Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:31-60|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Plot Hole Of Evolution

distraff
Posts: 1,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 8:35:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2016 7:39:39 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/28/2016 4:57:17 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:02:24 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/25/2016 2:11:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
There are many types of fruits, various kinds of flavors.

Now, of course atheists nay evolutionists will cry - hey those flavors just had to happen, evolution is not planned.

But every plant has to face the NATURAL SELECTION .

Why is there variety in flavours, cause animals living in that particular area liked their tastes?

Which one happened first- animals liking a particular flavour or plants evolving to have those flavors ?

If the latter is true, it can NOT get through natural selection and if the prior is true..

the world is the work of a creator.


Animals originally evolved taste to distinguish between that are good for you and food that is dangerous. This happened long before there was fruit and animals were eating food like grass long before there was fruit. So this actually can happen through natural selection.

Animals evolved so that sugar tasted good because sugar has a lot of calories and calories is energy. So trees evolved the fruit taste so that it would have a taste that was pleasant to animals.

Sugar always tasted like sugar.

Flavors are not just different concentrations of sugar, there are pleasant smells, aromas and taste is very different too.

So the animals evolving liking a particular flavor came first.

How?

ME: So you are saying that the animals developed a particular liking for certain flavours, and evolution in is great wisdom then evolved such plants and fruits...Giving a few million years between.

The big thing for fruit that makes it taste good is mainly the sweet taste. Many animals that don't eat fruit like the sweet taste because sweet things tend to be high in calories. Think about sugar and honey.

We have adapted new foods that taste nothing like anything that exists in nature (e.g. french fries, marshmallows, etc) because this food has a taste combination that registers well with our pre-existing sense of taste.

Fruit also could have evolved to have tastes that registered well with our pre-existing sense of taste. This pre-existing sense of taste was not waiting for fruit to evolve because these taste buds were being used to taste other foods. Fruit adapted their taste to fit these pre-existing taste buds.
VelCrow
Posts: 1,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 12:34:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2016 7:33:57 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/28/2016 6:48:12 AM, VelCrow wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:33:33 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
Explanations, like lies, need other explanations or lies to keep them in the comment market.

In this discussion we have animals eating fruit, nuts and etc, which they have developed a taste for, as well as them being a necessary diet.

Now, does evolution have that very clever "creation trick" of evolving plants and fruits of various kinds, trees for birds and apes to live in, nuts and berries for the bears, underground roots and yams for the moles, flowers with suitable pollen for the pollinators , and have evolved a healthy, life sustaining habitat before the first animals is on the earth?

What if the first animal to appear, even if the habitat was there, bit into a fruit, and said "Yuck" and died of starvation?

Remember in all this, you evolutionists are talking about millions of years to evolve all this magical garden and its animal inhabitants. How would "Evolution Random Process" of animals know what would be nice to eat before those animals ever evolved?

Don't you think to create an environment where all life could live and be fully and healthily maintained before the animal appears is a bit much to ask of a chance evolutionary event? Come on People, be serious!!!!!

Would we expect those great foliage gulping dinosaurs to be delicately picking a cherry sized peach and going "Yum Yum, I only need another hundred pound or so of these for lunch?

It is no wonder that many humans believe in a creator, when we have the extraordinary acceptance that all the things happened by chance.

When is anyone going to explain "instinct" to me, as an evolutionary process.

Let me give you an example. Suppose there are 100 animals (lets call them X) living with plants that gives fruit (lets call the fruits Y). in the beginning, half of X like eating Y and half of X didnt like eating Y. Those that did not like eating Y had nothing else to eat and thus eventually dies of starvation. On the other hand, those X that like eating Y, had abundance of food and did not die of starvation and are more likely to pass their genes to the next generation of X. Eventually, you will find that the majority of population of X that still survives will like eating Y.

ME: Simple, that simple that you have animals and plants miraculously materializing together.

As usual. Creationist reads like the first line, dont even bother to understand the context, and find fault in taking things too literally.
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 7:36:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2016 6:27:45 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 5/28/2016 5:47:07 AM, janesix wrote:
At 5/25/2016 2:11:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
There are many types of fruits, various kinds of flavors.

Now, of course atheists nay evolutionists will cry - hey those flavors just had to happen, evolution is not planned.

But every plant has to face the NATURAL SELECTION .

Why is there variety in flavours, cause animals living in that particular area liked their tastes?

Which one happened first- animals liking a particular flavour or plants evolving to have those flavors ?

If the latter is true, it can NOT get through natural selection and if the prior is true..

the world is the work of a creator.


Thats easy. Plants evolved the ability to make sugars for their own energy source, billions of years before there were animals to eat them. Does that answer your question?

You answer contradicts other evolutionists here.

Scientists start the search for fossil evidence of plants with indirect evidence for their presence, the evidence of photosynthesis in the geological record. The evidence for photosynthesis in the rock record is varied, but primary evidence comes from around 3000 Ma,

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Photosynthesis, which produces sugar, evolved 3 billion years ago

http://www.biology.iupui.edu...
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 7:42:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2016 7:33:57 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/28/2016 6:48:12 AM, VelCrow wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:33:33 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
Explanations, like lies, need other explanations or lies to keep them in the comment market.

In this discussion we have animals eating fruit, nuts and etc, which they have developed a taste for, as well as them being a necessary diet.

Now, does evolution have that very clever "creation trick" of evolving plants and fruits of various kinds, trees for birds and apes to live in, nuts and berries for the bears, underground roots and yams for the moles, flowers with suitable pollen for the pollinators , and have evolved a healthy, life sustaining habitat before the first animals is on the earth?

What if the first animal to appear, even if the habitat was there, bit into a fruit, and said "Yuck" and died of starvation?

Remember in all this, you evolutionists are talking about millions of years to evolve all this magical garden and its animal inhabitants. How would "Evolution Random Process" of animals know what would be nice to eat before those animals ever evolved?

Don't you think to create an environment where all life could live and be fully and healthily maintained before the animal appears is a bit much to ask of a chance evolutionary event? Come on People, be serious!!!!!

Would we expect those great foliage gulping dinosaurs to be delicately picking a cherry sized peach and going "Yum Yum, I only need another hundred pound or so of these for lunch?

It is no wonder that many humans believe in a creator, when we have the extraordinary acceptance that all the things happened by chance.

When is anyone going to explain "instinct" to me, as an evolutionary process.

Let me give you an example. Suppose there are 100 animals (lets call them X) living with plants that gives fruit (lets call the fruits Y). in the beginning, half of X like eating Y and half of X didnt like eating Y. Those that did not like eating Y had nothing else to eat and thus eventually dies of starvation. On the other hand, those X that like eating Y, had abundance of food and did not die of starvation and are more likely to pass their genes to the next generation of X. Eventually, you will find that the majority of population of X that still survives will like eating Y.

ME: Simple, that simple that you have animals and plants miraculously materializing together.

Plants have been around much longer than animals. Several billion years.

Now is that simple enough for you to understand? Can you find any faults with this explanation?
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 5:02:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2016 12:34:37 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:33:57 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/28/2016 6:48:12 AM, VelCrow wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:33:33 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
Explanations, like lies, need other explanations or lies to keep them in the comment market.

In this discussion we have animals eating fruit, nuts and etc, which they have developed a taste for, as well as them being a necessary diet.

Now, does evolution have that very clever "creation trick" of evolving plants and fruits of various kinds, trees for birds and apes to live in, nuts and berries for the bears, underground roots and yams for the moles, flowers with suitable pollen for the pollinators , and have evolved a healthy, life sustaining habitat before the first animals is on the earth?

What if the first animal to appear, even if the habitat was there, bit into a fruit, and said "Yuck" and died of starvation?

Remember in all this, you evolutionists are talking about millions of years to evolve all this magical garden and its animal inhabitants. How would "Evolution Random Process" of animals know what would be nice to eat before those animals ever evolved?

Don't you think to create an environment where all life could live and be fully and healthily maintained before the animal appears is a bit much to ask of a chance evolutionary event? Come on People, be serious!!!!!

Would we expect those great foliage gulping dinosaurs to be delicately picking a cherry sized peach and going "Yum Yum, I only need another hundred pound or so of these for lunch?

It is no wonder that many humans believe in a creator, when we have the extraordinary acceptance that all the things happened by chance.

When is anyone going to explain "instinct" to me, as an evolutionary process.

Let me give you an example. Suppose there are 100 animals (lets call them X) living with plants that gives fruit (lets call the fruits Y). in the beginning, half of X like eating Y and half of X didnt like eating Y. Those that did not like eating Y had nothing else to eat and thus eventually dies of starvation. On the other hand, those X that like eating Y, had abundance of food and did not die of starvation and are more likely to pass their genes to the next generation of X. Eventually, you will find that the majority of population of X that still survives will like eating Y.

ME: Simple, that simple that you have animals and plants miraculously materializing together.

As usual. Creationist reads like the first line, dont even bother to understand the context, and find fault in taking things too literally.

ME: Well, VelCrow, your theory has become unzipped, I read the full content and you did not explain about the arrival of the sweet tasting fruit and the fussy animal. It is ridiculous to try to tell sensible people that , Just by Chance, these things happened. Evolutionary plants would have no reason to change, and if they did evolve into something else, it would only be by cross pollination, and that is another complicated story. Natural Selection would have nothing to do with it.

IMO the foliage was there, and the animals adapted to the plants, not the plants adapted to the animals preferred taste, that is too absurd to even consider comprehending.

