NesanelS, when your Rabbi talks about the creation of the apple he refers to "instructions" inside the pits, what he's really referring to is genetics, or the genetic code of the apple.
The fact that this old relic obviously doesn't understand how evolution works proves that his opinion is not worth a dime. Maybe he hasn't read a book since the 1940's?
People used to think the Earth couldn't be spherical, because intuitively, all the water on the bottom half should fall off and drain away!
They didn't understand gravity, in the same way this poor fossil doesn't understand evolution.
If he did, he'd see how woefully childish his silly coin "analogy" really is.
There's a much deeper meaning to his words than just 'science' - R' Miller was explaining how each apple and each seed is a gift from the One Above. Each thing that He created has so much wisdom in it! It's a message to be grateful for all the detail we have on earth...
No, I don't think I missed the point. He was implying that since the information in an Apple's DNA would fill 10,000 books, it is so complicated that it couldn't have been created by chance, and must have had a "designer".
He doesn't understand evolution, otherwise he would not have ascribed the arrangement of apple-DNA merely to "chance". Although randomness is involved, evolution is not a fundamentally random process at all.
I don't think the Rabbi gets it at all, poor old thing.
No, evolution is NOT design. This is the point which he (and you) appear to miss!
The poor old Rabbi is confused because lots of things in nature appear so complicated that he thinks they must have had a designer.
He doesn't understand how natural selection actually works, nor, I suspect, does he have an appreciation of the incredible amount of TIME involved. His poor little brain just can't grasp it all, so of course he thinks Magic Man must have done it.
@StupidLittleNobody See the comment I posted by mistake by Yakukha - it was for you. Also, search Google for where to by the rabbi's book which talks about this extensively. There is no pint in arguing over this. I am not an expert in this; the rabbi was. And I know that many people became religious from his words. One has to know that very often such 'questions' are really only arguments for not doing the mitzvos. You must read his book. The video is a synopsis of the Truth. Enjhopy! Shal-m!!!N
@StupidLittleNobody This is a point I went through with somebody in the past. If the reason you don't want to read it is because you will be influenced by it, then for Heaven's sake, why woudl I want to carry on this conversation? And if you are so sure that you are right, you have to give someone else a chance; and teh way is through reading his book (or listening to audio). If you refuse to, does that not show a weackness on your part that you are afraid to? I'm not mocking; I'm stating.
NesanelS, not wanting to be influenced by this man doesn't come into it. I have heard what the Rabbi has said about evolution in this clip, and it is apparent he has no understanding at all of how evolution works.
Suppose I were to say that you ought to read a book by a fellow who thinks the moon is made of cheese. Would you bother reading such a book? If not, then are you afraid of being influenced by his cheesy ideas, or would it be because the author is obviously a fool?
@StupidLittleNobody He He, If someone wrote a book that the moon is made of cheese, I wudl tell him to make a nice fairy tale book for kids. However, here we are talking about a rabbi who gave 2,500 lectures over 25 years to hundereds of thousands of people. he was one of the greatest rabbis and he influenced many including big professionals who were hard set in their thoughts which included evolution. And he coudl do it on the spur of the moment wuoting everything by heart. Shal-m!
Haha - the fairy tale suggestion is apt, since this is the realm your Rabbi deals in.
He may have 25 years experience in biblical fairy tales, but frankly he has ZERO KNOWLEDGE about evolution, as is amply demonstrated in this video.
Interestingly, you still haven't asked my why he is wrong in his ideas of how evolution works. I guess you're not interested in facts, just the amount of people he's influenced.
@StupidLittleNobody The attitude you speak with is dripping with disrespect. I cannot continue with you like this. i already sid that I am not an expert in tehse matters BUT THAT HE WAS. he knew all the questions and addresses them one by one in his book. Don't try to trap me into being the one to discuss it with you; I've said clearly I'm not the one - but he is. You seem so afraid to pick up his book. It's going to cost you a few dollars but it is well worth it; you'll have a happy life!!! NS
> "The attitude you speak with is dripping with disrespect."
Doubtless. And your attitude is oozing with superciliousness, so we're even.
> "i already sid that I am not an expert in tehse matters BUT THAT HE WAS."
And I have said you are wrong. The Rabbi is manifestly NOT an "expert" in these matters. Rabbi, maybe, but his grasp of evolution is woefully childish. How many times do I have to tell you it's obvious the Rabbi is no expert in evolution before you accept that fact?
I'm not trying to double dare you and I'm not arguing over anyone's opinion if who understood what. What I'm saying is that A) Many people who highly doubted a rabbi could speak in these matters were highly enlightened by his words WHEN THEY GAVE HIM A CHANCE TO SPEAK! (In other words listened to his speeches or read his book. If you don't give a man a chance, what can you expect? Also to continue an argument if he knew what he was talking about is the childish thing.Thanks
@NesanelS Well I thought you were going to stop this conversation because of my lack of repect for the old Grand Poobah, but you seem strangely unable to keep away, so...
> "WHEN THEY GAVE HIM A CHANCE TO SPEAK!"
I heard what he had to say in this video; 1 minute and 39 seconds was enough to convince me he doesn't understand what he's talking about (a little longer than it takes to say "I think the moon is made of cheese!", but still just as damning of the mental capacity of the speaker)
@StupidLittleNobody I am not having a conversation; I am helping you so that you should merit to see the Truth. I would like to give you an example. If a Neil Armstrong gave a small speech which didn't really sound like much, would you say 'he can't get a rocket off the ground'? But you know he's the pilot! So too, you have to know that many people became religious after hearing this rabbis and his explanations. What you hear here is the rocket taking off. Go look in the control room! Thank you
> "I am helping you so that you should merit to see the Truth."
How delightfully arrogant of you! You don't even want to know why your guru's mistaken about evolution, so you're hardly a candidate for teacher of the truth.
And anyway, I'm cautious of people who spell "truth" with a capital T.
@StupidLittleNobody While I see someone marked your comment here as spam and I appreciate the help (it makes me feel good to see that others are following the conversation), I just want to add one point here. That what you write about being wary of those who write 'Truth' with a capital T; Rabbi Miller writes as follows (I believe in Awake My Glory). Many of the world claim to be seeking the Truth, but it is only as far as they want. The real Truth is when one is ready to make a move for God :)
> "So too, you have to know that many people became religious after hearing this rabbis and his explanations. "
A lot of people became Scientologists after reading L. Ron Hubbard. Are you suggesting that the number of people fooled by a charlatan is a mark of how truthful the charlatan is?
> "What you hear here is the rocket taking off. Go look in the control room! Thank you"
@StupidLittleNobody This topic is the most fitting topic for a rabbi to speak about. While most don't, it's only because one must be an expert on these specific things.
Also, with what you say that just reading a book and becoming influenced is not a proof; this is precisely my point; that you and every honest person must 'give it a chance. To read an anti-God book, Heaven forbid, he has no qualms, but to read the book of a rabbi yes? And on a deeper level; it's easier to be influenced negative
> "While most don't, it's only because one must be an expert on these specific things."
If, as you say, one must be an expert to talk on these things, then your Rabbi ought not to be talking about evolution; he is CLEARLY no expert! (I could tell you why, of course, but you don't seem to want to hear this. I understand why.)
> "but to read the book of a rabbi yes?"
Read a book on evolution written by a Rabbi who clearly doesn't understand evolution? I don't think so.
@StupidLittleNobody Sir, as my father would say 'this is conversation #10'. I've already more than addressed your points; all you have to do is look over what I've said. Thank you (and then you'll have a great year. During a class on training for teaching to the not-yet religious, someone asked 'what if I am asked 'why should i be religious?' The rabbis answered 'in all my years of teaching irreligious people, no one ever asked me such a question because everyone sees and feels it clear.
No. You've told me the Rabbi is an expert on evolution and he's not; he's just a quack.
You've shown zero interest in really understanding the Rabbi's mistake, and seem more influenced by his pithy little christmas-cracker platitudes and his funny hat.
Oh, and "everyone sees the need to be religious"? haha, as if!
@StupidLittleNobody -I'm not double daring; I'M suggesting sincerelY. But to a certain technical degree, you have to admit that if you refuse to read his stuff despite the fact that you are so sure he is wrong that seems cheesy. Also, you have to know that this rabbi bent over backwards to read the books of the atheists. Although this is normally forbidden (it is poison and unnecessary for those who know who they are) but he asked the big rabbis FOR THE SAKE OF THOSE WHOM HE COULD HELP!
> "you have to admit that if you refuse to read his stuff despite the fact that you are so sure he is wrong that seems cheesy."
No I admit no such thing. He's clueless when it comes to evolution, so his wisdom is in the domain of faiyrtales, as you rightly identified the cheese moon theory.
> "Although this is normally forbidden "
HAHA! You've got to be klidding!? What century are you living in? What a funny little world you inhabit in which science books are "forbidden"!
@NesanelS "And I know that many people became religious from his words"
Yes - which is a tragedy since they're being conned by a man who says he has all the answers, but CLEARLY doesn't understand evolution.
I suppose people believe him because he assumes a pretentious title and wears an imposing hat. But you know how people are... some people are impressed by stuff like that!
If you would like to know why the Rabbi is wrong, I would be happy to discuss with you.
@StupidLittleNobody Also, I don't know why you call yourself by the user-name you do. If you want anonymonty, i understand. But you can call youself 'nice guy' or similar. 'What one keeps pumping into oneself has effect' - is also a lesson the rabbi would teach. Also, the rabbi was often asked about 'slef confidence'. He odul answer ' I say, you can leave it at home. You don't need it. Just do what you need to do and you will be happy'. But, on the othe hand, one under-do oneself. N
The fact that you mistake my username for a lack of self-confidence demonstrates that you make incorrect assumptions, and also that you have no sense of irony.
Does the Rabbi have any platitudes for either of those conditions as well?
@yakukha I don't know if you are Jewish but regardless, you are spekaing so disres[ectuflly of the rabbi that I don't want to continue this conversation. I had tried to put in a link to his book but it got an error. I'll try again. It is here: and in it he talks extensively about this topic. This video is a key synopsis. the point is that *time* will not make anything better 'just like that'. If anything, things usually degrade over time (like the 'Ol Man o' The Mountain who 'died' in NH
LIfe is a paradox. WE have not being able to produce it. We can manipulate matter but not animate. But one thing we must see is that all manipulated matter ,cars computers ect.. have complex design and a designer. When you show me a chicken come to life from primordial chicken soup I'll stop acknowledging there is a Designer. If can ever produce life then I won there is a god, we ARE.
