutations HbS, HbC, HbE; in the hemoglobin gamma chain, there is HPHF; in various parts of hemoglobin, there is thalassemia; and others.(page 39)[1] These various random mutations have provided defenses against malaria which have been working for a long time. We may characterize the competition between the random human evolution and the random malaria evolution as a stand-off. In contrast, there are the human-designed defenses against malaria. It is famous how malaria has evolved resistance to just about everything that we can design to go against it. Despite our best designs, not limited to drugs, the deaths from malaria continue in great numbers. (page 17)[1] "Resistance to one recent drug, atovaquone, arose in the lab scant weeks after a small culture of malaria was exposed to it. Almost a hundred thousand times as many clicks of the clock have passed since [the first appearance of sickle-cell]. About that much time since [HbC] ... and since thalassemia first appeared. Yet they are all still effective against malaria."(page 52)[1] On the other hand, the drug which was not designed seems to be somewhat intermediate: "Quinine, the natural drug that first turned the tide of battle toward humanity's side, is still pretty effective against [the malaria parasite]. But the bug is slowly gaining ground ... ."(page 260)[1]

In summary, in a contest between "random evolution" and "design", random is not just effective, but more effective; the closest contest is between the "random evolution" and the "chance discovery" of quinine.

[edit] So what does the Bible say about random chance?

Are the two elements needed for natural selection -- time and chance -- heretical or biblical? Bible thumpers should check out Ecclesiastes 9:11.


“”I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.[2]


Where as the verse is true, in it's context that it's place in above it is not true. If one was to read the verse further (or all of Ecclesiastes) we would see:


“”For man also does not know his time: Like fish taken in a cruel net, Like birds caught in a snare, So the sons of men [are] snared in an evil time, When it falls suddenly upon them


The point of the verse and all of Ecclesiastes (if one was to actually read it) would be that man is nothing but random chance without God, that there is no value in a life without God. That is exactly the point of creationists. If this is taken in context with the rest of the bible we know that God is all knowing, so things to man may seem random, but they aren't to God. God creating the world with purpose would mean there would be no random chance, or selection.

Random chance - RationalWiki

Sorry but evolutionist in the other thread said it was random chance. The bullshit you just posted is simply that. If by your views it was not random chance it was purposeful design.

I knew you could not resist copying and pasting a bunch of nonsense and you don't have a thought of your own.

you didn't read the post!
and who was the evolutionist who said it was random chance?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Firstly, why do you capitalize "Random Chance"? Is melodrama a necessary part of your post or is it just confusion on your part?

Secondly, this has been addressed previously for you, many times. It seems you make the same phony claims and ask the same questions you have already been given answers to.

Evolutionary principles do not function per random chance. This "random chance" canard is simply a slogan you picked up on Harun Yahya's website.

As usual, you make no sense. I would suggest that you, or any creationist, should become versed in evolutionary theory before you attack it. I have yet to encounter this in a creationist. You should be able to explain how the process works. Common sense says that you cannot criticize what you cannot explain.

Science is more than an accumulated body of knowledge. It is a process of discovery. Unlike Christian creationism which assumes a position of infallible truth, science, as a process of investigation, does not make any such claim to infallibility. It is a process that is built upon error correction, and will remedy its own mistakes. Creationists, by their own admission, hold an infallible truth of the various bibles which are incapable of being in error.

"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."
- Henry Morris
President, Institute for Creation Research

Let me point something out to you. Life was a product of purposeful design or random chance.

This planet is a product of purposeful design or random chance. Do you believe random chance is responsible for all we observe ?

there you go attempting to make your opinions sound like evidence.

Not evidence it's a fact.

If I am wrong then tell me otherwise and why I am wrong.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Firstly, why do you capitalize "Random Chance"? Is melodrama a necessary part of your post or is it just confusion on your part?

Secondly, this has been addressed previously for you, many times. It seems you make the same phony claims and ask the same questions you have already been given answers to.

Evolutionary principles do not function per random chance. This "random chance" canard is simply a slogan you picked up on Harun Yahya's website.

As usual, you make no sense. I would suggest that you, or any creationist, should become versed in evolutionary theory before you attack it. I have yet to encounter this in a creationist. You should be able to explain how the process works. Common sense says that you cannot criticize what you cannot explain.

Science is more than an accumulated body of knowledge. It is a process of discovery. Unlike Christian creationism which assumes a position of infallible truth, science, as a process of investigation, does not make any such claim to infallibility. It is a process that is built upon error correction, and will remedy its own mistakes. Creationists, by their own admission, hold an infallible truth of the various bibles which are incapable of being in error.

"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."
- Henry Morris
President, Institute for Creation Research

Let me point something out to you. Life was a product of purposeful design or random chance.

This planet is a product of purposeful design or random chance. Do you believe random chance is responsible for all we observe ?