The earth becoming a most suitable place for humans and animals, with a provision for food before the animals and humans arrived, is far too perfect for a Just by Chance happening from an origin of a nonconstructive big bangs and the Just by Chance arrival of the appropriate chemicals to make life in the primordial slime of your beginnings.

In creation, the first pair decided to be their own rulers, to live by their own standards and imaginings, Evolutionists are continuing that tradition.
distraff
Posts: 1,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 8:59:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2016 5:02:44 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/28/2016 12:34:37 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:33:57 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/28/2016 6:48:12 AM, VelCrow wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:33:33 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
Explanations, like lies, need other explanations or lies to keep them in the comment market.

In this discussion we have animals eating fruit, nuts and etc, which they have developed a taste for, as well as them being a necessary diet.

Now, does evolution have that very clever "creation trick" of evolving plants and fruits of various kinds, trees for birds and apes to live in, nuts and berries for the bears, underground roots and yams for the moles, flowers with suitable pollen for the pollinators , and have evolved a healthy, life sustaining habitat before the first animals is on the earth?

What if the first animal to appear, even if the habitat was there, bit into a fruit, and said "Yuck" and died of starvation?

Remember in all this, you evolutionists are talking about millions of years to evolve all this magical garden and its animal inhabitants. How would "Evolution Random Process" of animals know what would be nice to eat before those animals ever evolved?

Don't you think to create an environment where all life could live and be fully and healthily maintained before the animal appears is a bit much to ask of a chance evolutionary event? Come on People, be serious!!!!!

Would we expect those great foliage gulping dinosaurs to be delicately picking a cherry sized peach and going "Yum Yum, I only need another hundred pound or so of these for lunch?

It is no wonder that many humans believe in a creator, when we have the extraordinary acceptance that all the things happened by chance.

When is anyone going to explain "instinct" to me, as an evolutionary process.

Let me give you an example. Suppose there are 100 animals (lets call them X) living with plants that gives fruit (lets call the fruits Y). in the beginning, half of X like eating Y and half of X didnt like eating Y. Those that did not like eating Y had nothing else to eat and thus eventually dies of starvation. On the other hand, those X that like eating Y, had abundance of food and did not die of starvation and are more likely to pass their genes to the next generation of X. Eventually, you will find that the majority of population of X that still survives will like eating Y.

ME: Simple, that simple that you have animals and plants miraculously materializing together.

As usual. Creationist reads like the first line, dont even bother to understand the context, and find fault in taking things too literally.

ME: Well, VelCrow, your theory has become unzipped, I read the full content and you did not explain about the arrival of the sweet tasting fruit and the fussy animal. It is ridiculous to try to tell sensible people that , Just by Chance, these things happened. Evolutionary plants would have no reason to change, and if they did evolve into something else, it would only be by cross pollination, and that is another complicated story. Natural Selection would have nothing to do with it.

IMO the foliage was there, and the animals adapted to the plants, not the plants adapted to the animals preferred taste, that is too absurd to even consider comprehending.

The earth becoming a most suitable place for humans and animals, with a provision for food before the animals and humans arrived, is far too perfect for a Just by Chance happening from an origin of a nonconstructive big bangs and the Just by Chance arrival of the appropriate chemicals to make life in the primordial slime of your beginnings.

In creation, the first pair decided to be their own rulers, to live by their own standards and imaginings, Evolutionists are continuing that tradition.

I thought this was explained to you. Out taste buds were capable of tasting fruit and finding it tasty even before fruit existed just like our taste buds are capable of tasting cheese and finding it tasty long before cheese existed. We can taste cheese before it existed and find it good because out taste bugs are very complex and can create a massive variety of tastes depending on how the taste bugs are affected by the new food we are eating and determine if the taste is good even for tastes that have not been tasted yet.

It is very plausible that fruit evolved tastes that reacted well to our taste buds. Those fruit that tasted good were more likely to be picked and have their seed carried to another distant spot.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 11:21:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2016 8:59:15 PM, distraff wrote:
At 5/29/2016 5:02:44 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/28/2016 12:34:37 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:33:57 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/28/2016 6:48:12 AM, VelCrow wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:33:33 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
Explanations, like lies, need other explanations or lies to keep them in the comment market.

In this discussion we have animals eating fruit, nuts and etc, which they have developed a taste for, as well as them being a necessary diet.

Now, does evolution have that very clever "creation trick" of evolving plants and fruits of various kinds, trees for birds and apes to live in, nuts and berries for the bears, underground roots and yams for the moles, flowers with suitable pollen for the pollinators , and have evolved a healthy, life sustaining habitat before the first animals is on the earth?

What if the first animal to appear, even if the habitat was there, bit into a fruit, and said "Yuck" and died of starvation?

Remember in all this, you evolutionists are talking about millions of years to evolve all this magical garden and its animal inhabitants. How would "Evolution Random Process" of animals know what would be nice to eat before those animals ever evolved?

Don't you think to create an environment where all life could live and be fully and healthily maintained before the animal appears is a bit much to ask of a chance evolutionary event? Come on People, be serious!!!!!

Would we expect those great foliage gulping dinosaurs to be delicately picking a cherry sized peach and going "Yum Yum, I only need another hundred pound or so of these for lunch?

It is no wonder that many humans believe in a creator, when we have the extraordinary acceptance that all the things happened by chance.

When is anyone going to explain "instinct" to me, as an evolutionary process.

Let me give you an example. Suppose there are 100 animals (lets call them X) living with plants that gives fruit (lets call the fruits Y). in the beginning, half of X like eating Y and half of X didnt like eating Y. Those that did not like eating Y had nothing else to eat and thus eventually dies of starvation. On the other hand, those X that like eating Y, had abundance of food and did not die of starvation and are more likely to pass their genes to the next generation of X. Eventually, you will find that the majority of population of X that still survives will like eating Y.

ME: Simple, that simple that you have animals and plants miraculously materializing together.

As usual. Creationist reads like the first line, dont even bother to understand the context, and find fault in taking things too literally.

ME: Well, VelCrow, your theory has become unzipped, I read the full content and you did not explain about the arrival of the sweet tasting fruit and the fussy animal. It is ridiculous to try to tell sensible people that , Just by Chance, these things happened. Evolutionary plants would have no reason to change, and if they did evolve into something else, it would only be by cross pollination, and that is another complicated story. Natural Selection would have nothing to do with it.

IMO the foliage was there, and the animals adapted to the plants, not the plants adapted to the animals preferred taste, that is too absurd to even consider comprehending.

The earth becoming a most suitable place for humans and animals, with a provision for food before the animals and humans arrived, is far too perfect for a Just by Chance happening from an origin of a nonconstructive big bangs and the Just by Chance arrival of the appropriate chemicals to make life in the primordial slime of your beginnings.

In creation, the first pair decided to be their own rulers, to live by their own standards and imaginings, Evolutionists are continuing that tradition.

I thought this was explained to you. Out taste buds were capable of tasting fruit and finding it tasty even before fruit existed just like our taste buds are capable of tasting cheese and finding it tasty long before cheese existed. We can taste cheese before it existed and find it good because out taste bugs are very complex and can create a massive variety of tastes depending on how the taste bugs are affected by the new food we are eating and determine if the taste is good even for tastes that have not been tasted yet.

It is very plausible that fruit evolved tastes that reacted well to our taste buds. Those fruit that tasted good were more likely to be picked and have their seed carried to another distant spot.

ME: Oh! Come on, you are reasonably sensible in your posts, why have you gone off the rails with this one. Fruit adapting to animal taste buds..So now fruit has an intelligence that will make itself change to something nice...I wish some of the posters here would be hit with that bit of magic.

I would accept a creator knowing what would be good and what wouldn't to the animals of creation and providing that food before the animals, but your explanation takes much more faith than creation.

I will put this one to you, no animal, before the flood, killed for meat. There were the early scavengers like T Rex, but he was not build to hunt, he was build with a massive appetite that could clean up the carcasses of dead animals, which when you think about it, is a very intelligent thing to have around.

Most of the dinosaurs were herbivorous, and they were large, requiring large amounts of foliage to fill the big belly bins. Again intelligence, as the earth needed "Gardeners and tree loppers" to keep the foliage in check until man could take over with an increase in population.

Yes, I know this is a science forum, but when the scientific bits go haywire, I put in the creation bit because of the statement of the scientists that creation is impossible to understand.

Fruit adapting to animal taste buds??? Why didn't broccoli change to tasting like ice cream for the kids? When did the fruits get together to work out who would taste like what? and why? You know the "evolutionary phrase" if it tastes yucky it must be good for you!!!!!
distraff
Posts: 1,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 12:06:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2016 11:21:13 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/29/2016 8:59:15 PM, distraff wrote:
At 5/29/2016 5:02:44 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/28/2016 12:34:37 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:33:57 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/28/2016 6:48:12 AM, VelCrow wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:33:33 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
Explanations, like lies, need other explanations or lies to keep them in the comment market.

In this discussion we have animals eating fruit, nuts and etc, which they have developed a taste for, as well as them being a necessary diet.

Now, does evolution have that very clever "creation trick" of evolving plants and fruits of various kinds, trees for birds and apes to live in, nuts and berries for the bears, underground roots and yams for the moles, flowers with suitable pollen for the pollinators , and have evolved a healthy, life sustaining habitat before the first animals is on the earth?