You've set up a false antagonist situation. If one thing can't be explained by evolution, it MUST have been a creator. Ridiculous. There is ZERO evidence for a creator or a designer and evolution (which has decisively shown how chickens have evolved, thus solving your poorly typed problem) has ALL the evidence on its side.
@andyissemicool This rabbi discusses at length how evolution has zero evidence on its side and the about a Creator; all. Thank you
Google Rejoice O Youth by Rabbi Avigdor Miller
And buy it! You will enjoy it! Many have gained much form it; do not be afraid - be open minded as people have remarked how they were amazed the rabbi was; using DNA and similar in his talk. You must give a person a chance; if you say 'not interested' there is nothing anyone can do to force anyone!
The point is that their is a higher chance of finding a coin in a apple than an apple seed containing all this massive information to produce a tree by mere coincidence.
We have observed microevolution but not macroevolution. Evolution may occur for adaptation but still we remain with the unanswered question, who or what created matter.
False. Speciation has been observed several times. Even if we hadn't observed it directly, the overwhelming fossil and DNA evidence are conclusive enough.
well if you believe in G-d, you have an answer. Its just this human manifestation of G-d that turns many away!- H' is beyond our understanding, and science can only enhance our understanding of the world. Its beautiful, but only a speck in the vast universe, who knows, but its always good to believe.
How would you be able to design something with no previous design or fundamentals to go with? You can't just design an airplane without designing the thousands of other part before that. Because "he's god" is not an acceptable answer. Your god is just an infinite regress of unknown.
Listen to yourself; you make a valid point and then u turn 180 degree proposing that it all happened on its own.
Come on, u believe in a G-d, - an infinite one - he created everything.
Everything we see was created with its rules/protocols and parameters, yes it's very complex, not a straight forward machine, but what a machine it is.
U believe it but u don't want to call it G-d from fear that u would be expected to do what he wants and not what u decide is right/wrong or good/bad.
I don't believe in God period. There is no supernatural and no being that exist infinite especially one that likes to hide. Never proposed it happened on it's own, just not some magic man done it.
Just because it's complex doesn't mean it's created. Let's see you create even something simple and the process it takes.
You must be stupid. Being right and wrong has nothing to do with god. If I were to follow your biblical rules, I can rape your daughter and pay you 50 shackles. Wow some morality.
If morality doesn't come from a higher being then its subject to change, as u see fit, including killing some one who u don't like. (I know u can't swallow it, but u cannot argue against it). But this does not proof a g-d, it is just a fact. However you existence DOES prove that there is an infinite G-d.
Even within the bible itself, it had changes which led to contradictions. Not to mention it's been edited to hell depending on the person(s) doing the translations.
If I followed your morality, I could rape your daughter and pay you 50 shackles. Is that okay with you? I assume that's a yes since you refuse to response to my last comment and choose to regurgitate bullshit you heard from your pasture. Morality is subjective. YOU can't argue with that.
Seriously, if the only thing keeping you from killing people is god and your bullshit religion, PLEASE keep on believing. I don't need a crutch to tell me not to kill people. I have rationality to figure out why killing someone would be bad.
My existence proved I got born and my ancestors survived to give birth to my parents. I don't see god in that equation anywhere. It also proves my parents didn't worry about "sin" and got busy like animals do. Yet, why do religious people have more kids????
Its very simple if you were born through the process of natural selection (the best survive the others fall to the way side) without any intentions of a g-d, then what if one day a person got on your nerves and made your life miserable, what's stopping u from killing that person and justifying it by saying he is disturbing my life? Its no different when male lions kill each other over a mate
This is not an argument to prove G-D, it only disproves the idea that a non believers have a SET of moral values. It will always be subject to that person's feelings and capability.
And why not, I live for myself and look out for my best interest
Living for yourself would exclude you from the group and we're a social animal. Our survival is highest when we're with the group. Go live completely isolated with no tools, technology or help and tell me how that works out for you.
Go study ANYTHING except religion please before you make yourself sound more stupid. Sociology, psychology, HELL geology.
Next thing you're going to tell me is the sun orbits the earth like VenomfangX.
I don't prove god, you made the claim he exists. YOU PROVE IT
You do realize Code of Hammurabi had moral codes before the bible was even written? You seriously think it took two fucking tablets for people to realize that people shouldn't steal or murder anyone?
I can't even imagine how stupid you're.
You're the one that lacks logic. If you seriously think that, anyone not believing in your faith would be murderers right now. Who occupies most of our prison space??? CHRISTIANS DUMBFUCK!!!
A natural process that is explainable and testable is ludicrous but a mysterious prankster god who no one knows it's features and attributes made the universe is plausible? Yea, good luck with that
In order to create something, you need to know about previous structures and how certain parts would work together. It takes many trials and errors. Some magic man making everything is not an answer but a douchebag response of "I don't know but I am religious". It raises more questions than it answer
Lets compare your body to a computer; nature created you just like men created the computer. The only problem is, it's like saying the hammer or the electricity that helped me create the computer is in fact the creator (far from the truth, they are tools used by an intelligent being.) Nature is the tools & process/hammer & banging it cannot create.
Yes G-d/creator is infinite otherwise he would be a creation not a creator. Something that has limits was created by someone who gave him limits
God is infinite and has no creator but yet he's able to create everything...how would you know that again beside some book telling you so?
Well so is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In fact, without FSM, there would be no gravity. We have gravity, therefore FSM must exist. See how retarded that is?
I study science; it helps me appreciate the greatness of G-d. Science is not G-d! Science is the process of 'how thing work'. When u learn Biology and u come across the workings/science of the human cell which is marvelous, what crosses your mind, "wow the protein and enzymes did a great job in creating this marvelous cell", how pathetic is that, its like saying your parents created u.
Regarding FSM, that is such a lame argument. I never said "this is G-d", I said "there is an infinite g-d, who created everything, and he was not created, because if he was created, then he is NOT g-d he would be a creation like u & I. (If u cant see the distinction then u need help)
Seriously, your whole entire paragraph is just stupid. Seriously stupid. If you know if things takes processes of how things work and get created, why is it your god has no process and no design? Not to mention, your creator has no proof of existence. My parents did create me, I was in my mother for months having those "proteins and enzymes" make trillions of my cells. I don't know if magic man made you out of dirt or what.
This is the first time I ever heard someone suggesting that his parents created him. This is childish, so on the surface, not a thinker.
What comes to mind, is the dog who was hit by a man with a stick, the dog went after the stick because to him the stick was the one who created his pain. How Foolish!
Your lack of intelligence still continue to surprise me.
You even refer to your creator as father but yet claiming my parents create me (which they did) is not valid. The only difference is I can prove my parents did make me. I don't know how to popped into existence. You are the one lacking cognitive thought.
You whole statement with the dog is just stupid as well. You can even disprove this with just going to try out your claim. I guarantee you the dog will bite your ass, no questions asked
Yes, on the surface it seems that your father created u, that's what children are taught. But as u grow older and understand more, u realize that having sex, is not creating something, it's the same as making bread by mixing flour and water..., only sex is easier and more pleasurable.
It seems to me your yeshiva didn't teach u to look into things more deeply, so the torah u learnt was also on the surface and therefore u derived no pleasure from it and only grew to resent it. What a shame!
Making shit up to jsutify your god and reality are two completely different things. You have zero proof your god exists much less that he created everything. I am tired of having to put up with your assumptions. If you want to do that, then purple monkey dishwasher made everything. It's equally as valid as you claiming your god made everything. Same amount of evidence. You can't prove he didn't either.
Sex has more meaning because humans give it more meaning on a personal bases to have connection with the other mate. In the end, it's still a process of reproduction. You seem to lack an understanding of it. This is the only way babies are made. Even a test tube baby still requires a sperm and an egg. Babies don't pop into existence. Dirt and ribs don't make babies.
I don't interpret which ever passage to fulfill my own needs like you do. I read it as it is. Shame you can't live in reality.
You are completely ignorant, your sense of intelligent is as high as a first grader and there is no point in arguing with u
Sperm & egg created men? And who created the sperm & eggs? Cells and who created the Cells?....... And the rules they follow etc, No point in arguing with you.
Things don't pop into existence like you claim your god does. Everything has a process and mechanics that goes behind it. Yes, it does take sperms and an egg to form a mammal. I guess you have no mother and father. Cells come from previous cells. I like how you choose to pick that god that requires no explanation.
You can't argue with me because you have no proof. You can't even deal with reality, much less proof your own worldview.
You're a prime example of how religion creates stupidity and intellectual dishonesty.
I seriously feel so bad for you. There is so much resource out there of facts, processes on the physical world that is testable but yet you choose to believe in fairy tales made by dumbasses from the bronze age which lacked major understanding of the world. The rest of us will think and advance the world with scientific advances while you can live in your imaginary world of delusion and hypocrisy. Sad.
It's pointless to argue with u! To you, a hammer and nails are creators, plain Stupid!
I study science almost every day, science does not tell us; where things come from or why. Science just deals with the "what it does and how it does it mechanically"
You are confused, and I'm done arguing with u!
BTW, my first language is not English, and when comparing my writing to yours it is not so bad.
You don't even understand the basics of science much less the scientific method. Your god has no method or even an explainable method. Useless.
You just like to make claims. Your god is imaginary. Men made up the idea of a god. You are delusional for believing in it. You're ignorant for preaching it. You are stupid to not seek other real explanations instead of fairy tales.
You assume English is my first language? It's my fourth dipshit.Understand that?
BTW, learn to use punctuation before criticizing other people's English. It'll make you less stupid when you try to attack someone. Then again, you spread your stupidity by making supernatural claims with no evidence so it's hard for you not to look like the children of parents suffering from down's syndrome.
Science doesn't give a reason why because it's not an ideology. Science does give us clues of where things from. They don't make unsupported statements.
I agree that arguing with you is pointless as your position needs no refuting as anyone with logic can easily see its flaws. It lacks evidence, reason and any form of epistemology. You just want to claim your version of god did it, don't need a reason or process or even building blocks. Don't reply back with stupidity please. Live in reality.
