{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/1/2015 9:37:28 PM
475
Evolution is often called a "mechanism" of nature (that's how I was told in school anyways). So let's compare it to a mechanical watch. Just for fun. Take a mechanical watch apart, put all its pieces in a box, and shake that box. No matter how long or how many tines you shake that box, the watch will never come out put together and functioning properly. Is there a chance? Sure, as the basic principle of probability is that there is [i]always[/i] a chance. But the chances are so small that its basically impossible. Same with evolution. Is there a chance? Sure. There's also technically a chance I'll grow wings in 10 seconds and fly away. But the chances are so small that its basically impossible.
Just a thought.
English
-
Yeah, I understand. But in terms of evolution he is making a judgement of the it's of it occurring, but with no data to back it up. Considering the amount of times life has replicated on this planet (countless?) it has a massive impact on his claims.
-
The watch analogy, or the tornado in a junkyard analogy, are terrible. But since we're playing, putting it out there that there's a tiny miniscule chance of evolution happening means it's possible. Even a one in a trillion chance means possible, not impossible.
-
What does entropy have to do with evolution?
-
Not much beyond the need for things to eat/drink/photosynthesize etc
-
Here's how life likely began. In the primordial oceans, little amino acid molecules were drifting around. Whenever UV radiation energised the molecules, some stuck together. Most conglomerations were useless. A rare few could self-replicate. These were the first life forms. As they replicated, they occasionally obtained or lost base pairs. This is how information was introduced. Most was noise. Most of the rest did nothing or tore the molecule apart. A rare few added helpful traits. Thus, no need for design. And given the sheer number of molecules on Earth, helpful mutations happened quite often. Try to refute me. And no biblical citations either.
-
[quote]Try to refute me. And no biblical citations either.[/quote] I love how people like you say things like this. What if I told you you couldn't use any evolutionist material as reference? That'd be unfair wouldnt it? Well here, enjoy a mute.
-
Edited by Kilo Bacón: 5/22/2015 3:33:49 PMBecause the biblical citations are part of a book that essentially says,"God is the one true god, and everything in this book is true because it says so in this book." It can't change. That story remains the same no matter what is discovered, whereas theories like evolution are subject to change as more evidence is found, and if enough evidence is found to support the contrary, the theory would be thrown out the window. It isn't about unfair, it is about evidence (that is more than just a book proclaiming itself to be true) to back up a claim
-
There's a difference between established science and grand statements made by some ignorant nomads 2500 years ago. Which one has a solid foundation and actual evidence? Hint: it's not the ramblings of hallucinating desert dwellers.
-
[quote]There's also technically a chance I'll grow wings in 10 seconds and fly away[/quote]Da hell? No, that's completely wrong.
-
Nope. There is always a possibility for anything sir. Anything that is Probable must by definition be Possible; However, not everything that is Possible is going to be Probable. Ever heard of the Infinite Monkey Theorem? Here's a little explanation compliments of Google. [spoiler] The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. The probability of a universe full of monkeys typing a complete work such as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is extremely low (but technically not zero). There is less than a one in a trillion chance of success that such a universe made of monkeys could type any particular document a mere 79 characters long. [/spoiler]
-
There is a possibility given the right circumstances. You can't just grow wings and fly away in such a sporadic manner. I'm just saying that such an analogy is wrong.
-
[quote]There is a possibility given the right circumstances. [/quote] My point exactly. Evolutionists refuse to believe that there is a possibility that they could be wrong. [quote]You can't just grow wings and fly away in such a sporadic manner.[/quote] This is where you contradict yourself, because there is indeed the possibility it could happen. Not probable, but still possible.
-
That's ridiculous. Just because you can conceive of something, doesn't make it possible. I can conceive of Michael Jackson appearing in front of you. That doesn't make it [i]incredibly unlikely [/i]that Michael Jackson would appear in front of you; it's still impossible.
-
Edited by Lander: 5/18/2015 5:44:46 PMHe has a point, the chance could well be >0.00000001% but it exists nonetheless However, I would counter that the probability of a deity being formed from nothing, immediately possessing the thought and will and capability and imagination and the power to create the entirety of the universe from nothing, while simultaneously devising every law of nature and physics known to man (along with many more that aren't) is even lower than that of the Big Bang. After all, if you put a bunch of watch parts into an empty box, seal it off, and then shake it about, the chances are looking pretty slim that a deity would materialise inside the box with the knowledge and means to assemble the watch together perfectly
-
I know right.
-
This is a truly awful analogy, but even if it weren't, you'd have to deal with the following: Firstly you claimed the watch analogy was incredibly unlikely, then you went on to imply it was impossible [i]because[/i] it was unlikely. Anyone should be able to see the inconsistency (and flagrant dishonesty) there. Given enough time, the unlikely becomes almost inevitable. For example I might not have much chance of winning the lottery on any given week, but after a billion years I would be unlucky if it hadn't happened several times. And so we come to this old analogy. We take all the parts from the watch and shake them around in the box. They do not fit together correctly. Then we repeat the experiment with millions of watches in boxes at a time (representing the amount of breeding animals of whatever species) and repeat that experiment for 4.5 billion years. Can you still confidently claim that it wouldn't ever produce a watch? To be honest I don't really see how this could represent evolution anyway. It seems it would draw a better parallel with abiogenesis (the origin of life), not evolution (the mechanism that gave us the diversity of life). But I didn't choose it so it's not my problem I guess. Now I fully expect to be muted, as that seems to be your general response to anything you can't dispute, but I thought it was worth trying to explain it to you.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/17/2015 8:18:19 PMThat assumed, inevitable outcome is most likely impossible because it is always easier to submit to entropy than it is to submit to order and specific complexity.
-
Edited by Stickman Al: 5/18/2015 8:40:54 AMI fail to see your point [b]again[/b].
-
Do you understand that all closed systems are in a state of leading toward entropy?
-
Yes. What is the closed system you're thinking of?
-
The universe. Do you understand that everything tangible by any of our senses are finite?
-
Prove the universe is a closed system. And what on earth did that last bit even mean?
-
The universe isn't infinite by conventional laws of dimensional relation There are 3 dimensions (4 if you count time) so the universe can't infinitely extend in any of the three
-
There's actually something close to 12 dimensions we just can't comprehend anything past 4
-
In the beginning, there was a stack of dominos. The End. New Version: Do you understand that everything is finite?