What if the first animal to appear, even if the habitat was there, bit into a fruit, and said "Yuck" and died of starvation?

Remember in all this, you evolutionists are talking about millions of years to evolve all this magical garden and its animal inhabitants. How would "Evolution Random Process" of animals know what would be nice to eat before those animals ever evolved?

Don't you think to create an environment where all life could live and be fully and healthily maintained before the animal appears is a bit much to ask of a chance evolutionary event? Come on People, be serious!!!!!

Would we expect those great foliage gulping dinosaurs to be delicately picking a cherry sized peach and going "Yum Yum, I only need another hundred pound or so of these for lunch?

It is no wonder that many humans believe in a creator, when we have the extraordinary acceptance that all the things happened by chance.

When is anyone going to explain "instinct" to me, as an evolutionary process.

Let me give you an example. Suppose there are 100 animals (lets call them X) living with plants that gives fruit (lets call the fruits Y). in the beginning, half of X like eating Y and half of X didnt like eating Y. Those that did not like eating Y had nothing else to eat and thus eventually dies of starvation. On the other hand, those X that like eating Y, had abundance of food and did not die of starvation and are more likely to pass their genes to the next generation of X. Eventually, you will find that the majority of population of X that still survives will like eating Y.

ME: Simple, that simple that you have animals and plants miraculously materializing together.

As usual. Creationist reads like the first line, dont even bother to understand the context, and find fault in taking things too literally.

ME: Well, VelCrow, your theory has become unzipped, I read the full content and you did not explain about the arrival of the sweet tasting fruit and the fussy animal. It is ridiculous to try to tell sensible people that , Just by Chance, these things happened. Evolutionary plants would have no reason to change, and if they did evolve into something else, it would only be by cross pollination, and that is another complicated story. Natural Selection would have nothing to do with it.

IMO the foliage was there, and the animals adapted to the plants, not the plants adapted to the animals preferred taste, that is too absurd to even consider comprehending.

The earth becoming a most suitable place for humans and animals, with a provision for food before the animals and humans arrived, is far too perfect for a Just by Chance happening from an origin of a nonconstructive big bangs and the Just by Chance arrival of the appropriate chemicals to make life in the primordial slime of your beginnings.

In creation, the first pair decided to be their own rulers, to live by their own standards and imaginings, Evolutionists are continuing that tradition.

I thought this was explained to you. Out taste buds were capable of tasting fruit and finding it tasty even before fruit existed just like our taste buds are capable of tasting cheese and finding it tasty long before cheese existed. We can taste cheese before it existed and find it good because out taste bugs are very complex and can create a massive variety of tastes depending on how the taste bugs are affected by the new food we are eating and determine if the taste is good even for tastes that have not been tasted yet.

It is very plausible that fruit evolved tastes that reacted well to our taste buds. Those fruit that tasted good were more likely to be picked and have their seed carried to another distant spot.

ME: Oh! Come on, you are reasonably sensible in your posts, why have you gone off the rails with this one. Fruit adapting to animal taste buds..So now fruit has an intelligence that will make itself change to something nice...I wish some of the posters here would be hit with that bit of magic.

Actually mutations are quite capable of changing the taste of fruit. In fact our scientists genetically modify fruit all the time to change their taste. Fruit that have mutations that make them taste good tend to be more likely to be picked and placed far from the tree. This allows a tree species to spread and not get crowded making them more likely to survive.

I would accept a creator knowing what would be good and what wouldn't to the animals of creation and providing that food before the animals, but your explanation takes much more faith than creation.

I don't have to prove this happened. Fruit don't fossilize very well. The OP was trying to say that it could not happen through evolution and I pointed out that his disproof was falsely claiming that the taste for fruit that we have requires fruit with that taste to exist.

I will put this one to you, no animal, before the flood, killed for meat. There were the early scavengers like T Rex, but he was not build to hunt, he was build with a massive appetite that could clean up the carcasses of dead animals, which when you think about it, is a very intelligent thing to have around.

We have many small fast killers like Velociraptors which have bodies built to kill and run fast. We also have plant eating dinosaurs with horns and hard shells to defend themselves against something.

We have crocodile-like dinosaurs and we know crocodiles are built to kill.

If there was a global flood where did the water go?

Most of the dinosaurs were herbivorous, and they were large, requiring large amounts of foliage to fill the big belly bins. Again intelligence, as the earth needed "Gardeners and tree loppers" to keep the foliage in check until man could take over with an increase in population.

If dinosaurs got killed off in the flood why don't we find dinosaurs with humans and large mammals?

Fruit adapting to animal taste buds??? Why didn't broccoli change to tasting like ice cream for the kids?

Because if brocolli evolved to taste good then humans and animals would eat these tasty brocolli in greater quantities and they would have a greater chance of getting killed and eaten and pass of their genes to the next generation.

When did the fruits get together to work out who would taste like what? and why? You know the "evolutionary phrase" if it tastes yucky it must be good for you!!!!!

No, this evolved through mutations.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 2:42:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2016 12:06:00 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/29/2016 11:21:13 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/29/2016 8:59:15 PM, distraff wrote:
At 5/29/2016 5:02:44 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/28/2016 12:34:37 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:33:57 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/28/2016 6:48:12 AM, VelCrow wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:33:33 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
Explanations, like lies, need other explanations or lies to keep them in the comment market.

In this discussion we have animals eating fruit, nuts and etc, which they have developed a taste for, as well as them being a necessary diet.

Now, does evolution have that very clever "creation trick" of evolving plants and fruits of various kinds, trees for birds and apes to live in, nuts and berries for the bears, underground roots and yams for the moles, flowers with suitable pollen for the pollinators , and have evolved a healthy, life sustaining habitat before the first animals is on the earth?

What if the first animal to appear, even if the habitat was there, bit into a fruit, and said "Yuck" and died of starvation?

Remember in all this, you evolutionists are talking about millions of years to evolve all this magical garden and its animal inhabitants. How would "Evolution Random Process" of animals know what would be nice to eat before those animals ever evolved?

Don't you think to create an environment where all life could live and be fully and healthily maintained before the animal appears is a bit much to ask of a chance evolutionary event? Come on People, be serious!!!!!

Would we expect those great foliage gulping dinosaurs to be delicately picking a cherry sized peach and going "Yum Yum, I only need another hundred pound or so of these for lunch?

It is no wonder that many humans believe in a creator, when we have the extraordinary acceptance that all the things happened by chance.

When is anyone going to explain "instinct" to me, as an evolutionary process.

Let me give you an example. Suppose there are 100 animals (lets call them X) living with plants that gives fruit (lets call the fruits Y). in the beginning, half of X like eating Y and half of X didnt like eating Y. Those that did not like eating Y had nothing else to eat and thus eventually dies of starvation. On the other hand, those X that like eating Y, had abundance of food and did not die of starvation and are more likely to pass their genes to the next generation of X. Eventually, you will find that the majority of population of X that still survives will like eating Y.

ME: Simple, that simple that you have animals and plants miraculously materializing together.

As usual. Creationist reads like the first line, dont even bother to understand the context, and find fault in taking things too literally.

ME: Well, VelCrow, your theory has become unzipped, I read the full content and you did not explain about the arrival of the sweet tasting fruit and the fussy animal. It is ridiculous to try to tell sensible people that , Just by Chance, these things happened. Evolutionary plants would have no reason to change, and if they did evolve into something else, it would only be by cross pollination, and that is another complicated story. Natural Selection would have nothing to do with it.

IMO the foliage was there, and the animals adapted to the plants, not the plants adapted to the animals preferred taste, that is too absurd to even consider comprehending.

The earth becoming a most suitable place for humans and animals, with a provision for food before the animals and humans arrived, is far too perfect for a Just by Chance happening from an origin of a nonconstructive big bangs and the Just by Chance arrival of the appropriate chemicals to make life in the primordial slime of your beginnings.

In creation, the first pair decided to be their own rulers, to live by their own standards and imaginings, Evolutionists are continuing that tradition.

I thought this was explained to you. Out taste buds were capable of tasting fruit and finding it tasty even before fruit existed just like our taste buds are capable of tasting cheese and finding it tasty long before cheese existed. We can taste cheese before it existed and find it good because out taste bugs are very complex and can create a massive variety of tastes depending on how the taste bugs are affected by the new food we are eating and determine if the taste is good even for tastes that have not been tasted yet.

It is very plausible that fruit evolved tastes that reacted well to our taste buds. Those fruit that tasted good were more likely to be picked and have their seed carried to another distant spot.

ME: Oh! Come on, you are reasonably sensible in your posts, why have you gone off the rails with this one. Fruit adapting to animal taste buds..So now fruit has an intelligence that will make itself change to something nice...I wish some of the posters here would be hit with that bit of magic.

Actually mutations are quite capable of changing the taste of fruit. In fact our scientists genetically modify fruit all the time to change their taste. Fruit that have mutations that make them taste good tend to be more likely to be picked and placed far from the tree. This allows a tree species to spread and not get crowded making them more likely to survive.

ME: Isn't the mutation theory discounted by most of t he sciences?

I would accept a creator knowing what would be good and what wouldn't to the animals of creation and providing that food before the animals, but your explanation takes much more faith than creation.

I don't have to prove this happened. Fruit don't fossilize very well. The OP was trying to say that it could not happen through evolution and I pointed out that his disproof was falsely claiming that the taste for fruit that we have requires fruit with that taste to exist.