Even a first grader would know where babies come from unlike you. Don't go telling me about how birds deliver babies from heaven now.
Your level of logic is below that of those who ride the short school bus. Your verbal bile and serious lack of cognitive ability has polluted this world enough. Please stop for all our sake.
Yes because I refuse to just accept your assumptions. I go on what is in reality that is testable. I don't accept your supernatural and unproven claims. All you have is a book that made the claims to answer your gaps with a character named god. That god gave no explanation of how he did it, what mechanics he did it with, why he did it, and even who he is. Sorry but only a brainwashed person accept it on someone else's hearsay. You are not intellectually honest and you want to preach your god.
Be honest with yourself. Do you really only believe creationism is true because you believe in god or the bible or some mystery man made everything? Seriously, because there is just no evidence supporting a creator made everything.
Again its clear u really don't think into things, because if u would have, u wouldn't of asked these questions. I already explain to u that a man with limitations cannot be G-d.
I suggest u read what I wrote and think about it, and if u have any legitimate questions then ask them.
Claiming an unknown magic man made everything from nothing from no previous design and supernatural powers, THAT requires no thinking. YOU keep making assumptions that god is already proven as a fact and yet it's far from it. How do you know of god's connotations. Your people can't even agree on wtf he is.
YOU seriously need to think about it. I can say FSM made everything is equally as valid as your claim as both have the same amount of proof. Just absurd.
All it comes down to is you want to believe at any cost. You're obviously throwing away logic and rationality to believe. No evidence is required for you to believe since you have faith and assumptions that keep you in your comfort zone. That unfortunately, is far from reality. You avoid questions you can't answer and fill the gap with a god you can't even prove. That's just delusion and intellectual laziness. With people like you, we would still have a god for everything as an explanation.
All that just to conclude with an Argument from Design?
So after all these years of the "consciousness raising" of Darwin's brilliant idea, which removes the need for "design" to explain the complexity of life, it's as if nothing happened.
Unfortunately, if you want to base everything on the igorant beliefs of bronze age mans, you have to keep ignoring all our advances in knowledge and understanding. Not a good way to educate children.
Perhaps this guy manages to convince children with this argument, but intelligent design is a fallacious argument when proposed to reasonably well educated adult
the fact that something is unlikely proves nothing about the divine.
it is unlikely that i would type the following number '87643234568831345689765423456789875678654323456787654345677654323456789876512123123490987689909876543345678976543456789876543234567890987654356789098098909878909878987654323456789876523456787654323456789876787654323456787654323432345678987654323456789876789876543234567876543234234234123412343212356789876566654'.
me typing that number is improbable, but proves nothing.
Cell is a marvellous machine, haha your a sad ID'ist do yourself a big favour and read a book on the Dover court trail, and learn how REAL science and Real scientists, made your hero's look like morons. HAHA work in a lab what as a test tube or a bunsun burner, HAHAHA
Actually that did make sense. A common mistake that ID proponents make is that they calculate probabilities after the fact. The probability that bigcherry typed that exact number was incredibly low. Nevertheless, he or she typed that number.
Calculating probabilities after the fact explains little.
Right! you typed a random number using tools (PC) readily available and a full functional body (Brain, eyes, hand etc.) capable in doing so, what is your point?
1. Danmoore5000 if you took a can of paint and tossed it up in the air... How many times do you thing it will take until you get a perfect letter "D", Ariel font, Size 14pt, now if you did that again and you wanted to get a letter "a" right next to the "D" same font & size Cont.
2. But wait if when doing so the "D" got washed out you have to start again, until you spell your entire name would you say it's possible? NO of course NOT
Wait I just typed you name Danmoore so it is possible, well because I'm using tools that were designed to do so by a designer.
To make a functional protein you need special tools that are designed to make it so. Cont.
This that it appears to look like it was evolved through time, does not mean it wasn't designed so, just like we see a person starts of a s a single cell and it splits into many different cells and then many different type of cells, would you suggest that cells just do that on their own, they make hands & feet (It just takes 9 month to do so +~-)? Absurd!
4. Oh wait what about DNA, isn't that what makes every thing happen. Well, who designed this amazing DNA, with all the information and capabilities to produce a body?
Evolving through time does NOT suggest that it just happened so, ONLY it was designed to do so in this manner.
Please study your body see how remarkable it is and then think how great your creator is.
"Oh wait what about DNA, isn't that what makes every thing happen. Well, who designed this amazing DNA"
This is your fatal error. You can not possibly know for certain that everything in existence requires a designer. It is an assertion that is beyond you or any other human.
"with all the information and capabilities to produce a body?"
That came from Natural Selection's effects on DNA.
"Please study your body see how remarkable it is and then think how great your creator is."
Oh I agree with you there. Evolution by Natural Selection is in my opinion one of the most interesting and profound natural phenomena. Truly a marvelous creator.
However, I still deny that you know whether or not there is a conscious designer of Natural Selection or of the chemicals it acts on. The assumption that EVERYTHING requires willful design is disproved by the fact that NS has no consciousness.
"1. Danmoore5000 if you took a can of paint and tossed it up in the air... How many times do you thing it will take until you get a perfect letter "D", Ariel font, Size 14pt, now if you did that again and you wanted to get a letter "a" right next to the "D" same font & size Cont."
You are asking me that BEFORE you throw up the can of paint, not after, which makes this a different scenario.
The probability of me winning the lottery is extremely low as well. If I won the power ball, should I then assume that the device that spins the balls deliberately and knowingly selected me?
That's basically what you're saying. Anything unlikely requires a designer. It's a logical fallacy.
2. Winning the lottery needs a designer, of-course! The creator gave us brains/wisdom etc. and the capability to design and make many wonderful things using the materials that he created, each with his own parameters and laws that don't change (incidentally that's the reason why we can make scientific experiments, precisely because they have laws that don't change.)
3. When we design a car, and later find it can do more things then it was designed to do, would you suggest it had no designer? or would you say that you have proof that things can be created with out a designer? NEVER, the reason why our scenario is not that uncommon is because we only know some of the properties of the material we use, if we had known all its properties you would have predicted what it did.
4. Back to your scenario, a lottery is designed to pick out numbers (i.e. 7 numbers out of 54) now when you choose a number and people say the odds are so and so...., all they are saying is, there are x amount of combinations that are "possible" meaning if you had enough money you could buy all the possibilities, and one of them will be the right one, this follows the rules of nature (that was created by the creator and he allows us to use it).
5. when you pick 7 numbers... really has no significants to you, because you have no control over the numbers being picked, however, the creator does, and he chooses the winner. To us it looks random, because its not in our power to control it, but in reality, RANDOM is a made up thing just like NATURAL SELECTION! The one that created everything from nothing, created the rules and the material to go with it. And keeps it standing (he has to, because it came from NOTHING) and controls it.
6. It seems to me that scientists think of themselves as G-d, in that, what ever they can do, control or see those are the things that exists, but if they cant that's proof that it doesn't exist, that's absurd!
Suppose you had no sense of feel, would you know that air exists? or no sense of smell would you know smell exists? How about radiation in the 1600 (century) does that exist? How about electrons in the 1800 does that exist? And so on.....
"It seems to me that scientists think of themselves as G-d, in that, what ever they can do, control or see those are the things that exists, but if they cant that's proof that it doesn't exist, that's absurd!"
Further evidence you have a poor understanding of science.
I have never EVER heard a Scientist say that things they can't measure at the time are thusly proven not to exist. Scientists work under the dictates of falsifiability, not proofs.
"Suppose you had no sense of feel, would you know that air exists?"
There are other ways of showing that air exists.
"or no sense of smell would you know smell exists?"
Smell could be conceived of. It's detection of particles by membranes like other senses. We understand a bat's echolocation even though we can't physically do it.
"How about radiation in the 1600 (century) does that exist? How about electrons in the 1800..."
The reasons we now universally believe in radiation and electrons are that the people who discovered them SHOWED US THEIR EXPERIMENTS. Had electrons been described without evidence, it would have been taken with the same grain of salt as the flying spaghetti monster, and rightly so.
Now that we can think of experiments that would falsify electrons, and they do not, we have reason to believe in them.
"you have no control over the numbers being picked, however, the creator does, and he chooses the winner."
ASSUMING there is a creator.
"To us it looks random, because its not in our power to control it, but in reality, RANDOM is a made up thing"
I can't disprove that the hand of God directs events that we see or define as random. Nor can you prove that He does. However, unfalsifiability is a measure of the WEAKNESS of an argument, not its strength.
"When we design a car, and later find it can do more things then it was designed to do, would you suggest it had no designer?"
No. I would suggest that no-one designed the things that the car wasn't intended to do. By-products are unintentional. You know unintentional? As in no intent?
I have to thank you for yet another example detailing that usefulness can arise without design.
"Winning the lottery needs a designer, of-course!"
You're twisting my analogy. I never said that lotteries didn't need designers. I said that the specific event of you winning that lottery doesn't require one. Your thought process would falsely assume that YOUR winning the lottery IF it happened was the DELIBERATE choice of the ball spinning machine. It was about consciousness arising from the churning of balls, not the guys who designed the lottery.
'I was arguing using your false premise of (so called) "natural selection", showing that it cannot work.'
People write computer programs that use Natural Selection to create things. The results are not designed by the people who designed the program, but arise from random inputs to the computer which are acted on by selective pressures. The selective pressures weed out random changes that are not beneficial, but there is no conscious direction toward a specific end product. Thus, no design.
You missed the point. Your paint analogy requires calculating the probability BEFORE the event. Yet you apply it to Evolution AFTER you already know the outcome (an apple seed). Applying it to an apple seed that has already evolved is as faulty as saying that a Royal Flush in poker is unlikely therefore when you were dealt one last time you went to Vegas it must have been deliberate.
If I was to apply the same method of thinking that you apply to Evolution to your paint analogy, I wouldn't expect an outcome before I throw the can of paint, I would throw the can of paint, look at the outcome, then say "Wow, what are the odds that the paint landed exactly that way. It must have been deliberate!"
1. Computer Programs can't think all it does is follow the rules that were set by the programmer. If the programmer is a great mathematician and uses a computer with billions of transistors he can program things that will produce different algorithms, Algorithms that would take him or someone else a long time to think of, just like accountants use calculators, and it is faster...
