30 May 06
Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything mindbogglingly Functionally complex could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Functional complexity is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
-- with apologies to Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p. 50
31 May 06
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeHave you seen anything on its own accord without any preprogramming,
Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything mindbogglingly Functionally complex could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and withou ...[text shortened]... to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p. 50
become more and more complex while performing more and more
various and sundry functions that were not being done before?
I know the believers in evolution like to say “life” is an example of
that, but in my life time the DNA of life, has been pretty much
programmed as far back as recorded history goes, and since life
is the normal topic of dispute when it comes to something getting
more and more functionally complex, to use life would be circular
in one's logic.
Kelly
31 May 06
Originally posted by KellyJayTherefore god does not exits QED
Have you seen anything on its own accord without any preprogramming,
become more and more complex while performing more and more
various and sundry functions that were not being done before?
I know the believers in evolution like to say “life” is an example of
that, but in my life time the DNA of life, has been pretty much
programmed as far back as r ...[text shortened]... ting
more and more functionally complex, to use life would be circular
in one's logic.
Kelly
31 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayFirst define:
Have you seen anything on its own accord without any preprogramming,
become more and more complex while performing more and more
various and sundry functions that were not being done before?
I know the believers in evolution like to say “life” is an example of
that, but in my life time the DNA of life, has been pretty much
programmed as far back as r ...[text shortened]... ting
more and more functionally complex, to use life would be circular
in one's logic.
Kelly
'on its own accord'
'more and more complex'
'functions'
'without any preprogramming'
If use thier meanings in common english then:
Nonlife examples:
A river changing its course.
On average half of the earths surface. (or coplexity would dissapear and we would all be in a sea of mud.)
A volcano erupting.
A nuclear reaction.
A chemical reaction.
A virus evolving. (This can be shown to take place within days for some virus'😉
Life examples:
life evolving. And yes this has taken place within your lifetime dispite your claims to the contrary. I have observed it myself. And what exactly is circular about life as an example? It would only be circular logic if you claimed that there were no examples and therefore life cannot be an example.
Computer programs that demonstrate evolution. No the evolution itself is not preprogrammed!
It all comes back to what you mean by complexity and functionality and of course - preprogramming. We could almost claim that the whole universe is preprogrammed and therefore everything we see is merely a direct consequence of that. I dont think physics has ruled on that one yet.
[edit]
And before repeating your claims again please explain why you are not happy with my examples.
31 May 06
Originally posted by KellyJayAn avatar weighing in at a quarter of a megabyte? Quite the achievement. There's a reason people don't use bmps.
Have you seen anything on its own accord without any preprogramming,
become more and more complex while performing more and more
various and sundry functions that were not being done before?
I know the believers in evolution like to say “life” is an example of
that, but in my life time the DNA of life, has been pretty much
programmed as far back as r ...[text shortened]... ting
more and more functionally complex, to use life would be circular
in one's logic.
Kelly
31 May 06
Originally posted by KellyJayThe sun. Unless you don't count Helium as more "functionally complex" then Hydrogen.
Have you seen anything on its own accord without any preprogramming,
become more and more complex while performing more and more
various and sundry functions that were not being done before?
I know the believers in evolution like to say “life” is an example of
that, but in my life time the DNA of life, has been pretty much
programmed as far back as r ...[text shortened]... ting
more and more functionally complex, to use life would be circular
in one's logic.
Kelly
31 May 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadAt some point in time, we can start at an agreed point where life
First define:
'on its own accord'
'more and more complex'
'functions'
'without any preprogramming'
If use thier meanings in common english then:
Nonlife examples:
A river changing its course.
On average half of the earths surface. (or coplexity would dissapear and we would all be in a sea of mud.)
A volcano erupting.
A nuclear reaction.
A chemi ...[text shortened]... fore repeating your claims again please explain why you are not happy with my examples.
was supposedly at it earliest stages, say a single cell, and getting
to a cell is really quite a leap too. From that point in time we look
at all the changes that evolutionist believe occurred in DNA for
the development of eyes, brains, blood, male and female sexes,
and so on and having each of these new things work together. Each
of those has several layers of complexity associated with them, as
they add more functions to the system too. Outside of the belief of
evolutionist everywhere this is not done anywhere else within the
universe, and even evolutionist can only make this claim and make
the claim that it can only be seen if one lives billions of years.
There are a lot of true believers in evolution.
Kelly
31 May 06
The mutation that amazes me the most is the one where the flower, the nectar and the bee must have worked it all out at around the same time.
I'm happy with a non-nectar collecting bee that discovered it quite liked collecting nectar when it arrived and the the non-flowering nectar which didn't collect as many bees as the flowering one but when you just look at the results, it's quite amazing.
31 May 06
Originally posted by KellyJayAnswer me Kelly. Is the sun not becoming more "functionally complex"? Hydrogen is being converted to heavier atoms, surely more complex. I cannot believe that you would say that the sun is not functional.
At some point in time, we can start at an agreed point where life
was supposedly at it earliest stages, say a single cell, and getting
to a cell is really quite a leap too. From that point in time we look
at all the changes that evolutionist believe occurred in DNA for
the development of eyes, brains, blood, male and female sexes,
and so on and having ...[text shortened]... be seen if one lives billions of years.
There are a lot of true believers in evolution.
Kelly
31 May 06
Originally posted by WheelyInsects have been around for 300 million years, give or take. Flowers only about 120 million years. Probably what evolved was a "leaky" plant. It'd have an immediate evolutionary advantage if insects were more likely to visit it (and hence spread its gametes) than other plants.
The mutation that amazes me the most is the one where the flower, the nectar and the bee must have worked it all out at around the same time.
I'm happy with a non-nectar collecting bee that discovered it quite liked collecting nectar when it arrived and the the non-flowering nectar which didn't collect as many bees as the flowering one but when you just look at the results, it's quite amazing.