I will put this one to you, no animal, before the flood, killed for meat. There were the early scavengers like T Rex, but he was not build to hunt, he was build with a massive appetite that could clean up the carcasses of dead animals, which when you think about it, is a very intelligent thing to have around.

We have many small fast killers like Velociraptors which have bodies built to kill and run fast. We also have plant eating dinosaurs with horns and hard shells to defend themselves against something.

We have crocodile-like dinosaurs and we know crocodiles are built to kill.

If there was a global flood where did the water go?

Most of the dinosaurs were herbivorous, and they were large, requiring large amounts of foliage to fill the big belly bins. Again intelligence, as the earth needed "Gardeners and tree loppers" to keep the foliage in check until man could take over with an increase in population.

If dinosaurs got killed off in the flood why don't we find dinosaurs with humans and large mammals?

Fruit adapting to animal taste buds??? Why didn't broccoli change to tasting like ice cream for the kids?

Because if brocolli evolved to taste good then humans and animals would eat these tasty brocolli in greater quantities and they would have a greater chance of getting killed and eaten and pass of their genes to the next generation.

When did the fruits get together to work out who would taste like what? and why? You know the "evolutionary phrase" if it tastes yucky it
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 3:02:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2016 4:57:48 AM, distraff wrote:
At 5/28/2016 4:44:10 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 5/27/2016 10:26:14 PM, distraff wrote:
At 5/27/2016 10:09:29 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/27/2016 6:53:52 PM, distraff wrote:
You misunderstand. The OP was trying to disprove evolution. We are simply pointing out that fruit and taste can be reasonably explained by evolution so it is not disproven. Of course it is not proven either.

The OP poses a question of possible "irreducible complexity", how to have yummy fruit and animals that like yummy fruit, at the same time, when one is no good without the other. The OP compounds this question by bringing up the diversity in flavors and animals which prefer various flavors.

An animal spreading plant seeds helps the plant, whether or not Evolution is true, and it doesn't really answer the OP.

Suppose a fruit developed flavor X, but there was no animal to like flavor X...

Animals detected what food was yummy or not long before fruit evolved to taste yummy.

Please elaborate.

Easy. Just look at animals today. Or just look at yourself. You eat a lot of non-fruits like meat, carrots, and sugar. Many of these things taste good.

ME: That is a bit far out, many things may taste god but I would eat them, snails, grubs, grasshoppers etc. IS that because my taste buds have not been catered for in the wonders of evolution. Also many things I just don't like the taste of, Chokos, squash are a couple.

You said that if animals liking a particular flavor came first that this could not have happened through natural selection.

Our sense of taste exists to encourage is to eat high energy food and avoid food with no nutritional value or is poisonous. That is why meat and sugar taste so good and roots and leaves are not appealing. So a sense of taste could have evolved because eating the right stuff improves your chances of survival.

ME: Doesn't that take intelligent thought? Surely you are not going to say it was a random act of evolution, or Just by Chance that the foliage decided it needed to attract the animals so that the animals would survive.

The Brown Bear has a diverse appetite and enjoys the salmon run for some of its flesh supplies. Did the salmon have to change how they taste so that the bears would like to eat them. This theorizing is not very sustainable.

Going back to a post, was it you that asked about dinosaurs dying out in the flood of Noah's time? I did not say that nor do I believe that, I believe that dinosaurs died out long before that, maybe before the first humans were created. Even if they were around with the early humans it gives more reason to believe that no dinosaur was a predator or the humans would have become the target as well. However, as I have said, there was a need for a scavenger to clean up the dead beasts that died of natural or accidental causes. I still believe that these animals would have been around for a long time, maybe even millions of years.

The Dinosaurs with the hard shield and horns may have been able to "burrow" its way in through vines and tangles to reach its preferred vegetation.

The scavenger has an important role in todays animal kingdom, and there are many such creatures to do that work. If you look at the vultures for instance, thee are about 30 species of these and the larger ones, the Condors can gulp a couple of pound of rotten flesh in one gulp.

T Rex has been described by the scientists as being one such scavenger. A really large, lazy, slow beast that had a big appetite in its clean up duties.

I wonder what the Komodo Dragon's taste buds are like?
VelCrow
Posts: 1,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 3:48:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/29/2016 5:02:44 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/28/2016 12:34:37 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:33:57 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/28/2016 6:48:12 AM, VelCrow wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:33:33 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
Explanations, like lies, need other explanations or lies to keep them in the comment market.

In this discussion we have animals eating fruit, nuts and etc, which they have developed a taste for, as well as them being a necessary diet.

Now, does evolution have that very clever "creation trick" of evolving plants and fruits of various kinds, trees for birds and apes to live in, nuts and berries for the bears, underground roots and yams for the moles, flowers with suitable pollen for the pollinators , and have evolved a healthy, life sustaining habitat before the first animals is on the earth?

What if the first animal to appear, even if the habitat was there, bit into a fruit, and said "Yuck" and died of starvation?

Remember in all this, you evolutionists are talking about millions of years to evolve all this magical garden and its animal inhabitants. How would "Evolution Random Process" of animals know what would be nice to eat before those animals ever evolved?

Don't you think to create an environment where all life could live and be fully and healthily maintained before the animal appears is a bit much to ask of a chance evolutionary event? Come on People, be serious!!!!!

Would we expect those great foliage gulping dinosaurs to be delicately picking a cherry sized peach and going "Yum Yum, I only need another hundred pound or so of these for lunch?

It is no wonder that many humans believe in a creator, when we have the extraordinary acceptance that all the things happened by chance.

When is anyone going to explain "instinct" to me, as an evolutionary process.

Let me give you an example. Suppose there are 100 animals (lets call them X) living with plants that gives fruit (lets call the fruits Y). in the beginning, half of X like eating Y and half of X didnt like eating Y. Those that did not like eating Y had nothing else to eat and thus eventually dies of starvation. On the other hand, those X that like eating Y, had abundance of food and did not die of starvation and are more likely to pass their genes to the next generation of X. Eventually, you will find that the majority of population of X that still survives will like eating Y.

ME: Simple, that simple that you have animals and plants miraculously materializing together.

As usual. Creationist reads like the first line, dont even bother to understand the context, and find fault in taking things too literally.

ME: Well, VelCrow, your theory has become unzipped, I read the full content and you did not explain about the arrival of the sweet tasting fruit and the fussy animal. It is ridiculous to try to tell sensible people that , Just by Chance, these things happened. Evolutionary plants would have no reason to change, and if they did evolve into something else, it would only be by cross pollination, and that is another complicated story. Natural Selection would have nothing to do with it.

IMO the foliage was there, and the animals adapted to the plants, not the plants adapted to the animals preferred taste, that is too absurd to even consider comprehending.

The earth becoming a most suitable place for humans and animals, with a provision for food before the animals and humans arrived, is far too perfect for a Just by Chance happening from an origin of a nonconstructive big bangs and the Just by Chance arrival of the appropriate chemicals to make life in the primordial slime of your beginnings.

In creation, the first pair decided to be their own rulers, to live by their own standards and imaginings, Evolutionists are continuing that tradition.

Owh god you can be so dense. You ask how animals can develop a liking for certain food/taste and I gave you an example of that. Dont get side tracked and dispute the example based on something completely unrelated. To put it into perspective this is what you sound like.

You : What is 2 + 2?

Me : Imagine you have 2 apples. And I give you another 2 apples. You now have 4 apples. So 2 + 2 = 4.

You : You did not explain where the apples come from. So it's ridiculous to try and tell people that 2 + 2 = 4.

That ^ is exactly how childish you sound like.

As for fruits evolving to be sweet tasting, my example works for that too.

Fruits that are sweet gets eaten more and their seeds get spread further where ever the animals drop them after eating the fruit. Fruits that arent so sweet that fall from the tree cant get as far and have to compete with the parent tree for nutrients and sunlight, thus making it more difficult to thrive and to flower.

I'm only using one plant and one animal in my example because it is an example. Obviously in the wild there are millions of different interactions between each individual organism with hundreds of different factors around them.

Also regarding your "Just by chance" comment, Im just gonna c/p this from the other thread.

Evolutionist : Evolution is a result of a random mutation in an organism that gives it a slight advantage in surviving, and thus by laws of natural selection passes on this trait to its offsprings where those with stronger mutation of particular traits are able to survive better and thus continue this cycle until said random mutation is no longer a minority in the species and is possess by a majority of the population. By laws of natural selection, those random mutations that gives disadvantage to the species makes it harder for them to die off and thus discontinue the genetic lineage.

Creationist listens to the first 8 words and spews "Evolution says we are here thanks to blind chance".

Great logic.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 6:22:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2016 3:48:33 AM, VelCrow wrote:
At 5/29/2016 5:02:44 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/28/2016 12:34:37 PM, VelCrow wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:33:57 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 5/28/2016 6:48:12 AM, VelCrow wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:33:33 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
Explanations, like lies, need other explanations or lies to keep them in the comment market.

In this discussion we have animals eating fruit, nuts and etc, which they have developed a taste for, as well as them being a necessary diet.

Now, does evolution have that very clever "creation trick" of evolving plants and fruits of various kinds, trees for birds and apes to live in, nuts and berries for the bears, underground roots and yams for the moles, flowers with suitable pollen for the pollinators , and have evolved a healthy, life sustaining habitat before the first animals is on the earth?

What if the first animal to appear, even if the habitat was there, bit into a fruit, and said "Yuck" and died of starvation?