2. The programmer does NOT know all the possibilities his program can do (remember BUGS) just like we don't know all the properties of any given object.
Pertaining the intention of the programmer, yes there are things that happen unintentionally but that's pertaining TO US, we don't know all the properties, capabilities, options etc. of any given thing or law, so for us it seems unintentionally (happened by itself, without designer) but the truth is, it didn't.
3. When one looks at the over all picture of the universe everything was designed the way you see it, including the programmer, the school he went to and the program he wrote and the mistakes he made and the algorithms that followed etc.
1. No no. You misunderstood my example. I'm not saying that the programmer doesn't necessarily know what's going to happen due to bugs or errors. I'm talking about evolutionary algorithms where the programmer literally doesn't know what will be evolved by the program.
I.E. a program for designing airplane wings using evolutionary mechanisms. The program is capable of testing a wing's lift capabilities. It then uses a random number generator to modify the wings.
2. For every generation our program keeps the wings with modifications that made the wing perform better in tests and throws out the ones that performed worse. It therefore evolves a wing that the programmer didn't design, and may not even know exactly why it works so well (this is not a bug). And there you have it. Design without consciousness.
3. I should add this as well. In the evolutionary algorithm I described, if the programmer ran the program again, it would not go through the exact same series of steps again, and may arrive at a different solution, even though the programmer made no changes to the program! This is because the random number inputs would be different the second time around. So you see, it's not a bug, but the solution is never designed by the programmer either.
2. Designing a concert hall with good acoustics. The program starts with a box, then randomly modifies the box by adding or subtracting different shapes. The ones with better acoustics are kept, those with worse acoustics are thrown out. After thousands of generations, the computer outputs a concert hall with wonderful acoustics.
The solution is completely independent of what the programmer may have thought a good concert hall might look like.
6. Over millions and millions of years, these very occasional helpful mutations build on each other, augment each other, and lead to seemingly impossibly drastic changes in organisms. I think time is really the key to understanding evolution. It's simply difficult for people to grasp the concept of "a million years." I know it is for me. Anyway, there's my explanation. Hope you like it, since I should be studying Torts right now, not writing a YouTube response.
5. So, thus far we have (A) a random mutation, and (B) an environment where that mutation turns out to be helpful. This gave us (1) a slightly better chance to survive and reproduce than all the other guys in the same environment, and (2) a slightly higher chance that the same mutation will occur in the offspring. Now, when you put (1) and (2) together, and give it a million years, that mutation becomes the standard physical characteristic, instead of a deviation.
4. The environment dictates what is or is not a "helpful" random mutation. If the mutation is helpful in that environment, then clearly, that particular creature has a better chance at living longer and reproducing more than all the other creatures that don't have the "helpful" mutation. When that creature reproduces, it is more likely that its offspring will also have the same physical mutation (just like a human with dwarfism is more likely to have a child with the same condition).
3. But sometimes, this difference is helpful, in the context of that particular environment (like a leopard born with an odd pattern of spots that makes it harder to see in its particular environment). You can see the point; "child" bacteria could have a physical quality that the "parent" doesn't, and every once in a great while, that physical quality will be helpful for that "child" in that particular environment. This is the "natural selection" part; there is nothing random about this at all.
2. Now remember, the "child" has slightly different physical characteristics than the "parent." Most of the time, this physical difference is bad (like a leopard born without claws, say, would make life very hard in the environment it lives in), or has no effect at all (like a leopard born with a mole on its nose, say, would make no difference in its daily environment).
1. Okay, I'll give it a shot. Let's start with bacteria. A bacterium reproduces. Sometimes the transfer of genetic info is imperfect. "Child" has slightly different physical characteristics than "parent" (mutation as a result of imperfect info transfer). This is random. Now, here's the part that's not random at all; the environment. That is to say, the bacteria exist in a particular environment.
First when taking any specific thing (i.e. Bacteria) and talking about its reproduction, is like coming into the end of the game, because, the idea of something copying itself, is very complex and can only happen if it was designed to do so. You will never find a car that will reproduce itself, NEVER, (because it wasn't designed to do so).
2. The fact that we find in nature, that things do go through the complex process of copying itself, can NOT be used as an argument, to say, organism are different, because they do copy themselves. The obvious question is WHY? It obviously is following the rules of nature that allows them to do so. WAIT! RULES? Who made those rules?
who made the rules! read any book of evolution and look up natural selection. (please do not respond to this post until you have) then if you understand it you will see how naive your "rules" comeback is when concerning evolution.
It may very well be, the process of evolution took place, but it was created & guided so, through out.
How many books have been written on the study of a cell??? Many! You know why? Because it is a marvelous machine made by a marvelous designer and yes it has rules, it may look like randomness, but it isn't so.
will you give me that silver dollar you deny....... obviosly hes JEW!! XD!
rizagin98 8 months ago
NesanelS, when your Rabbi talks about the creation of the apple he refers to "instructions" inside the pits, what he's really referring to is genetics, or the genetic code of the apple.
EMOTIONALLOGICABLE 1 year ago
That's beautiful :D
B''H
tutmankingasher 2 years ago
The fact that this old relic obviously doesn't understand how evolution works proves that his opinion is not worth a dime. Maybe he hasn't read a book since the 1940's?
People used to think the Earth couldn't be spherical, because intuitively, all the water on the bottom half should fall off and drain away!
They didn't understand gravity, in the same way this poor fossil doesn't understand evolution.
If he did, he'd see how woefully childish his silly coin "analogy" really is.
StupidLittleNobody 2 years ago
@StupidLittleNobody
You missed the point...
There's a much deeper meaning to his words than just 'science' - R' Miller was explaining how each apple and each seed is a gift from the One Above. Each thing that He created has so much wisdom in it! It's a message to be grateful for all the detail we have on earth...
yakukha 1 year ago 2
@yakukha
No, I don't think I missed the point. He was implying that since the information in an Apple's DNA would fill 10,000 books, it is so complicated that it couldn't have been created by chance, and must have had a "designer".
He doesn't understand evolution, otherwise he would not have ascribed the arrangement of apple-DNA merely to "chance". Although randomness is involved, evolution is not a fundamentally random process at all.
I don't think the Rabbi gets it at all, poor old thing.
StupidLittleNobody 1 year ago
@StupidLittleNobody So Evolution is design. And if so who is that designer? This is the point he is bringing out!!!
NesanelS 1 year ago
@NesanelS
No, evolution is NOT design. This is the point which he (and you) appear to miss!
The poor old Rabbi is confused because lots of things in nature appear so complicated that he thinks they must have had a designer.
He doesn't understand how natural selection actually works, nor, I suspect, does he have an appreciation of the incredible amount of TIME involved. His poor little brain just can't grasp it all, so of course he thinks Magic Man must have done it.
Do you see?
StupidLittleNobody 1 year ago
@StupidLittleNobody See the comment I posted by mistake by Yakukha - it was for you. Also, search Google for where to by the rabbi's book which talks about this extensively. There is no pint in arguing over this. I am not an expert in this; the rabbi was. And I know that many people became religious from his words. One has to know that very often such 'questions' are really only arguments for not doing the mitzvos. You must read his book. The video is a synopsis of the Truth. Enjhopy! Shal-m!!!N
NesanelS 1 year ago
@NesanelS "the point is that *time* will not make anything better 'just like that'."
The point is that the Rabbi doesn't understand evolution or he wouldn't even use the woefully childish analogy of a dime appearing "just like that".
> "I am not an expert in this; the rabbi was. "
No. The rabbi is MANIFESTLY not an expert in evolution, otherwise he would not make childishly silly analogies as the one in this video.
StupidLittleNobody 1 year ago
Comment removed
StupidLittleNobody 1 year ago
@NesanelS "You must read his book. "
> Why would I read a book by a man who is clearly a fool? For larfs maybe?
StupidLittleNobody 1 year ago
@StupidLittleNobody This is a point I went through with somebody in the past. If the reason you don't want to read it is because you will be influenced by it, then for Heaven's sake, why woudl I want to carry on this conversation? And if you are so sure that you are right, you have to give someone else a chance; and teh way is through reading his book (or listening to audio). If you refuse to, does that not show a weackness on your part that you are afraid to? I'm not mocking; I'm stating.
NesanelS 1 year ago
@NesanelS
NesanelS, not wanting to be influenced by this man doesn't come into it. I have heard what the Rabbi has said about evolution in this clip, and it is apparent he has no understanding at all of how evolution works.
Suppose I were to say that you ought to read a book by a fellow who thinks the moon is made of cheese. Would you bother reading such a book? If not, then are you afraid of being influenced by his cheesy ideas, or would it be because the author is obviously a fool?
StupidLittleNobody 1 year ago
@StupidLittleNobody He He, If someone wrote a book that the moon is made of cheese, I wudl tell him to make a nice fairy tale book for kids. However, here we are talking about a rabbi who gave 2,500 lectures over 25 years to hundereds of thousands of people. he was one of the greatest rabbis and he influenced many including big professionals who were hard set in their thoughts which included evolution. And he coudl do it on the spur of the moment wuoting everything by heart. Shal-m!
NesanelS 1 year ago
@NesanelS
Haha - the fairy tale suggestion is apt, since this is the realm your Rabbi deals in.
He may have 25 years experience in biblical fairy tales, but frankly he has ZERO KNOWLEDGE about evolution, as is amply demonstrated in this video.
Interestingly, you still haven't asked my why he is wrong in his ideas of how evolution works. I guess you're not interested in facts, just the amount of people he's influenced.
Oh well, too bad. :(
StupidLittleNobody 1 year ago
@StupidLittleNobody The attitude you speak with is dripping with disrespect. I cannot continue with you like this. i already sid that I am not an expert in tehse matters BUT THAT HE WAS. he knew all the questions and addresses them one by one in his book. Don't try to trap me into being the one to discuss it with you; I've said clearly I'm not the one - but he is. You seem so afraid to pick up his book. It's going to cost you a few dollars but it is well worth it; you'll have a happy life!!! NS
NesanelS 1 year ago
@NesanelS.
> "The attitude you speak with is dripping with disrespect."
Doubtless. And your attitude is oozing with superciliousness, so we're even.
> "i already sid that I am not an expert in tehse matters BUT THAT HE WAS."
