What prevents evolution?

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog,

Interesting concept! You put reproductivity success ahead of adaptibility/suitability!? Or I am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't "adaptability/suitability" just another way of saying that something "stays alive long enough to breed offspring that can do the same?"

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

1. Science does not concern itself with the existence or not of such a thing as a god. Science concerns itself with natural laws (ie repeatable results).


[/ QUOTE ]

Science is a word much like evolution and Christianity. It is defined very differently by different people. It's often defined differently by the same people at different times.

[ QUOTE ]

2. The fact that evolution does make god unnecesary, does not say anything about its existence or absence.


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't possible for evolution to make God unnecessary. A question - Is the statement that evolution makes God unnecessary itself a scientific statement?

[ QUOTE ]

theists start to argue that science does indicate a neccesity for a god.


[/ QUOTE ]

For science to mean anything, for there to even be science, God is necessary. If God created the universe, how could science be possible without God? There would be no universe and no one to study it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

chance is sufficient to explain what happens.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chance is the antithesis of explanation. It is anti-explanation. It destroys the possibility of explanation. It is by definition irrational and uncaused. How does that explain anything?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
For science to mean anything, for there to even be science, God is necessary. If God created the universe, how could science be possible without God? There would be no universe and no one to study it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't this mean that if God did not create the Universe, He is then unnecessary to science? Your last sentence I don't even understand. If God created the Universe, there is no Universe?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
chance is sufficient to explain what happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chance is the antithesis of explanation. It is anti-explanation. It destroys the possibility of explanation. It is by definition irrational and uncaused. How does that explain anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds nice, but is meaningless. Chance is a perfectly good explanation. An electron beam passed through a Stern-Gerlach device and a particular electron is measured to be in the spin-up state. Why is it in the spin-up state and not spin-down? Chance. Chance explains this system perfectly.

This is beside the point that chance is only facet of evolution. Evolution may require random variation, but it only progress via non-random selection.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If God created the Universe, there is no Universe?


[/ QUOTE ]

It should be obvious that if God created the universe then it's meaningless to talk about the universe without God. To do so denies God at the outset. It places possibility above God.

[ QUOTE ]

Chance explains this system perfectly.


[/ QUOTE ]

So what's the explanation?

[ QUOTE ]

but it only progress via non-random selection.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Does non-random mean designed?


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you see the problem? It's impossible for atheists to talk about evolution without relying on chance while still clinging to some form of design. Why not just say variation occurs, heck if I know why, instead of saying variation occurs by chance? They are equivalent except when you say chance you are implicitly saying God was not involved. But you can never know or prove that He wasn't. It's this approach that is mostly responsible for ID's growth.

[Borodog]

No, non-random does not mean designed. It means "non-random."

For example, the pebbles at the shore are jostled randomly by crashing ocean waves energetically tossing them about. Yet after the wave recedes the pebbles are arranged in a non-random pattern; smaller pebbles come to rest closer to the shore. This pattern does not arise because God is personally sorting the pebbles. It arises because of the laws of fluid dynamics. If you want to chose to believe that God wrote the laws, be my guest. I have no problem with that.

Selection is non-random not because anyone is doing the selecting, but mecause the selection process is inherently biased. Those variants that are better at surviving and reproducing will come to predominate numerically. Duh. How could it be otherwise?

[ QUOTE ]
Why not just say variation occurs, heck if I know why, instead of saying variation occurs by chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because we often know why, and it is often by chance. By chance an error is made copying a strand of DNA. A cosmic ray comes along by chance and hits a strand of DNA. Why do you hate chance so much?

[ QUOTE ]
They are equivalent except when you say chance you are implicitly saying God was not involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying any such thing. You are. And I don't really see why.

[ QUOTE ]
But you can never know or prove that He wasn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to prove God does or does not exist or was or was not involved. It is impossible to prove that God does not exist. It is impossible to prove that anything does not exist (especially anything that is by definition unobservable). All that matters is that He does not seem to be required to explain anything observable.

Does it matter if God is rolling the dice?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Those variants that are better at surviving and reproducing will come to predominate numerically. Duh. How could it be otherwise?


[/ QUOTE ]

That just pushes the question back one notch.

[ QUOTE ]

Because we often know why, and it is often by chance


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't think of anything more circular.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying any such thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

But you are. If God is omnipotent chance doesn't exist. If chance exists, God doesn't.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to prove God does or does not exist or was or was not involved.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're just asserting a proposition that requires the non-existence of God.

[ QUOTE ]

Does it matter if God is rolling the dice?


[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty much the whole ball of wax.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
It is impossible to prove that anything does not exist

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true. If you propose the existence of an entity or object whose existence would contradict known facts about the universe, it is impossible for that entity or object to exist. You CAN prove a negative if by assuming it's true, you contradict a known truth.

[atrifix]

I think of chance as saying "we just don't know". E.g., we calculate the odds in a card game, but there is some fact of the matter about the next card to come, we just don't know what it is. But it still makes sense to refer to it as a game of chance, because we don't know the outcome.

[ QUOTE ]
If God is omnipotent chance doesn't exist. If chance exists, God doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why this is, unless God created, by necessity, the best possible world out of any other. But certain things seem like they could be left to chance and have no bearing on morals, e.g., the position of electrons is neither 'good' nor 'bad'. God could plausibly have created a world in which no one, not even an omniscient being, could determine the outcome of certain events.

[siegfriedandroy]

midge. you seem to be fairly intelligent, but no, you are not in 'consensus' with dp. i am about to black out so i will not elaborate now...

how the he*l do you argue against the existence of God on a 'moral' basis?? that is horrendous. do you have any idea what you are implying? peace.