Remember in all this, you evolutionists are talking about millions of years to evolve all this magical garden and its animal inhabitants. How would "Evolution Random Process" of animals know what would be nice to eat before those animals ever evolved?

Don't you think to create an environment where all life could live and be fully and healthily maintained before the animal appears is a bit much to ask of a chance evolutionary event? Come on People, be serious!!!!!

Would we expect those great foliage gulping dinosaurs to be delicately picking a cherry sized peach and going "Yum Yum, I only need another hundred pound or so of these for lunch?

It is no wonder that many humans believe in a creator, when we have the extraordinary acceptance that all the things happened by chance.

When is anyone going to explain "instinct" to me, as an evolutionary process.

Let me give you an example. Suppose there are 100 animals (lets call them X) living with plants that gives fruit (lets call the fruits Y). in the beginning, half of X like eating Y and half of X didnt like eating Y. Those that did not like eating Y had nothing else to eat and thus eventually dies of starvation. On the other hand, those X that like eating Y, had abundance of food and did not die of starvation and are more likely to pass their genes to the next generation of X. Eventually, you will find that the majority of population of X that still survives will like eating Y.

ME: Simple, that simple that you have animals and plants miraculously materializing together.

As usual. Creationist reads like the first line, dont even bother to understand the context, and find fault in taking things too literally.

ME: Well, VelCrow, your theory has become unzipped, I read the full content and you did not explain about the arrival of the sweet tasting fruit and the fussy animal. It is ridiculous to try to tell sensible people that , Just by Chance, these things happened. Evolutionary plants would have no reason to change, and if they did evolve into something else, it would only be by cross pollination, and that is another complicated story. Natural Selection would have nothing to do with it.

IMO the foliage was there, and the animals adapted to the plants, not the plants adapted to the animals preferred taste, that is too absurd to even consider comprehending.

The earth becoming a most suitable place for humans and animals, with a provision for food before the animals and humans arrived, is far too perfect for a Just by Chance happening from an origin of a nonconstructive big bangs and the Just by Chance arrival of the appropriate chemicals to make life in the primordial slime of your beginnings.

In creation, the first pair decided to be their own rulers, to live by their own standards and imaginings, Evolutionists are continuing that tradition.

Owh god you can be so dense. You ask how animals can develop a liking for certain food/taste and I gave you an example of that. Dont get side tracked and dispute the example based on something completely unrelated. To put it into perspective this is what you sound like.

ME: I did not debate animals liking certain tastes...II debated your inane concept that the plants changed to suit the animals taste buds. And who can't read?

You : What is 2 + 2?

Me : Imagine you have 2 apples. And I give you another 2 apples. You now have 4 apples. So 2 + 2 = 4.

You : You did not explain where the apples come from. So it's ridiculous to try and tell people that 2 + 2 = 4.

ME: And you reckon I'm dense...Who uses apples to count with...Maybe you meant the abacus. Don't get too excited fly buttons, I doubt if your numbers will get into the science books.


That ^ is exactly how childish you sound like. (Could do with a course in writing English, as well)

As for fruits evolving to be sweet tasting, my example works for that too.

Fruits that are sweet gets eaten more and their seeds get spread further where ever the animals drop them after eating the fruit. Fruits that arent so sweet that fall from the tree cant get as far and have to compete with the parent tree for nutrients and sunlight, thus making it more difficult to thrive and to flower.

ME: Your ancestors, the monkeys eat sweet fruits in trees and do their droppings from the same trees, so that shoots that story down the Poop hole. Also, are you trying to tell me that the plants knew this would happen, and thus became sweet for this very reason, or was it Just by Chance.

I'm only using one plant and one animal in my example because it is an example. Obviously in the wild there are millions of different interactions between each individual organism with hundreds of different factors around them.

ME: All occurring by chance???

Also regarding your "Just by chance" comment, Im just gonna c/p this from the other thread.

Evolutionist : Evolution is a result of a random mutation in an organism that gives it a slight advantage in surviving, and thus by laws of natural selection passes on this trait to its offsprings where those with stronger mutation of particular traits are able to survive better and thus continue this cycle until said random mutation is no longer a minority in the species and is possess by a majority of the population. By laws of natural selection, those random mutations that gives disadvantage to the species makes it harder for them to die off and thus discontinue the genetic lineage.

ME: Sounds like a script form a Micky Mouse cartoon. Mutation is a stand alone theory for the evolutionists.

Creationist listens to the first 8 words and spews "Evolution says we are here thanks to blind chance".

Great logic.

ME: That is what Evolutionist say...Greater logic. If the chance was blind or not I don't know, but the ones that believe all this Buck Rodgers Stuff sure are.

Big Bang out of nothing.. just by chance?

Millions of years pass and Just by chance a one cell bug appears in the primordial slime that appears, just by chance.

Bug has all the genetic make up of every living being and plant on the earth today and during the miraculous, just by chance, mutations and selection and survival of the fittest....Or not as yet explained Genetic Mechanics and men from space injected various living beings with more genes until they looked like Mr Levi. Just by chance.

Better logic that yours Crow!
Ramshutu
Posts: 5,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 2:47:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2016 6:22:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Creationist listens to the first 8 words and spews "Evolution says we are here thanks to blind chance".

Great logic.


ME: That is what Evolutionist say...Greater logic. If the chance was blind or not I don't know, but the ones that believe all this Buck Rodgers Stuff sure are.

Are the profits generated by Casino's, insurance companies created by "Chance?"
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2016 5:58:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/1/2016 2:47:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/30/2016 6:22:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Creationist listens to the first 8 words and spews "Evolution says we are here thanks to blind chance".

Great logic.


ME: That is what Evolutionist say...Greater logic. If the chance was blind or not I don't know, but the ones that believe all this Buck Rodgers Stuff sure are.

Are the profits generated by Casino's, insurance companies created by "Chance?"

ME: The Bible says something like : "Because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all.""Ecclesiastes 9:11.

Sorry to have to refer to the greatest Book ever written, but this is about luck, which there is no such thing. Casinos and Insurance companies compile a system where, if they apply enough circumstance then they will win....Not every time, but that is the name of the game...If someone has a big win then the Casino or the insurance company pays out and get a heap of praise. This is after taking billions of dollars of the poor punter before hand.

To apply this to evolution, as I presume you are, when did the "Circumstances" become established for anyone to have a win?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 3:46:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2016 5:58:05 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 6/1/2016 2:47:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/30/2016 6:22:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Creationist listens to the first 8 words and spews "Evolution says we are here thanks to blind chance".

Great logic.


ME: That is what Evolutionist say...Greater logic. If the chance was blind or not I don't know, but the ones that believe all this Buck Rodgers Stuff sure are.

Are the profits generated by Casino's, insurance companies created by "Chance?"

ME: The Bible says something like : "Because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all.""Ecclesiastes 9:11.

Sorry to have to refer to the greatest Book ever written,

There are far better books written than the Bible. They have to give it away for free just to get people to read it, yet most Christians still never do, anyways, even though it's free.

but this is about luck, which there is no such thing. Casinos and Insurance companies compile a system where, if they apply enough circumstance then they will win....Not every time, but that is the name of the game...If someone has a big win then the Casino or the insurance company pays out and get a heap of praise. This is after taking billions of dollars of the poor punter before hand.

To apply this to evolution, as I presume you are, when did the "Circumstances" become established for anyone to have a win?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Ramshutu
Posts: 5,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 9:20:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/4/2016 5:58:05 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 6/1/2016 2:47:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/30/2016 6:22:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Creationist listens to the first 8 words and spews "Evolution says we are here thanks to blind chance".

Great logic.


ME: That is what Evolutionist say...Greater logic. If the chance was blind or not I don't know, but the ones that believe all this Buck Rodgers Stuff sure are.

Are the profits generated by Casino's, insurance companies created by "Chance?"

ME: The Bible says something like : "Because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all.""Ecclesiastes 9:11.

Sorry to have to refer to the greatest Book ever written, but this is about luck, which there is no such thing. Casinos and Insurance companies compile a system where, if they apply enough circumstance then they will win....Not every time, but that is the name of the game...If someone has a big win then the Casino or the insurance company pays out and get a heap of praise. This is after taking billions of dollars of the poor punter before hand.

To apply this to evolution, as I presume you are, when did the "Circumstances" become established for anyone to have a win?

You're agreeing that casino's generate income through the outcome of random events; yet the profits casino's generate are not random because the system that they have set up is implicitly biased towards profit? Right?
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 4:53:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/6/2016 9:20:48 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/4/2016 5:58:05 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 6/1/2016 2:47:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/30/2016 6:22:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Creationist listens to the first 8 words and spews "Evolution says we are here thanks to blind chance".

Great logic.


ME: That is what Evolutionist say...Greater logic. If the chance was blind or not I don't know, but the ones that believe all this Buck Rodgers Stuff sure are.

Are the profits generated by Casino's, insurance companies created by "Chance?"

ME: The Bible says something like : "Because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all.""Ecclesiastes 9:11.

Sorry to have to refer to the greatest Book ever written, but this is about luck, which there is no such thing. Casinos and Insurance companies compile a system where, if they apply enough circumstance then they will win....Not every time, but that is the name of the game...If someone has a big win then the Casino or the insurance company pays out and get a heap of praise. This is after taking billions of dollars of the poor punter before hand.

To apply this to evolution, as I presume you are, when did the "Circumstances" become established for anyone to have a win?