And I have said you are wrong. The Rabbi is manifestly NOT an "expert" in these matters. Rabbi, maybe, but his grasp of evolution is woefully childish. How many times do I have to tell you it's obvious the Rabbi is no expert in evolution before you accept that fact?
StupidLittleNobody 1 year ago
@StupidLittleNobody
I'm not trying to double dare you and I'm not arguing over anyone's opinion if who understood what. What I'm saying is that A) Many people who highly doubted a rabbi could speak in these matters were highly enlightened by his words WHEN THEY GAVE HIM A CHANCE TO SPEAK! (In other words listened to his speeches or read his book. If you don't give a man a chance, what can you expect? Also to continue an argument if he knew what he was talking about is the childish thing.Thanks
NesanelS 1 year ago
@NesanelS Well I thought you were going to stop this conversation because of my lack of repect for the old Grand Poobah, but you seem strangely unable to keep away, so...
> "WHEN THEY GAVE HIM A CHANCE TO SPEAK!"
I heard what he had to say in this video; 1 minute and 39 seconds was enough to convince me he doesn't understand what he's talking about (a little longer than it takes to say "I think the moon is made of cheese!", but still just as damning of the mental capacity of the speaker)
StupidLittleNobody 1 year ago
@StupidLittleNobody I am not having a conversation; I am helping you so that you should merit to see the Truth. I would like to give you an example. If a Neil Armstrong gave a small speech which didn't really sound like much, would you say 'he can't get a rocket off the ground'? But you know he's the pilot! So too, you have to know that many people became religious after hearing this rabbis and his explanations. What you hear here is the rocket taking off. Go look in the control room! Thank you
NesanelS 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NesanelS.
> "I am not having a conversation"
Well, you're doing a good impression of one.
> "I am helping you so that you should merit to see the Truth."
How delightfully arrogant of you! You don't even want to know why your guru's mistaken about evolution, so you're hardly a candidate for teacher of the truth.
And anyway, I'm cautious of people who spell "truth" with a capital T.
StupidLittleNobody 1 year ago
@StupidLittleNobody While I see someone marked your comment here as spam and I appreciate the help (it makes me feel good to see that others are following the conversation), I just want to add one point here. That what you write about being wary of those who write 'Truth' with a capital T; Rabbi Miller writes as follows (I believe in Awake My Glory). Many of the world claim to be seeking the Truth, but it is only as far as they want. The real Truth is when one is ready to make a move for God :)
NesanelS 1 year ago
Comment removed
StupidLittleNobody 1 year ago
@NesanelS
> "So too, you have to know that many people became religious after hearing this rabbis and his explanations. "
A lot of people became Scientologists after reading L. Ron Hubbard. Are you suggesting that the number of people fooled by a charlatan is a mark of how truthful the charlatan is?
> "What you hear here is the rocket taking off. Go look in the control room! Thank you"
Yes - I do think you're in orbit. :-|
StupidLittleNobody 1 year ago
@StupidLittleNobody This topic is the most fitting topic for a rabbi to speak about. While most don't, it's only because one must be an expert on these specific things.
Also, with what you say that just reading a book and becoming influenced is not a proof; this is precisely my point; that you and every honest person must 'give it a chance. To read an anti-God book, Heaven forbid, he has no qualms, but to read the book of a rabbi yes? And on a deeper level; it's easier to be influenced negative
NesanelS 1 year ago
@NesanelS
> "While most don't, it's only because one must be an expert on these specific things."
If, as you say, one must be an expert to talk on these things, then your Rabbi ought not to be talking about evolution; he is CLEARLY no expert! (I could tell you why, of course, but you don't seem to want to hear this. I understand why.)
> "but to read the book of a rabbi yes?"
Read a book on evolution written by a Rabbi who clearly doesn't understand evolution? I don't think so.
StupidLittleNobody 1 year ago
@StupidLittleNobody Sir, as my father would say 'this is conversation #10'. I've already more than addressed your points; all you have to do is look over what I've said. Thank you (and then you'll have a great year. During a class on training for teaching to the not-yet religious, someone asked 'what if I am asked 'why should i be religious?' The rabbis answered 'in all my years of teaching irreligious people, no one ever asked me such a question because everyone sees and feels it clear.
NesanelS 1 year ago
@NesanelS
> "I've already more than addressed your points;"
No. You've told me the Rabbi is an expert on evolution and he's not; he's just a quack.
You've shown zero interest in really understanding the Rabbi's mistake, and seem more influenced by his pithy little christmas-cracker platitudes and his funny hat.
Oh, and "everyone sees the need to be religious"? haha, as if!
Fail!
StupidLittleNobody 1 year ago
@NesanelS I wish you a great new year. I will share some more thoughts after Yom Kippur with God's help. Nesanel
NesanelS 1 year ago
@NesanelS
> If a Neil Armstrong gave a small speech which didn't really sound like much, would you say 'he can't get a rocket off the ground'? "
Not a good analogy.
If Neil Armstrong gave a small speech on, say, music, in which he said that Bach was Chinese, then I might say he doesn't know much about music.
Similarly, your Rabbi (while maybe an expert in mythology) is clearly knows nothing about evolution.
StupidLittleNobody 1 year ago
Respond to this video...
> "You seem so afraid to pick up his book."
Ooh! I'm afraid am I? Is that a double-dare to read it? hahaha
You've already told me that a book by a man who thinks the moon is made of cheese is kids' fairytale stuff.
The Rabbi's understanding of evolution is like that of an astronomer who thinks the moon is made of cheese.
I'm not interested in the slightest in this man's fairytale imagination.
StupidLittleNobody 1 year ago
@StupidLittleNobody -I'm not double daring; I'M suggesting sincerelY. But to a certain technical degree, you have to admit that if you refuse to read his stuff despite the fact that you are so sure he is wrong that seems cheesy. Also, you have to know that this rabbi bent over backwards to read the books of the atheists. Although this is normally forbidden (it is poison and unnecessary for those who know who they are) but he asked the big rabbis FOR THE SAKE OF THOSE WHOM HE COULD HELP!
NesanelS 1 year ago
@NesanelS
> "you have to admit that if you refuse to read his stuff despite the fact that you are so sure he is wrong that seems cheesy."
No I admit no such thing. He's clueless when it comes to evolution, so his wisdom is in the domain of faiyrtales, as you rightly identified the cheese moon theory.
> "Although this is normally forbidden "
HAHA! You've got to be klidding!? What century are you living in? What a funny little world you inhabit in which science books are "forbidden"!
StupidLittleNobody 1 year ago
@NesanelS "And I know that many people became religious from his words"
Yes - which is a tragedy since they're being conned by a man who says he has all the answers, but CLEARLY doesn't understand evolution.
I suppose people believe him because he assumes a pretentious title and wears an imposing hat. But you know how people are... some people are impressed by stuff like that!
If you would like to know why the Rabbi is wrong, I would be happy to discuss with you.
StupidLittleNobody 1 year ago
@StupidLittleNobody Also, I don't know why you call yourself by the user-name you do. If you want anonymonty, i understand. But you can call youself 'nice guy' or similar. 'What one keeps pumping into oneself has effect' - is also a lesson the rabbi would teach. Also, the rabbi was often asked about 'slef confidence'. He odul answer ' I say, you can leave it at home. You don't need it. Just do what you need to do and you will be happy'. But, on the othe hand, one under-do oneself. N
NesanelS 1 year ago
@NesanelS Re my username.
The fact that you mistake my username for a lack of self-confidence demonstrates that you make incorrect assumptions, and also that you have no sense of irony.
Does the Rabbi have any platitudes for either of those conditions as well?
StupidLittleNobody 1 year ago
@StupidLittleNobody "I don't think the Rabbi gets it at all, poor old thing"
So can you please share with us your brilliance on it; 'O rich young thing?
NesanelS 1 year ago
@StupidLittleNobody So would you share your brilliance with us; ‘O rich young thing?
NesanelS 1 year ago
@yakukha I don't know if you are Jewish but regardless, you are spekaing so disres[ectuflly of the rabbi that I don't want to continue this conversation. I had tried to put in a link to his book but it got an error. I'll try again. It is here: and in it he talks extensively about this topic. This video is a key synopsis. the point is that *time* will not make anything better 'just like that'. If anything, things usually degrade over time (like the 'Ol Man o' The Mountain who 'died' in NH
NesanelS 1 year ago
@yakukha Sorry, I meant t leave the comment for 'user/StupidLittleNobody'
NesanelS 1 year ago
For a Christian-Atheist I appreciate the video's insight.
lokivonloka 3 years ago
LIfe is a paradox. WE have not being able to produce it. We can manipulate matter but not animate. But one thing we must see is that all manipulated matter ,cars computers ect.. have complex design and a designer. When you show me a chicken come to life from primordial chicken soup I'll stop acknowledging there is a Designer. If can ever produce life then I won there is a god, we ARE.
calev48 3 years ago
You've set up a false antagonist situation. If one thing can't be explained by evolution, it MUST have been a creator. Ridiculous. There is ZERO evidence for a creator or a designer and evolution (which has decisively shown how chickens have evolved, thus solving your poorly typed problem) has ALL the evidence on its side.
andyissemicool 2 years ago
@andyissemicool This rabbi discusses at length how evolution has zero evidence on its side and the about a Creator; all. Thank you
Google Rejoice O Youth by Rabbi Avigdor Miller
And buy it! You will enjoy it! Many have gained much form it; do not be afraid - be open minded as people have remarked how they were amazed the rabbi was; using DNA and similar in his talk. You must give a person a chance; if you say 'not interested' there is nothing anyone can do to force anyone!