As usual, your posts are silly "because I say so", commentaries. Do yourself a favor and scour your comments from someplace other than Harun Yahya.

The Troll is on ignore once again.

 

[Youwerecreated]

who say it was random chance? creationist do! with no proof at all !

Random chance

A common claim by creationists is that evolution is nothing but random chance which they then follow by claiming that there is no way random chance could produce a particular adaptation or animal. This is most commonly used in association with an argument from design.

The "random chance" criticism is actually a straw man, since evolution does not rely only on random chance. While some elements of evolution are random, most notably mutation, the cornerstone of Charles Darwin's theory is natural selection, which is the opposite of chance. Natural selection is non-random and is one of the primary shaping forces for adaptation in nature. By ignoring natural selection in evolution, creationists are better able to argue that a god must have intervened, which is completely fallacious.

It is also interesting that because creationism makes no attempt (for it would represent a merely human limitation on divine power) to describe any regularities about the world, or to discriminate between what might happen and what might not happen as a consequence of creation (or intelligent design), there is no difference between the results of divine creation and random chance. While evolutionary biology rules out certain things - it is extremely unlikely that there would be a rabbit with ceramic armor or a supersonic hawk (unless a mad scientist decided to design one) - there is nothing that is less plausible than anything else in a creationist's world.

If we can say that "random chance" operates in evolution, we can say that it operates elsewhere in the world of life. One striking example is in the action of the adaptive immune system in jawed vertebrates. We jawed vertebrates are protected against diseases caused by certain viruses, fungi, bacteria, and parasites by changing our immune system to meet novel assaults. The adaptive immune system is the reason why vaccination works, and why we get certain diseases only once. The adaptive immune system generates great numbers of cells to detect alien biological molecules, and by "random chance" eventually one of these cells makes a match. This then allows our immune system to destroy the source of this novel alien molecule. As it turns out, relying on this "random chance" provides better protection against certain diseases than anything that we humans can "intelligently design".

"Random chance" is not incompatible with "intelligent design", or the achievement of goals. Creative artists often avail themselves of chance effects. There is the crackle glaze in pottery, which deliberately achieves artistic effects by encouraging the random patterns in the cooling of the pottery when it is removed from the kiln. Bronze outdoor sculptures are designed to acquire a patina. Performers respond to the unpredictability of the audience. Composers and playwrights release control over their works to the interpretation of the performers. Photographers and other visual artists respond to what is presented to them, for example the appearance of the model.

Malaria: A case study

The efficacy of evolution vs. design can be studied with respect to the malaria parasite and the ways of combatting it.[1] The standard evolutionary explanation for the development of sickle-cell anemia in humans is that it provides protection against the malaria parasite. Sickle-cell anemia is generally recognized as a result of a random mutation. It can cause a debilitating disease in humans, yet it also, more often, provides a defense against malaria. There are also several other random mutations in humans which can both cause diseases and defend against malaria. In the hemoglobin alpha chain, there are point mutations HbS, HbC, HbE; in the hemoglobin gamma chain, there is HPHF; in various parts of hemoglobin, there is thalassemia; and others.(page 39)[1] These various random mutations have provided defenses against malaria which have been working for a long time. We may characterize the competition between the random human evolution and the random malaria evolution as a stand-off. In contrast, there are the human-designed defenses against malaria. It is famous how malaria has evolved resistance to just about everything that we can design to go against it. Despite our best designs, not limited to drugs, the deaths from malaria continue in great numbers. (page 17)[1] "Resistance to one recent drug, atovaquone, arose in the lab scant weeks after a small culture of malaria was exposed to it. Almost a hundred thousand times as many clicks of the clock have passed since [the first appearance of sickle-cell]. About that much time since [HbC] ... and since thalassemia first appeared. Yet they are all still effective against malaria."(page 52)[1] On the other hand, the drug which was not designed seems to be somewhat intermediate: "Quinine, the natural drug that first turned the tide of battle toward humanity's side, is still pretty effective against [the malaria parasite]. But the bug is slowly gaining ground ... ."(page 260)[1]

In summary, in a contest between "random evolution" and "design", random is not just effective, but more effective; the closest contest is between the "random evolution" and the "chance discovery" of quinine.

[edit] So what does the Bible say about random chance?

Are the two elements needed for natural selection -- time and chance -- heretical or biblical? Bible thumpers should check out Ecclesiastes 9:11.


“”I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.[2]


Where as the verse is true, in it's context that it's place in above it is not true. If one was to read the verse further (or all of Ecclesiastes) we would see:


“”For man also does not know his time: Like fish taken in a cruel net, Like birds caught in a snare, So the sons of men [are] snared in an evil time, When it falls suddenly upon them


The point of the verse and all of Ecclesiastes (if one was to actually read it) would be that man is nothing but random chance without God, that there is no value in a life without God. That is exactly the point of creationists. If this is taken in context with the rest of the bible we know that God is all knowing, so things to man may seem random, but they aren't to God. God creating the world with purpose would mean there would be no random chance, or selection.