You're agreeing that casino's generate income through the outcome of random events; yet the profits casino's generate are not random because the system that they have set up is implicitly biased towards profit? Right?

How does that relate to evolution? What is the casino that gives out life?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Ramshutu
Posts: 5,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 5:45:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2016 4:53:31 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 6/6/2016 9:20:48 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/4/2016 5:58:05 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 6/1/2016 2:47:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/30/2016 6:22:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Creationist listens to the first 8 words and spews "Evolution says we are here thanks to blind chance".

Great logic.


ME: That is what Evolutionist say...Greater logic. If the chance was blind or not I don't know, but the ones that believe all this Buck Rodgers Stuff sure are.

Are the profits generated by Casino's, insurance companies created by "Chance?"

ME: The Bible says something like : "Because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all.""Ecclesiastes 9:11.

Sorry to have to refer to the greatest Book ever written, but this is about luck, which there is no such thing. Casinos and Insurance companies compile a system where, if they apply enough circumstance then they will win....Not every time, but that is the name of the game...If someone has a big win then the Casino or the insurance company pays out and get a heap of praise. This is after taking billions of dollars of the poor punter before hand.

To apply this to evolution, as I presume you are, when did the "Circumstances" become established for anyone to have a win?

You're agreeing that casino's generate income through the outcome of random events; yet the profits casino's generate are not random because the system that they have set up is implicitly biased towards profit? Right?

How does that relate to evolution? What is the casino that gives out life?

Last time I checked, the person I was responding to (and from what I recall, yourself) vehemently believes, (completely incorrectly) that evolution requires "luck" or "is random".

This position, whether through a lack of understanding, or plain dishonesty boils down to a distortion about what chance actually is, what role it plays in, and how it relates to evolution.

In reality, evolution is the combined sum and resulting effect of random events: specifically mutations.

A casino's profits, in a similar way, are the combined sum and resulting effect of random events too: specifically the roll of a dice, turn of the card, and spin of wheels.

In order to break down your lack of understanding (or exposing your dishonesty or willful ignorance), is not to talk about evolution at the broad level; as it seems neither of you are willing to have any sort of intellectual discussion at this level; but to break your argument down to the fundamentals.

The first step in breaking down this lack of understanding (or exposing the dishonesty), is to simply provide a real life, understandable example that shows that just because some Macro-event is the combined sum and resulting effects of random micro-events, doesn't automatically mean that thing is itself random.

Given that I'm sure that you agree that a Casino's profits (The Macro-event) are not "random", even though the Casino's profits are themselves based on the product of random Micro-events, I'm sure we (and the person I was replying to), can move on to the next important aspect:

What property or aspect of the Macro-event that is the combined sum and resulting effects of random micro-events, makes it non random; and does evolution have it, or not?
v3nesl
Posts: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 9:16:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2016 5:45:34 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

Last time I checked, the person I was responding to (and from what I recall, yourself) vehemently believes, (completely incorrectly) that evolution requires "luck" or "is random".

This position, whether through a lack of understanding, or plain dishonesty boils down to a distortion about what chance actually is, what role it plays in, and how it relates to evolution.

In reality, evolution is the combined sum and resulting effect of random events: specifically mutations.

A casino's profits, in a similar way, are the combined sum and resulting effect of random events too: specifically the roll of a dice, turn of the card, and spin of wheels.

In order to break down your lack of understanding (or exposing your dishonesty or willful ignorance), is not to talk about evolution at the broad level; as it seems neither of you are willing to have any sort of intellectual discussion at this level; but to break your argument down to the fundamentals.


The first step in breaking down this lack of understanding (or exposing the dishonesty), is to simply provide a real life, understandable example that shows that just because some Macro-event is the combined sum and resulting effects of random micro-events, doesn't automatically mean that thing is itself random.

Given that I'm sure that you agree that a Casino's profits (The Macro-event) are not "random", even though the Casino's profits are themselves based on the product of random Micro-events, I'm sure we (and the person I was replying to), can move on to the next important aspect:

What property or aspect of the Macro-event that is the combined sum and resulting effects of random micro-events, makes it non random; and does evolution have it, or not?

So basically, evolution is not random, because it's a combination of random events, and casinos show us that combined random is not random.

I've missed the evo forum, lol.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 5,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 10:08:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2016 9:16:37 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/7/2016 5:45:34 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
...

Last time I checked, the person I was responding to (and from what I recall, yourself) vehemently believes, (completely incorrectly) that evolution requires "luck" or "is random".

This position, whether through a lack of understanding, or plain dishonesty boils down to a distortion about what chance actually is, what role it plays in, and how it relates to evolution.

In reality, evolution is the combined sum and resulting effect of random events: specifically mutations.

A casino's profits, in a similar way, are the combined sum and resulting effect of random events too: specifically the roll of a dice, turn of the card, and spin of wheels.

In order to break down your lack of understanding (or exposing your dishonesty or willful ignorance), is not to talk about evolution at the broad level; as it seems neither of you are willing to have any sort of intellectual discussion at this level; but to break your argument down to the fundamentals.


The first step in breaking down this lack of understanding (or exposing the dishonesty), is to simply provide a real life, understandable example that shows that just because some Macro-event is the combined sum and resulting effects of random micro-events, doesn't automatically mean that thing is itself random.

Given that I'm sure that you agree that a Casino's profits (The Macro-event) are not "random", even though the Casino's profits are themselves based on the product of random Micro-events, I'm sure we (and the person I was replying to), can move on to the next important aspect:

What property or aspect of the Macro-event that is the combined sum and resulting effects of random micro-events, makes it non random; and does evolution have it, or not?

So basically, evolution is not random, because it's a combination of random events, and casinos show us that combined random is not random.

I've missed the evo forum, lol.

I haven't got that far yet; you are extrapolating to insane conclusions based on an argument I am not making.

This is the first step, and it should be pretty clear:

Many systems, "Macro Events", and things that we can see around us are built up upon truly random occurrences, and yet themselves cannot be considered random: Insurance company profits, Casino's and others (many of which are natural).

If this is true (which it absolutely is), this means that just because the events that drive evolution does not necessarily mean that evolution is random; and that something else, in addition to it being based on random events can mean that a macro-event is either random or non random.

Or, to break it down:

P1 Some Macro-Events based on random events are Random;
P2 Evolution is a Macro-event based on random events.
C Evolution is random.

Is a formal fallacy.
Evidence
Posts: 1,558
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 10:28:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2016 2:21:29 PM, roun12 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 2:11:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
There are many types of fruits, various kinds of flavors.

Now, of course atheists nay evolutionists will cry - hey those flavors just had to happen, evolution is not planned.

But every plant has to face the NATURAL SELECTION .

Why is there variety in flavours, cause animals living in that particular area liked their tastes?

Which one happened first- animals liking a particular flavour or plants evolving to have those flavors ?

If the latter is true, it can NOT get through natural selection and if the prior is true..

the world is the work of a creator.


Fruits evolved to be tasty to animals so that the seeds have a better chance of survival. Seeds have a thick coating allowing them to pass through an animal's digestive tract. An animal eats the fruit (seeds included), wanders away, and poops out the seeds. The animal's dung acts like a natural fertilizer so that the seed can grow away from its parent tree. :

Ha, ha, ha, .. amazing, as if the dumb mindless purposeless animal would not eat that only existing ONE fruit that smelled and tasted like sht!? After all as you said it poops it out anyways, so it all turns to sht.

So why the neat and beautiful flavors, colors, texture, some soft like a banana, and some nice and crunchy like an apple, .. I guess it's all "planned" out for a better chance for survival, right?

Boy, I tell you that Mother Nature is the smartest person in existence, plans everything out by her careful, intelligently designed selections and her care for the "survival" of her species! Hmm, .. as if Evolutionists were trying to replace our Creator God with this mother of all gods Mother Nature?? Some worship her as "Mother Mary", and she has thousands of other names too, ..

Naaw, I guess not, .. that's silly and very unscientific to even say that, right?

Here is how it happened Evidence, no I.D. necessary!:

13.75 billion Carl Sagan years ago there was "speck" now named "quantum boson", it exploded with a Big Bang and naturally creating the universe, and Earth and a single celled bacteria, .. and Fruit trees evolved to be tasty to animals so that the seeds have a better chance of survival. Seeds have a thick coating allowing them to pass through an animal's digestive tract. An animal eats the fruit (seeds included), wanders away, and poops out the seeds. The animal's dung acts like a natural fertilizer so that the seed can grow away from its parent tree., .. all by accident and a lot of purposeless "selection", .. millions and billions of careful "selections" that had neither the Fruit-trees, nor the animals in mind, you know, , .. selection, the purposeless kind, .. like when us human mindless animal apes go to that local grocery store that evolved within this 13.75 billion years of purposeless evolution, and "select" the fruit we like, all by chance, so we could unknowingly, without purpose or plan, from instinct poop out the seeds for the survival of the Fruit Trees. LOL.

It's all evolution, .. purposeless selection for the survival of biological life, it is what it is, it's not as if "some God carefully, intelligently planned and designed all this, .. sht just happens when things Big-bang in nothing. So stupid to add: "God did it", .. "God chose and selected it", .. no need because we purposeless humans intelligently planned and designed an alternate story to "God did it".

Sure the story is unscientific, dumb and childish, but once you come to believe that you are a genderless, mindless evolving ape who has no purpose in life but a driven purposeless instinct to exist, this too will make sense to you.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 12:14:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2016 10:28:34 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 5/25/2016 2:21:29 PM, roun12 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 2:11:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
There are many types of fruits, various kinds of flavors.