NesanelS 1 year ago
so... the fact that we don't find silver dollars in apples shows that someone designed the apple? this argument makes no sense.
bandwagonretards 3 years ago
The point is that their is a higher chance of finding a coin in a apple than an apple seed containing all this massive information to produce a tree by mere coincidence.
calev48 3 years ago
you obviously don't understand evolution then.
read up on the "blind watchmaker argument", which is what this idiot is using. it's an argument older than dirt
bandwagonretards 3 years ago 4
We have observed microevolution but not macroevolution. Evolution may occur for adaptation but still we remain with the unanswered question, who or what created matter.
calev48 3 years ago
so? does this prove something? i was talking about evolution, not abiogenesis.
so now you're changing the subject.
bandwagonretards 3 years ago
Look up the term irreducible complexity.
calev48 3 years ago
False. Speciation has been observed several times. Even if we hadn't observed it directly, the overwhelming fossil and DNA evidence are conclusive enough.
andyissemicool 2 years ago
B''H
well if you believe in G-d, you have an answer. Its just this human manifestation of G-d that turns many away!- H' is beyond our understanding, and science can only enhance our understanding of the world. Its beautiful, but only a speck in the vast universe, who knows, but its always good to believe.
tutmankingasher 2 years ago
How would you be able to design something with no previous design or fundamentals to go with? You can't just design an airplane without designing the thousands of other part before that. Because "he's god" is not an acceptable answer. Your god is just an infinite regress of unknown.
a012345 3 years ago
Listen to yourself; you make a valid point and then u turn 180 degree proposing that it all happened on its own.
Come on, u believe in a G-d, - an infinite one - he created everything.
Everything we see was created with its rules/protocols and parameters, yes it's very complex, not a straight forward machine, but what a machine it is.
U believe it but u don't want to call it G-d from fear that u would be expected to do what he wants and not what u decide is right/wrong or good/bad.
y2rock 3 years ago
I don't believe in God period. There is no supernatural and no being that exist infinite especially one that likes to hide. Never proposed it happened on it's own, just not some magic man done it.
Just because it's complex doesn't mean it's created. Let's see you create even something simple and the process it takes.
You must be stupid. Being right and wrong has nothing to do with god. If I were to follow your biblical rules, I can rape your daughter and pay you 50 shackles. Wow some morality.
a012345 3 years ago
Part 1
If it didn't happen on its own then who created it? And don't tell me its not WHO, but a process of nature. (Ludicrous!)
Even if it wasn't complex it would have to be created, unless it was there forever, in that case it would not change (think about it)
y2rock 3 years ago
Part 2
If morality doesn't come from a higher being then its subject to change, as u see fit, including killing some one who u don't like. (I know u can't swallow it, but u cannot argue against it). But this does not proof a g-d, it is just a fact. However you existence DOES prove that there is an infinite G-d.
y2rock 3 years ago
No idea why religious people fear change.
Even within the bible itself, it had changes which led to contradictions. Not to mention it's been edited to hell depending on the person(s) doing the translations.
If I followed your morality, I could rape your daughter and pay you 50 shackles. Is that okay with you? I assume that's a yes since you refuse to response to my last comment and choose to regurgitate bullshit you heard from your pasture. Morality is subjective. YOU can't argue with that.
a012345 3 years ago
Seriously, if the only thing keeping you from killing people is god and your bullshit religion, PLEASE keep on believing. I don't need a crutch to tell me not to kill people. I have rationality to figure out why killing someone would be bad.
My existence proved I got born and my ancestors survived to give birth to my parents. I don't see god in that equation anywhere. It also proves my parents didn't worry about "sin" and got busy like animals do. Yet, why do religious people have more kids????
a012345 3 years ago
You are an angry man
You are not thinking logical!
Its very simple if you were born through the process of natural selection (the best survive the others fall to the way side) without any intentions of a g-d, then what if one day a person got on your nerves and made your life miserable, what's stopping u from killing that person and justifying it by saying he is disturbing my life? Its no different when male lions kill each other over a mate
Explain it to me using logic not anger!
y2rock 3 years ago
This is not an argument to prove G-D, it only disproves the idea that a non believers have a SET of moral values. It will always be subject to that person's feelings and capability.
And why not, I live for myself and look out for my best interest
y2rock 3 years ago
Living for yourself would exclude you from the group and we're a social animal. Our survival is highest when we're with the group. Go live completely isolated with no tools, technology or help and tell me how that works out for you.
Go study ANYTHING except religion please before you make yourself sound more stupid. Sociology, psychology, HELL geology.
Next thing you're going to tell me is the sun orbits the earth like VenomfangX.
I don't prove god, you made the claim he exists. YOU PROVE IT
a012345 3 years ago
Are you seriously that fucking stupid?
You do realize Code of Hammurabi had moral codes before the bible was even written? You seriously think it took two fucking tablets for people to realize that people shouldn't steal or murder anyone?
I can't even imagine how stupid you're.
You're the one that lacks logic. If you seriously think that, anyone not believing in your faith would be murderers right now. Who occupies most of our prison space??? CHRISTIANS DUMBFUCK!!!
a012345 3 years ago
It's hard to not be angry when you have to response to someone that lacks basic logic.
A brick wall has more conversational value than you. At least it doesn't respond with verbal bile that makes no sense.
a012345 3 years ago
A natural process that is explainable and testable is ludicrous but a mysterious prankster god who no one knows it's features and attributes made the universe is plausible? Yea, good luck with that
In order to create something, you need to know about previous structures and how certain parts would work together. It takes many trials and errors. Some magic man making everything is not an answer but a douchebag response of "I don't know but I am religious". It raises more questions than it answer
a012345 3 years ago
Lets compare your body to a computer; nature created you just like men created the computer. The only problem is, it's like saying the hammer or the electricity that helped me create the computer is in fact the creator (far from the truth, they are tools used by an intelligent being.) Nature is the tools & process/hammer & banging it cannot create.
Yes G-d/creator is infinite otherwise he would be a creation not a creator. Something that has limits was created by someone who gave him limits
y2rock 3 years ago
God is infinite and has no creator but yet he's able to create everything...how would you know that again beside some book telling you so?
Well so is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In fact, without FSM, there would be no gravity. We have gravity, therefore FSM must exist. See how retarded that is?
a012345 3 years ago
I have a pamphlet of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, want it? It's proof.
a012345 3 years ago
Part 1
Again logic takes no place in your comments!
There is a creator because there is a creation! Period!
When you say it doesn't explain anything, what do u mean? What exactly do u want to understand for which you lack an explanation?
y2rock 3 years ago
Part 2
I study science; it helps me appreciate the greatness of G-d. Science is not G-d! Science is the process of 'how thing work'. When u learn Biology and u come across the workings/science of the human cell which is marvelous, what crosses your mind, "wow the protein and enzymes did a great job in creating this marvelous cell", how pathetic is that, its like saying your parents created u.
y2rock 3 years ago
Part 3
Regarding FSM, that is such a lame argument. I never said "this is G-d", I said "there is an infinite g-d, who created everything, and he was not created, because if he was created, then he is NOT g-d he would be a creation like u & I. (If u cant see the distinction then u need help)
y2rock 3 years ago
No proof, just claims. No need to respond. Anyone can make claims about anything they like.
a012345 3 years ago
Seriously, your whole entire paragraph is just stupid. Seriously stupid. If you know if things takes processes of how things work and get created, why is it your god has no process and no design? Not to mention, your creator has no proof of existence. My parents did create me, I was in my mother for months having those "proteins and enzymes" make trillions of my cells. I don't know if magic man made you out of dirt or what.
a012345 3 years ago
WOW I'm really surprised!
This is the first time I ever heard someone suggesting that his parents created him. This is childish, so on the surface, not a thinker.
What comes to mind, is the dog who was hit by a man with a stick, the dog went after the stick because to him the stick was the one who created his pain. How Foolish!
y2rock 3 years ago
Your lack of intelligence still continue to surprise me.
You even refer to your creator as father but yet claiming my parents create me (which they did) is not valid. The only difference is I can prove my parents did make me. I don't know how to popped into existence. You are the one lacking cognitive thought.
You whole statement with the dog is just stupid as well. You can even disprove this with just going to try out your claim. I guarantee you the dog will bite your ass, no questions asked
a012345 3 years ago
Yes, on the surface it seems that your father created u, that's what children are taught. But as u grow older and understand more, u realize that having sex, is not creating something, it's the same as making bread by mixing flour and water..., only sex is easier and more pleasurable.
It seems to me your yeshiva didn't teach u to look into things more deeply, so the torah u learnt was also on the surface and therefore u derived no pleasure from it and only grew to resent it. What a shame!
y2rock 3 years ago
Making shit up to jsutify your god and reality are two completely different things. You have zero proof your god exists much less that he created everything. I am tired of having to put up with your assumptions. If you want to do that, then purple monkey dishwasher made everything. It's equally as valid as you claiming your god made everything. Same amount of evidence. You can't prove he didn't either.
a012345 3 years ago
Sex has more meaning because humans give it more meaning on a personal bases to have connection with the other mate. In the end, it's still a process of reproduction. You seem to lack an understanding of it. This is the only way babies are made. Even a test tube baby still requires a sperm and an egg. Babies don't pop into existence. Dirt and ribs don't make babies.
I don't interpret which ever passage to fulfill my own needs like you do. I read it as it is. Shame you can't live in reality.
a012345 3 years ago
You are completely ignorant, your sense of intelligent is as high as a first grader and there is no point in arguing with u
Sperm & egg created men? And who created the sperm & eggs? Cells and who created the Cells?....... And the rules they follow etc, No point in arguing with you.
What a joke!
y2rock 3 years ago
Like I said before, your stupidity knows no end.
Things don't pop into existence like you claim your god does. Everything has a process and mechanics that goes behind it. Yes, it does take sperms and an egg to form a mammal. I guess you have no mother and father. Cells come from previous cells. I like how you choose to pick that god that requires no explanation.
You can't argue with me because you have no proof. You can't even deal with reality, much less proof your own worldview.
a012345 3 years ago
You're a prime example of how religion creates stupidity and intellectual dishonesty.
I seriously feel so bad for you. There is so much resource out there of facts, processes on the physical world that is testable but yet you choose to believe in fairy tales made by dumbasses from the bronze age which lacked major understanding of the world. The rest of us will think and advance the world with scientific advances while you can live in your imaginary world of delusion and hypocrisy. Sad.
a012345 3 years ago
It's pointless to argue with u! To you, a hammer and nails are creators, plain Stupid!
I study science almost every day, science does not tell us; where things come from or why. Science just deals with the "what it does and how it does it mechanically"
You are confused, and I'm done arguing with u!
BTW, my first language is not English, and when comparing my writing to yours it is not so bad.
y2rock 3 years ago
To you, things just pop into existence.
You don't even understand the basics of science much less the scientific method. Your god has no method or even an explainable method. Useless.