Random chance - RationalWiki

Sorry but evolutionist in the other thread said it was random chance. The bullshit you just posted is simply that. If by your views it was not random chance it was purposeful design.

I knew you could not resist copying and pasting a bunch of nonsense and you don't have a thought of your own.

you didn't read the post!
and who was the evolutionist who said it was random chance?

Go back and look you thanked him for his responses.

 

[Hollie]

Let me point something out to you. Life was a product of purposeful design or random chance.

This planet is a product of purposeful design or random chance. Do you believe random chance is responsible for all we observe ?

As usual, your posts are silly "because I say so", commentaries. Do yourself a favor and scour your comments from someplace other than Harun Yahya.

The Troll is on ignore once again.

It really is cowardly (and juvenile), that you so often resort to name-calling as a defense for your baseless arguments. Although, I should acknowledge that your "arguments" are so often little more than cutting and pasting from creationist websites.

So... if evolution is false, have you ever asked yourself why the gods would have made a world "instantly old". The gods certainly would not have had to. Certainly, I understand from your previous posts that you hold to a literal, 6,000 year old earth, but there is no mainstream science organization that accepts your view. Taking your line of thought further... this leads to conclusions that the gods have deliberately intended to deceive us into thinking the world is billions of years old. These immense spans are exactly what's needed for evolution to take place. Deliberate deception on the part of your gods by creating an instantly old earth / universe also aids in the widespread acceptance of evolution.

Unless, of course, your gods have played a cruel joke on you?

 

[Youwerecreated]

As usual, your posts are silly "because I say so", commentaries. Do yourself a favor and scour your comments from someplace other than Harun Yahya.

The Troll is on ignore once again.

It really is cowardly (and juvenile), that you so often resort to name-calling as a defense for your baseless arguments. Although, I should acknowledge that your "arguments" are so often little more than cutting and pasting from creationist websites.

So... if evolution is false, have you ever asked yourself why the gods would have made a world "instantly old". The gods certainly would not have had to. Certainly, I understand from your previous posts that you hold to a literal, 6,000 year old earth, but there is no mainstream science organization that accepts your view. Taking your line of thought further... this leads to conclusions that the gods have deliberately intended to deceive us into thinking the world is billions of years old. These immense spans are exactly what's needed for evolution to take place. Deliberate deception on the part of your gods by creating an instantly old earth / universe also aids in the widespread acceptance of evolution.

Unless, of course, your gods have played a cruel joke on you?

That is Ironic you referring to someone as cowardly and juvenile

 

[Hollie]

The Troll is on ignore once again.

It really is cowardly (and juvenile), that you so often resort to name-calling as a defense for your baseless arguments. Although, I should acknowledge that your "arguments" are so often little more than cutting and pasting from creationist websites.

So... if evolution is false, have you ever asked yourself why the gods would have made a world "instantly old". The gods certainly would not have had to. Certainly, I understand from your previous posts that you hold to a literal, 6,000 year old earth, but there is no mainstream science organization that accepts your view. Taking your line of thought further... this leads to conclusions that the gods have deliberately intended to deceive us into thinking the world is billions of years old. These immense spans are exactly what's needed for evolution to take place. Deliberate deception on the part of your gods by creating an instantly old earth / universe also aids in the widespread acceptance of evolution.

Unless, of course, your gods have played a cruel joke on you?

That is Ironic you referring to someone as cowardly and juvenile

How careful you were to avoid any attempt at a grown-up response.

How typical for you.

 

[daws101]

Let me point something out to you. Life was a product of purposeful design or random chance.

This planet is a product of purposeful design or random chance. Do you believe random chance is responsible for all we observe ?

there you go attempting to make your opinions sound like evidence.

Not evidence it's a fact.

If I am wrong then tell me otherwise and why I am wrong.

false premise

An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results.[1] A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)

This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably unsound, because its first premise is false – one could hose down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, or the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.

Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships. The adage warns, "Correlated does not necessarily mean causally related".

A false premise can also be a premise that is poorly, or incompletely, defined so as to make the conclusion questionable. The following joke from Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar illustrates the point:


"An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian'." [2]

The mistake the cowboy makes is that he assumes that the definition of a lesbian is somebody who spends the "whole day thinking about women." The reason the joke works is because in a certain way that definition could apply to lesbians, but it fails to address the point that a lesbian is a homosexual female. The cowboy is neither homosexual nor female; therefore, he is not a lesbian.

Argument from false premises - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

can't make it any clearer than that .

 

[UltimateReality]

...

Identify a single element or function in nature that has supernatural causation.

The Big Bang. Next!