Now, of course atheists nay evolutionists will cry - hey those flavors just had to happen, evolution is not planned.

But every plant has to face the NATURAL SELECTION .

Why is there variety in flavours, cause animals living in that particular area liked their tastes?

Which one happened first- animals liking a particular flavour or plants evolving to have those flavors ?

If the latter is true, it can NOT get through natural selection and if the prior is true..

the world is the work of a creator.


Fruits evolved to be tasty to animals so that the seeds have a better chance of survival. Seeds have a thick coating allowing them to pass through an animal's digestive tract. An animal eats the fruit (seeds included), wanders away, and poops out the seeds. The animal's dung acts like a natural fertilizer so that the seed can grow away from its parent tree. :

Ha, ha, ha, .. amazing, as if the dumb mindless purposeless animal would not eat that only existing ONE fruit that smelled and tasted like sht!? After all as you said it poops it out anyways, so it all turns to sht.

So why the neat and beautiful flavors, colors, texture, some soft like a banana, and some nice and crunchy like an apple, .. I guess it's all "planned" out for a better chance for survival, right?

Boy, I tell you that Mother Nature is the smartest person in existence, plans everything out by her careful, intelligently designed selections and her care for the "survival" of her species! Hmm, .. as if Evolutionists were trying to replace our Creator God with this mother of all gods Mother Nature?? Some worship her as "Mother Mary", and she has thousands of other names too, ..

Naaw, I guess not, .. that's silly and very unscientific to even say that, right?

Here is how it happened Evidence, no I.D. necessary!:

13.75 billion Carl Sagan years ago there was "speck" now named "quantum boson", it exploded with a Big Bang and naturally creating the universe, and Earth and a single celled bacteria, .. and Fruit trees evolved to be tasty to animals so that the seeds have a better chance of survival. Seeds have a thick coating allowing them to pass through an animal's digestive tract. An animal eats the fruit (seeds included), wanders away, and poops out the seeds. The animal's dung acts like a natural fertilizer so that the seed can grow away from its parent tree., .. all by accident and a lot of purposeless "selection", .. millions and billions of careful "selections" that had neither the Fruit-trees, nor the animals in mind, you know, , .. selection, the purposeless kind, .. like when us human mindless animal apes go to that local grocery store that evolved within this 13.75 billion years of purposeless evolution, and "select" the fruit we like, all by chance, so we could unknowingly, without purpose or plan, from instinct poop out the seeds for the survival of the Fruit Trees. LOL.

It's all evolution, .. purposeless selection for the survival of biological life, it is what it is, it's not as if "some God carefully, intelligently planned and designed all this, .. sht just happens when things Big-bang in nothing. So stupid to add: "God did it", .. "God chose and selected it", .. no need because we purposeless humans intelligently planned and designed an alternate story to "God did it".

Sure the story is unscientific, dumb and childish, but once you come to believe that you are a genderless, mindless evolving ape who has no purpose in life but a driven purposeless instinct to exist, this too will make sense to you.

Ah, I see you've still learned nothing and are as ignorant as ever.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Evidence
Posts: 1,558
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:26:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2016 12:14:23 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/7/2016 10:28:34 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 5/25/2016 2:21:29 PM, roun12 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 2:11:20 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
There are many types of fruits, various kinds of flavors.

Now, of course atheists nay evolutionists will cry - hey those flavors just had to happen, evolution is not planned.

But every plant has to face the NATURAL SELECTION .

Why is there variety in flavours, cause animals living in that particular area liked their tastes?

Which one happened first- animals liking a particular flavour or plants evolving to have those flavors ?

If the latter is true, it can NOT get through natural selection and if the prior is true..

the world is the work of a creator.


Fruits evolved to be tasty to animals so that the seeds have a better chance of survival. Seeds have a thick coating allowing them to pass through an animal's digestive tract. An animal eats the fruit (seeds included), wanders away, and poops out the seeds. The animal's dung acts like a natural fertilizer so that the seed can grow away from its parent tree. :

Ha, ha, ha, .. amazing, as if the dumb mindless purposeless animal would not eat that only existing ONE fruit that smelled and tasted like sht!? After all as you said it poops it out anyways, so it all turns to sht.

So why the neat and beautiful flavors, colors, texture, some soft like a banana, and some nice and crunchy like an apple, .. I guess it's all "planned" out for a better chance for survival, right?

Boy, I tell you that Mother Nature is the smartest person in existence, plans everything out by her careful, intelligently designed selections and her care for the "survival" of her species! Hmm, .. as if Evolutionists were trying to replace our Creator God with this mother of all gods Mother Nature?? Some worship her as "Mother Mary", and she has thousands of other names too, ..

Naaw, I guess not, .. that's silly and very unscientific to even say that, right?

Here is how it happened Evidence, no I.D. necessary!:

13.75 billion Carl Sagan years ago there was "speck" now named "quantum boson", it exploded with a Big Bang and naturally creating the universe, and Earth and a single celled bacteria, .. and Fruit trees evolved to be tasty to animals so that the seeds have a better chance of survival. Seeds have a thick coating allowing them to pass through an animal's digestive tract. An animal eats the fruit (seeds included), wanders away, and poops out the seeds. The animal's dung acts like a natural fertilizer so that the seed can grow away from its parent tree., .. all by accident and a lot of purposeless "selection", .. millions and billions of careful "selections" that had neither the Fruit-trees, nor the animals in mind, you know, , .. selection, the purposeless kind, .. like when us human mindless animal apes go to that local grocery store that evolved within this 13.75 billion years of purposeless evolution, and "select" the fruit we like, all by chance, so we could unknowingly, without purpose or plan, from instinct poop out the seeds for the survival of the Fruit Trees. LOL.

It's all evolution, .. purposeless selection for the survival of biological life, it is what it is, it's not as if "some God carefully, intelligently planned and designed all this, .. sht just happens when things Big-bang in nothing. So stupid to add: "God did it", .. "God chose and selected it", .. no need because we purposeless humans intelligently planned and designed an alternate story to "God did it".

Sure the story is unscientific, dumb and childish, but once you come to believe that you are a genderless, mindless evolving ape who has no purpose in life but a driven purposeless instinct to exist, this too will make sense to you.

Ah, I see you've still learned nothing and are as ignorant as ever. :

Hi DanneJeRusse, been a while ay buddy?

Yep, ignorant, that's me, here to see what I can learn, ..why? Have you learned something new yet, like explain to me how a purposeless unplanned evolution that did not have any animal survival in mind can understand good and select THAT all for the purpose of "survival"? I mean this is NOT throwing a dice, this is careful planning and going out of ones way to implement what is good, until in time you can see the drastic improvements. That's what the word Evolution even means, gradual improvement, .. only without a purpose, .. hmm, can you explain that to me?

The world is full of life, you pick up a handful of dirt and you can see that, is it possible to fill the earth with life from a careless nature that wouldn't care if the animals ate poisoned fruit only and they all mutated to death, or that she just vanished back into the redshift and Big-Crunched back to the nothing she came from?

Just as Lawrence Krauss asked: "Why is there something rather than nothing?", .. so I ask: "Why is the earth so full of life instead of desolate like the gazillions of planets/stars out there?"

Isn't it the same Mother nature that evolves life from a wet-rock, then "selects" for the purpose of survival on Earth the same Mother Nature of Mars?

Hey, nice to see your one-liners again buddy, hope all is well with you and family. God bless.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 4:24:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2016 5:45:34 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/7/2016 4:53:31 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 6/6/2016 9:20:48 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/4/2016 5:58:05 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 6/1/2016 2:47:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/30/2016 6:22:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Creationist listens to the first 8 words and spews "Evolution says we are here thanks to blind chance".

Great logic.


ME: That is what Evolutionist say...Greater logic. If the chance was blind or not I don't know, but the ones that believe all this Buck Rodgers Stuff sure are.

Are the profits generated by Casino's, insurance companies created by "Chance?"

ME: The Bible says something like : "Because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all.""Ecclesiastes 9:11.

Sorry to have to refer to the greatest Book ever written, but this is about luck, which there is no such thing. Casinos and Insurance companies compile a system where, if they apply enough circumstance then they will win....Not every time, but that is the name of the game...If someone has a big win then the Casino or the insurance company pays out and get a heap of praise. This is after taking billions of dollars of the poor punter before hand.

To apply this to evolution, as I presume you are, when did the "Circumstances" become established for anyone to have a win?

You're agreeing that casino's generate income through the outcome of random events; yet the profits casino's generate are not random because the system that they have set up is implicitly biased towards profit? Right?

How does that relate to evolution? What is the casino that gives out life?

Last time I checked, the person I was responding to (and from what I recall, yourself) vehemently believes, (completely incorrectly) that evolution requires "luck" or "is random".

This position, whether through a lack of understanding, or plain dishonesty boils down to a distortion about what chance actually is, what role it plays in, and how it relates to evolution.

In reality, evolution is the combined sum and resulting effect of random events: specifically mutations.

A casino's profits, in a similar way, are the combined sum and resulting effect of random events too: specifically the roll of a dice, turn of the card, and spin of wheels.

In order to break down your lack of understanding (or exposing your dishonesty or willful ignorance), is not to talk about evolution at the broad level; as it seems neither of you are willing to have any sort of intellectual discussion at this level; but to break your argument down to the fundamentals.