You just like to make claims. Your god is imaginary. Men made up the idea of a god. You are delusional for believing in it. You're ignorant for preaching it. You are stupid to not seek other real explanations instead of fairy tales.
You assume English is my first language? It's my fourth dipshit.Understand that?
a012345 3 years ago
BTW, learn to use punctuation before criticizing other people's English. It'll make you less stupid when you try to attack someone. Then again, you spread your stupidity by making supernatural claims with no evidence so it's hard for you not to look like the children of parents suffering from down's syndrome.
a012345 3 years ago
Science doesn't give a reason why because it's not an ideology. Science does give us clues of where things from. They don't make unsupported statements.
I agree that arguing with you is pointless as your position needs no refuting as anyone with logic can easily see its flaws. It lacks evidence, reason and any form of epistemology. You just want to claim your version of god did it, don't need a reason or process or even building blocks. Don't reply back with stupidity please. Live in reality.
a012345 3 years ago
Even a first grader would know where babies come from unlike you. Don't go telling me about how birds deliver babies from heaven now.
Your level of logic is below that of those who ride the short school bus. Your verbal bile and serious lack of cognitive ability has polluted this world enough. Please stop for all our sake.
a012345 3 years ago
If you need more education on sexual reproduction, google it. Spontaneous magic sky daddy existence is not the way people are made.
a012345 3 years ago
Ok there is no point in arguing with u!
A person who believes that his parents created him is plain foolish. (again go back to the analogy of the dog with the stick)
y2rock 3 years ago
Yes because I refuse to just accept your assumptions. I go on what is in reality that is testable. I don't accept your supernatural and unproven claims. All you have is a book that made the claims to answer your gaps with a character named god. That god gave no explanation of how he did it, what mechanics he did it with, why he did it, and even who he is. Sorry but only a brainwashed person accept it on someone else's hearsay. You are not intellectually honest and you want to preach your god.
a012345 3 years ago
You assumed it's a creation to begin with. That is logically flawed.
a012345 3 years ago
Be honest with yourself. Do you really only believe creationism is true because you believe in god or the bible or some mystery man made everything? Seriously, because there is just no evidence supporting a creator made everything.
a012345 3 years ago
Again its clear u really don't think into things, because if u would have, u wouldn't of asked these questions. I already explain to u that a man with limitations cannot be G-d.
I suggest u read what I wrote and think about it, and if u have any legitimate questions then ask them.
y2rock 3 years ago
Claiming an unknown magic man made everything from nothing from no previous design and supernatural powers, THAT requires no thinking. YOU keep making assumptions that god is already proven as a fact and yet it's far from it. How do you know of god's connotations. Your people can't even agree on wtf he is.
YOU seriously need to think about it. I can say FSM made everything is equally as valid as your claim as both have the same amount of proof. Just absurd.
a012345 3 years ago
All it comes down to is you want to believe at any cost. You're obviously throwing away logic and rationality to believe. No evidence is required for you to believe since you have faith and assumptions that keep you in your comfort zone. That unfortunately, is far from reality. You avoid questions you can't answer and fill the gap with a god you can't even prove. That's just delusion and intellectual laziness. With people like you, we would still have a god for everything as an explanation.
a012345 3 years ago
All that just to conclude with an Argument from Design?
So after all these years of the "consciousness raising" of Darwin's brilliant idea, which removes the need for "design" to explain the complexity of life, it's as if nothing happened.
Unfortunately, if you want to base everything on the igorant beliefs of bronze age mans, you have to keep ignoring all our advances in knowledge and understanding. Not a good way to educate children.
dbes02 3 years ago
classic jew ,already! he must say oi vey very soon!!!!
jamierourketen 4 years ago
Perhaps this guy manages to convince children with this argument, but intelligent design is a fallacious argument when proposed to reasonably well educated adult
pauldoeman 4 years ago
the fact that something is unlikely proves nothing about the divine.
it is unlikely that i would type the following number '87643234568831345689765423456789875678654323456787654345677654323456789876512123123490987689909876543345678976543456789876543234567890987654356789098098909878909878987654323456789876523456787654323456789876787654323456787654323432345678987654323456789876789876543234567876543234234234123412343212356789876566654'.
me typing that number is improbable, but proves nothing.
bigcherry99 4 years ago 2
You make no point or sense.
y2rock 4 years ago
Cell is a marvellous machine, haha your a sad ID'ist do yourself a big favour and read a book on the Dover court trail, and learn how REAL science and Real scientists, made your hero's look like morons. HAHA work in a lab what as a test tube or a bunsun burner, HAHAHA
danny123xvz 4 years ago
"You make no point or sense."
Actually that did make sense. A common mistake that ID proponents make is that they calculate probabilities after the fact. The probability that bigcherry typed that exact number was incredibly low. Nevertheless, he or she typed that number.
Calculating probabilities after the fact explains little.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
Right! you typed a random number using tools (PC) readily available and a full functional body (Brain, eyes, hand etc.) capable in doing so, what is your point?
y2rock 4 years ago
1. Danmoore5000 if you took a can of paint and tossed it up in the air... How many times do you thing it will take until you get a perfect letter "D", Ariel font, Size 14pt, now if you did that again and you wanted to get a letter "a" right next to the "D" same font & size Cont.
y2rock 4 years ago
2. But wait if when doing so the "D" got washed out you have to start again, until you spell your entire name would you say it's possible? NO of course NOT
Wait I just typed you name Danmoore so it is possible, well because I'm using tools that were designed to do so by a designer.
To make a functional protein you need special tools that are designed to make it so. Cont.
y2rock 4 years ago
This that it appears to look like it was evolved through time, does not mean it wasn't designed so, just like we see a person starts of a s a single cell and it splits into many different cells and then many different type of cells, would you suggest that cells just do that on their own, they make hands & feet (It just takes 9 month to do so +~-)? Absurd!
y2rock 4 years ago
4. Oh wait what about DNA, isn't that what makes every thing happen. Well, who designed this amazing DNA, with all the information and capabilities to produce a body?
Evolving through time does NOT suggest that it just happened so, ONLY it was designed to do so in this manner.
Please study your body see how remarkable it is and then think how great your creator is.
y2rock 4 years ago
"Oh wait what about DNA, isn't that what makes every thing happen. Well, who designed this amazing DNA"
This is your fatal error. You can not possibly know for certain that everything in existence requires a designer. It is an assertion that is beyond you or any other human.
"with all the information and capabilities to produce a body?"
That came from Natural Selection's effects on DNA.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
"Please study your body see how remarkable it is and then think how great your creator is."
Oh I agree with you there. Evolution by Natural Selection is in my opinion one of the most interesting and profound natural phenomena. Truly a marvelous creator.
However, I still deny that you know whether or not there is a conscious designer of Natural Selection or of the chemicals it acts on. The assumption that EVERYTHING requires willful design is disproved by the fact that NS has no consciousness.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
The assumption that EVERYTHING requires willful design is disproved by the fact that NS has no consciousness.
That is my point, Natural Selection is a made up thing, it's a word used to circumvent the real creator.
y2rock 4 years ago
"That is my point, Natural Selection is a made up thing, it's a word used to circumvent the real creator."
Selective pressures such as dying due to being born with lungs that don't work are made up? I think not.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
"1. Danmoore5000 if you took a can of paint and tossed it up in the air... How many times do you thing it will take until you get a perfect letter "D", Ariel font, Size 14pt, now if you did that again and you wanted to get a letter "a" right next to the "D" same font & size Cont."
You are asking me that BEFORE you throw up the can of paint, not after, which makes this a different scenario.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
The probability of me winning the lottery is extremely low as well. If I won the power ball, should I then assume that the device that spins the balls deliberately and knowingly selected me?
That's basically what you're saying. Anything unlikely requires a designer. It's a logical fallacy.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
"You are asking me that BEFORE you throw up the can of paint, not after, which makes this a different scenario."
Well, why don't you try it? Please!
It seems to me, that you prefer using philosophy rather than looking into the reality of the proposition.
y2rock 4 years ago
1. "That's basically what you're saying. Anything unlikely requires a designer. It's a logical fallacy."
NO! Everything requires a creator, period. (NOT just complexity)
But I was arguing using your false premise of (so called) "natural selection", showing that it cannot work.
y2rock 4 years ago
2. Winning the lottery needs a designer, of-course! The creator gave us brains/wisdom etc. and the capability to design and make many wonderful things using the materials that he created, each with his own parameters and laws that don't change (incidentally that's the reason why we can make scientific experiments, precisely because they have laws that don't change.)
y2rock 4 years ago
3. When we design a car, and later find it can do more things then it was designed to do, would you suggest it had no designer? or would you say that you have proof that things can be created with out a designer? NEVER, the reason why our scenario is not that uncommon is because we only know some of the properties of the material we use, if we had known all its properties you would have predicted what it did.
y2rock 4 years ago
4. Back to your scenario, a lottery is designed to pick out numbers (i.e. 7 numbers out of 54) now when you choose a number and people say the odds are so and so...., all they are saying is, there are x amount of combinations that are "possible" meaning if you had enough money you could buy all the possibilities, and one of them will be the right one, this follows the rules of nature (that was created by the creator and he allows us to use it).
y2rock 4 years ago
5. when you pick 7 numbers... really has no significants to you, because you have no control over the numbers being picked, however, the creator does, and he chooses the winner. To us it looks random, because its not in our power to control it, but in reality, RANDOM is a made up thing just like NATURAL SELECTION! The one that created everything from nothing, created the rules and the material to go with it. And keeps it standing (he has to, because it came from NOTHING) and controls it.
y2rock 4 years ago
6. It seems to me that scientists think of themselves as G-d, in that, what ever they can do, control or see those are the things that exists, but if they cant that's proof that it doesn't exist, that's absurd!
Suppose you had no sense of feel, would you know that air exists? or no sense of smell would you know smell exists? How about radiation in the 1600 (century) does that exist? How about electrons in the 1800 does that exist? And so on.....
y2rock 4 years ago
"It seems to me that scientists think of themselves as G-d, in that, what ever they can do, control or see those are the things that exists, but if they cant that's proof that it doesn't exist, that's absurd!"
Further evidence you have a poor understanding of science.
I have never EVER heard a Scientist say that things they can't measure at the time are thusly proven not to exist. Scientists work under the dictates of falsifiability, not proofs.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
In science it is useful to assume that things don't exist until you have reason (coming primarily from evidence) to do otherwise.