The first step in breaking down this lack of understanding (or exposing the dishonesty), is to simply provide a real life, understandable example that shows that just because some Macro-event is the combined sum and resulting effects of random micro-events, doesn't automatically mean that thing is itself random.

Given that I'm sure that you agree that a Casino's profits (The Macro-event) are not "random", even though the Casino's profits are themselves based on the product of random Micro-events, I'm sure we (and the person I was replying to), can move on to the next important aspect:

What property or aspect of the Macro-event that is the combined sum and resulting effects of random micro-events, makes it non random; and does evolution have it, or not?

Sum of randomness is always random.

Irony is, randomness requires a non random machine.

What is the casino that gives life on this planet ?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Ramshutu
Posts: 5,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 8:53:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2016 4:24:50 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 6/7/2016 5:45:34 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/7/2016 4:53:31 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 6/6/2016 9:20:48 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/4/2016 5:58:05 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 6/1/2016 2:47:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/30/2016 6:22:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Creationist listens to the first 8 words and spews "Evolution says we are here thanks to blind chance".

Great logic.


ME: That is what Evolutionist say...Greater logic. If the chance was blind or not I don't know, but the ones that believe all this Buck Rodgers Stuff sure are.

Are the profits generated by Casino's, insurance companies created by "Chance?"

ME: The Bible says something like : "Because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all.""Ecclesiastes 9:11.

Sorry to have to refer to the greatest Book ever written, but this is about luck, which there is no such thing. Casinos and Insurance companies compile a system where, if they apply enough circumstance then they will win....Not every time, but that is the name of the game...If someone has a big win then the Casino or the insurance company pays out and get a heap of praise. This is after taking billions of dollars of the poor punter before hand.

To apply this to evolution, as I presume you are, when did the "Circumstances" become established for anyone to have a win?

You're agreeing that casino's generate income through the outcome of random events; yet the profits casino's generate are not random because the system that they have set up is implicitly biased towards profit? Right?

How does that relate to evolution? What is the casino that gives out life?

Last time I checked, the person I was responding to (and from what I recall, yourself) vehemently believes, (completely incorrectly) that evolution requires "luck" or "is random".

This position, whether through a lack of understanding, or plain dishonesty boils down to a distortion about what chance actually is, what role it plays in, and how it relates to evolution.

In reality, evolution is the combined sum and resulting effect of random events: specifically mutations.

A casino's profits, in a similar way, are the combined sum and resulting effect of random events too: specifically the roll of a dice, turn of the card, and spin of wheels.

In order to break down your lack of understanding (or exposing your dishonesty or willful ignorance), is not to talk about evolution at the broad level; as it seems neither of you are willing to have any sort of intellectual discussion at this level; but to break your argument down to the fundamentals.


The first step in breaking down this lack of understanding (or exposing the dishonesty), is to simply provide a real life, understandable example that shows that just because some Macro-event is the combined sum and resulting effects of random micro-events, doesn't automatically mean that thing is itself random.

Given that I'm sure that you agree that a Casino's profits (The Macro-event) are not "random", even though the Casino's profits are themselves based on the product of random Micro-events, I'm sure we (and the person I was replying to), can move on to the next important aspect:

What property or aspect of the Macro-event that is the combined sum and resulting effects of random micro-events, makes it non random; and does evolution have it, or not?

Sum of randomness is always random.

Not only does my example demonstrate this is untrue; but all of reality also demonstrates this is untrue.

The entire underpinning of thermodynamics, and quantum theory, probability and statistics in general are all based on the premise that the sum of randomness can provide predictable behavior.

Sure, a dice roll is random, but roll the dice a million times, and I can most assuredly predict within small margins of errors the differences between the number of 6's that come up, and the number of 1's that come up.

Irony is, randomness requires a non random machine.

No it doesn't.

What is the casino that gives life on this planet ?

I don't think you understand the argument I'm making, as this question implies you have no clue what I'm comparing, and how I'm comparing it.
v3nesl
Posts: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 11:45:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2016 8:53:35 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/8/2016 4:24:50 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:


Sum of randomness is always random.

Not only does my example demonstrate this is untrue; but all of reality also demonstrates this is untrue.

The entire underpinning of thermodynamics, and quantum theory, probability and statistics in general are all based on the premise that the sum of randomness can provide predictable behavior.


That's true - statistically predictable. But it's still random. This may be a purely semantics problem here, I'm not sure. The thing to be clear about is that random never means 'un-caused'. Random can mean unintentional and/or noisy. It doesn't mean the cause and effect physics are suspended.

And the other point Raz is making, I think - random is only predictable when filtered through known filters. A penny is 50/50 heads/tails only because it has two roughly equal faces. It's the shape of the coin that provides the predictable outcomes.
This space for rent.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 4:09:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, Once upon a time, in a time that did not exist, as it had not randomly had the time to become time and so remained timeless, but no one could call it timeless as no one knew what time was anyway, and of course, there was no no one. Sorry...There was no anyone...NA! that don't sound rite, how about anyone that was wasn't...Yeah that's it.

However, and not withstanding, time did become evolved and involved with the evolving of time, but it was backwards, as we can only go back to the end of no time to when time began. There is no evidence, randomly, survival of the time machine or a mutated version of something that was not time when time wasn't.

At this time, or the end of no time, instantly a whopping big boom went off, and in no time, which was now time as time had started from the big bang thingo, and before that there was nothing but something as there was never nothing as well.

Having said that , let me say this...I am now prepared to iterate that from all this, everything became timeless as it was all blown apart in the Big Bang.

I would explain more, but I haven't got the time!!!!!
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 6:32:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2016 8:53:35 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/8/2016 4:24:50 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 6/7/2016 5:45:34 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/7/2016 4:53:31 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 6/6/2016 9:20:48 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/4/2016 5:58:05 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 6/1/2016 2:47:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 5/30/2016 6:22:47 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
Creationist listens to the first 8 words and spews "Evolution says we are here thanks to blind chance".

Great logic.


ME: That is what Evolutionist say...Greater logic. If the chance was blind or not I don't know, but the ones that believe all this Buck Rodgers Stuff sure are.

Are the profits generated by Casino's, insurance companies created by "Chance?"

ME: The Bible says something like : "Because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all.""Ecclesiastes 9:11.

Sorry to have to refer to the greatest Book ever written, but this is about luck, which there is no such thing. Casinos and Insurance companies compile a system where, if they apply enough circumstance then they will win....Not every time, but that is the name of the game...If someone has a big win then the Casino or the insurance company pays out and get a heap of praise. This is after taking billions of dollars of the poor punter before hand.

To apply this to evolution, as I presume you are, when did the "Circumstances" become established for anyone to have a win?

You're agreeing that casino's generate income through the outcome of random events; yet the profits casino's generate are not random because the system that they have set up is implicitly biased towards profit? Right?

How does that relate to evolution? What is the casino that gives out life?

Last time I checked, the person I was responding to (and from what I recall, yourself) vehemently believes, (completely incorrectly) that evolution requires "luck" or "is random".

This position, whether through a lack of understanding, or plain dishonesty boils down to a distortion about what chance actually is, what role it plays in, and how it relates to evolution.

In reality, evolution is the combined sum and resulting effect of random events: specifically mutations.

A casino's profits, in a similar way, are the combined sum and resulting effect of random events too: specifically the roll of a dice, turn of the card, and spin of wheels.

In order to break down your lack of understanding (or exposing your dishonesty or willful ignorance), is not to talk about evolution at the broad level; as it seems neither of you are willing to have any sort of intellectual discussion at this level; but to break your argument down to the fundamentals.


The first step in breaking down this lack of understanding (or exposing the dishonesty), is to simply provide a real life, understandable example that shows that just because some Macro-event is the combined sum and resulting effects of random micro-events, doesn't automatically mean that thing is itself random.

Given that I'm sure that you agree that a Casino's profits (The Macro-event) are not "random", even though the Casino's profits are themselves based on the product of random Micro-events, I'm sure we (and the person I was replying to), can move on to the next important aspect:

What property or aspect of the Macro-event that is the combined sum and resulting effects of random micro-events, makes it non random; and does evolution have it, or not?

Sum of randomness is always random.

Not only does my example demonstrate this is untrue; but all of reality also demonstrates this is untrue.

The entire underpinning of thermodynamics, and quantum theory, probability and statistics in general are all based on the premise that the sum of randomness can provide predictable behavior.

Sure, a dice roll is random, but roll the dice a million times, and I can most assuredly predict within small margins of errors the differences between the number of 6's that come up, and the number of 1's that come up.

A dice roll itself is not random, it gives out random results.

Sum of random is always random.

Sum of random with limited possibilities is also random.

If not random, what is 'small margins' underlined above.

Irony is, randomness requires a non random machine.

No it doesn't.

What is the casino that gives life on this planet ?

I don't think you understand the argument I'm making, as this question implies you have no clue what I'm comparing, and how I'm comparing it.

Third time, what is the casino in your analogy that gives out life?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 6:56:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
A naturally occuring mango is (not genetically modified) is perfect.

A little more sugary and the taste is ruined.

The taste, aroma and nutritional values -- everything is perfectly balanced.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2016 8:46:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/9/2016 6:56:45 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
A naturally occuring mango is (not genetically modified) is perfect.

A little more sugary and the taste is ruined.

The taste, aroma and nutritional values -- everything is perfectly balanced.

Maybe according to you. Not everyone likes mangos.