If you didn't do this you would have to start by believing in every single god and superstition and that doesn't make for good lab work.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
"Suppose you had no sense of feel, would you know that air exists?"
There are other ways of showing that air exists.
"or no sense of smell would you know smell exists?"
Smell could be conceived of. It's detection of particles by membranes like other senses. We understand a bat's echolocation even though we can't physically do it.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
You are right! The point is we can't say that it doesn't exist because we cannot see it; we need to study the reasons why it was suggested.
y2rock 4 years ago
"How about radiation in the 1600 (century) does that exist? How about electrons in the 1800..."
The reasons we now universally believe in radiation and electrons are that the people who discovered them SHOWED US THEIR EXPERIMENTS. Had electrons been described without evidence, it would have been taken with the same grain of salt as the flying spaghetti monster, and rightly so.
Now that we can think of experiments that would falsify electrons, and they do not, we have reason to believe in them.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
You are right! The point is we can't say that it doesn't exist because we cannot see it; we need to study the reasons why it was suggested.
y2rock 4 years ago
"The point is we can't say that it doesn't exist because we cannot see it; we need to study the reasons why it was suggested."
Yes, but we also shouldn't say that something does exist on a lack of evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
"you have no control over the numbers being picked, however, the creator does, and he chooses the winner."
ASSUMING there is a creator.
"To us it looks random, because its not in our power to control it, but in reality, RANDOM is a made up thing"
I can't disprove that the hand of God directs events that we see or define as random. Nor can you prove that He does. However, unfalsifiability is a measure of the WEAKNESS of an argument, not its strength.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
Just for good measure, I'll give you an example of how unfalsifiability measures the weakness of an argument.
I say you're a moron. You rightly ask me why. I respond with "God told me so".
You see? It's a weak argument.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
"When we design a car, and later find it can do more things then it was designed to do, would you suggest it had no designer?"
No. I would suggest that no-one designed the things that the car wasn't intended to do. By-products are unintentional. You know unintentional? As in no intent?
I have to thank you for yet another example detailing that usefulness can arise without design.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
"Winning the lottery needs a designer, of-course!"
You're twisting my analogy. I never said that lotteries didn't need designers. I said that the specific event of you winning that lottery doesn't require one. Your thought process would falsely assume that YOUR winning the lottery IF it happened was the DELIBERATE choice of the ball spinning machine. It was about consciousness arising from the churning of balls, not the guys who designed the lottery.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
"The creator gave us brains/wisdom etc. and the capability to design..."
And here you come up against the infinite regression problem. If creators are required to bestow wisdom, who bestowed wisdom on the creator?
danmoore5000 4 years ago
"NO! Everything requires a creator, period. (NOT just complexity)"
An assumption that you can not possibly support.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
'I was arguing using your false premise of (so called) "natural selection", showing that it cannot work.'
People write computer programs that use Natural Selection to create things. The results are not designed by the people who designed the program, but arise from random inputs to the computer which are acted on by selective pressures. The selective pressures weed out random changes that are not beneficial, but there is no conscious direction toward a specific end product. Thus, no design.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
everything requires a creator, what about god? man your arguments run in circles. outside time i know what evidence do you have for that.
danny123xvz 3 years ago
"Well, why don't you try it? Please!"
You missed the point. Your paint analogy requires calculating the probability BEFORE the event. Yet you apply it to Evolution AFTER you already know the outcome (an apple seed). Applying it to an apple seed that has already evolved is as faulty as saying that a Royal Flush in poker is unlikely therefore when you were dealt one last time you went to Vegas it must have been deliberate.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
If I was to apply the same method of thinking that you apply to Evolution to your paint analogy, I wouldn't expect an outcome before I throw the can of paint, I would throw the can of paint, look at the outcome, then say "Wow, what are the odds that the paint landed exactly that way. It must have been deliberate!"
It's fallacious.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
The assumption that EVERYTHING requires willful design is disproved by the fact that NS has no consciousness.
That is my point, Natural Selection is a made up thing, it's a word used to circumvent the real creator.
y2rock 4 years ago
"That is my point, Natural Selection is a made up thing, it's a word used to circumvent the real creator."
Then why can computer programs running selective algorithms write code that humans hadn't conceived of?
danmoore5000 4 years ago
1. Computer Programs can't think all it does is follow the rules that were set by the programmer. If the programmer is a great mathematician and uses a computer with billions of transistors he can program things that will produce different algorithms, Algorithms that would take him or someone else a long time to think of, just like accountants use calculators, and it is faster...
y2rock 4 years ago
2. The programmer does NOT know all the possibilities his program can do (remember BUGS) just like we don't know all the properties of any given object.
Pertaining the intention of the programmer, yes there are things that happen unintentionally but that's pertaining TO US, we don't know all the properties, capabilities, options etc. of any given thing or law, so for us it seems unintentionally (happened by itself, without designer) but the truth is, it didn't.
y2rock 4 years ago
3. When one looks at the over all picture of the universe everything was designed the way you see it, including the programmer, the school he went to and the program he wrote and the mistakes he made and the algorithms that followed etc.
y2rock 4 years ago
1. No no. You misunderstood my example. I'm not saying that the programmer doesn't necessarily know what's going to happen due to bugs or errors. I'm talking about evolutionary algorithms where the programmer literally doesn't know what will be evolved by the program.
I.E. a program for designing airplane wings using evolutionary mechanisms. The program is capable of testing a wing's lift capabilities. It then uses a random number generator to modify the wings.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
2. For every generation our program keeps the wings with modifications that made the wing perform better in tests and throws out the ones that performed worse. It therefore evolves a wing that the programmer didn't design, and may not even know exactly why it works so well (this is not a bug). And there you have it. Design without consciousness.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
3. I should add this as well. In the evolutionary algorithm I described, if the programmer ran the program again, it would not go through the exact same series of steps again, and may arrive at a different solution, even though the programmer made no changes to the program! This is because the random number inputs would be different the second time around. So you see, it's not a bug, but the solution is never designed by the programmer either.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
"When one looks at the over all picture..."
Something you and I can not possibly do, which is why I keep telling you you're making assumptions you can't possibly justify.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
1. I'll outline another real world example of an evolutionary algorithm designing something independently of the programmer.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
2. Designing a concert hall with good acoustics. The program starts with a box, then randomly modifies the box by adding or subtracting different shapes. The ones with better acoustics are kept, those with worse acoustics are thrown out. After thousands of generations, the computer outputs a concert hall with wonderful acoustics.
The solution is completely independent of what the programmer may have thought a good concert hall might look like.
danmoore5000 4 years ago
And someone better bloody read the damn thing, since I had to get a new account just to finish posting.
nksherrard 4 years ago 2
LOL, I did dude, and it was awesome!
Mythopoeikon 4 years ago
6. Over millions and millions of years, these very occasional helpful mutations build on each other, augment each other, and lead to seemingly impossibly drastic changes in organisms. I think time is really the key to understanding evolution. It's simply difficult for people to grasp the concept of "a million years." I know it is for me. Anyway, there's my explanation. Hope you like it, since I should be studying Torts right now, not writing a YouTube response.
nksherrard 4 years ago 3
5. So, thus far we have (A) a random mutation, and (B) an environment where that mutation turns out to be helpful. This gave us (1) a slightly better chance to survive and reproduce than all the other guys in the same environment, and (2) a slightly higher chance that the same mutation will occur in the offspring. Now, when you put (1) and (2) together, and give it a million years, that mutation becomes the standard physical characteristic, instead of a deviation.
nksherrard 4 years ago 4
4. The environment dictates what is or is not a "helpful" random mutation. If the mutation is helpful in that environment, then clearly, that particular creature has a better chance at living longer and reproducing more than all the other creatures that don't have the "helpful" mutation. When that creature reproduces, it is more likely that its offspring will also have the same physical mutation (just like a human with dwarfism is more likely to have a child with the same condition).
nksherrard 4 years ago 4
3. But sometimes, this difference is helpful, in the context of that particular environment (like a leopard born with an odd pattern of spots that makes it harder to see in its particular environment). You can see the point; "child" bacteria could have a physical quality that the "parent" doesn't, and every once in a great while, that physical quality will be helpful for that "child" in that particular environment. This is the "natural selection" part; there is nothing random about this at all.
nsherrard 4 years ago 4
2. Now remember, the "child" has slightly different physical characteristics than the "parent." Most of the time, this physical difference is bad (like a leopard born without claws, say, would make life very hard in the environment it lives in), or has no effect at all (like a leopard born with a mole on its nose, say, would make no difference in its daily environment).
nsherrard 4 years ago 3
1. Okay, I'll give it a shot. Let's start with bacteria. A bacterium reproduces. Sometimes the transfer of genetic info is imperfect. "Child" has slightly different physical characteristics than "parent" (mutation as a result of imperfect info transfer). This is random. Now, here's the part that's not random at all; the environment. That is to say, the bacteria exist in a particular environment.
nsherrard 4 years ago 3
1. Thanks for keeping it civil.
First when taking any specific thing (i.e. Bacteria) and talking about its reproduction, is like coming into the end of the game, because, the idea of something copying itself, is very complex and can only happen if it was designed to do so. You will never find a car that will reproduce itself, NEVER, (because it wasn't designed to do so).
ydbNutra 4 years ago
2. The fact that we find in nature, that things do go through the complex process of copying itself, can NOT be used as an argument, to say, organism are different, because they do copy themselves. The obvious question is WHY? It obviously is following the rules of nature that allows them to do so. WAIT! RULES? Who made those rules?
I will continue tomorrow.
ydbNutra 4 years ago
who made the rules! read any book of evolution and look up natural selection. (please do not respond to this post until you have) then if you understand it you will see how naive your "rules" comeback is when concerning evolution.
danny123xvz 4 years ago
What are you talking about?
Everything in nature follows rules/laws! Laws of physics etc. without it you cannot make any scientific experiments.
I work in a lab, and I read some of these comments, about natural selection, as if its a walk in the park.
y2rock 4 years ago
It may very well be, the process of evolution took place, but it was created & guided so, through out.
How many books have been written on the study of a cell??? Many! You know why? Because it is a marvelous machine made by a marvelous designer and yes it has rules, it may look like randomness, but it isn't so.
y2rock 4 years ago