Refutation of Darwinism

[Uncle Martin]

How about "God is the creator of the universe"?

 

That has been proven wrong, Freethinker has show us that the great Invisible Pink Unicorn created the universe. To challenge this is blasphemy.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: GAHD

"Uncertainty and Omnipotence" -FT

 

omni=all/complete/universal potence= power. Uncertanty does not contradict "Complete power"

Omnipotence would require omniscience, all KNOWING, when it CAN'T BE KNOWN, it "can't be known". Thus Uncertainty and Omniscience/ Omnipotence are mutually exclusive.

 

Further, even Omnipotence itself would require that a god would have, as you say "Complete power" over things. But with Uncertainty NOTHING has power over WHEN or WHICH.

 

So from BOTH Omniscience and Omnipotence, Uncertainty is completely incompatible with a god.

 

"Exactly how do alligators (and crocks) show a LACK of evolution/ evolutionary advantage?" -FT

 

THey have not evolved in form in quite some time. One would expect some new advantage would suface in them over time; warm blood, sweat glands, opposible digits, SOMETHING.

 

There is NOTHING in the Theory of Evolution that REQUIRES a species, that has proven itself to have ALREADY eolved perhaps one of the strongest sets of evolutionary advantages to EVOLVE further. In fact it is counter intuitive to pretend it REQUIRES things such as "warm blood, sweat glands, opposible digits" when they exist in species that have NOT show anywhere near the extensive history of those lacking such features. It is merely a case of anthropomorphic prejudice. Just because YOU have it does NOT mean it is SUPERIOR.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Freethinker

 

Hmm. I am an atheist myself, so I am not sure I am up to defining God. Still, I will have a stab at it. How about "God is the creator of the universe"?

 

You addressed to me specifically. But I am not sure why. So I am responding just so you do not think I am ignoring you.

 

But what were you looking for in dialog?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

How about "God is the creator of the universe"?

 

That has been proven wrong, Freethinker has show us that the great Invisible Pink Unicorn created the universe. To challenge this is blasphemy.

 

May we be blessed by her Pinkness and spared the justice of her horn!

[Uncle Martin]

error

[Freethinker]

will robinson

[Uncle Martin]

Penny or Judy? Ahh!! I'm way too old.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Penny or Judy? Ahh!! I'm way too old.

Whoa! I've had the Charlies Angles (Kate Jackson) or Gilligan's Island (Mary Ann) question, but never that one. In todays pediphobic world, it could be dangerous to answer that one.

[Uncle Martin]

I guess we'll have to tell Tormod that the discussion has evolved towards debating Darwinian implications in bad television programs from the sixties and seventies. TV, now that's an example of evolution that even the "Fundys" may comprehend.

[sanctus]

If I understood well all of the axioms of the ockham's razor, then it's a principle that has been destroyed many times. How I understand it it's that you take onle the elemnts of theory that you need to get the full description of the system. I copy an example from this site: phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html

 

 

But there are are theories which have the very same predictions and it is here that the Razor is useful. Consider form example the following two theories aimed at describing the motions of the planets around the sun

• The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance.

• The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance. This force is generated by the will of some powerful aliens.
  

Since the force between the planets and the sun determines the motion of the former and both theories posit the same type of force, the predicted motion of the planets will be identical for both theories. the second theory, however, has additional baggage (the will of the aliens) which is unnecessary for the description of the system.

 

 

Therefore for the discription of the solar system we don't need the aliens, but that doesn't prove that they don't generate that force, just that the origin of the force isn't needed for the description of that system; but the O. Razor would eliminate the second theory, even if it could be right when we look at the system of the galaxy (aliens in the center that create mass to keep it together or....).

 

It's like classical electrodynamics, to describe the electrique fields it was enough and therefore for the O. Razor the quantistique electrodynamics should be rejected as there is more stuff inside that theory.

 

But maybe I understood something wrong, a possiblke erreor I see in my reasoning is that the two theories should provide the same predictions in all cases before applying the O. razor, then the elctrodynamic example would be wrong as only the second predicts the stability of an electron around a nucleus.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: sanctus

If I understood well all of the axioms of the ockham's razor,

ALL of the axions? There is only ONE.

 

From the site you list

 

"Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the fourteenth century: `Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''."

then it's a principle that has been destroyed many times.

OR has been challenged here before. I have asked for ANY example in which OR is WRONG. Despite claims of it's existence, none has been provided. OR has NEVER been shown to be wrong.

How I understand it it's that you take onle the elemnts of theory that you need to get the full description of the system.

Why would you "understand it" that way? What in "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily'' would give ANY support to taking ANY elements away?

 

But there are are theories which have the very same predictions and it is here that the Razor is useful. Consider form example the following two theories aimed at describing the motions of the planets around the sun

 

• The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance.

 

• The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance. This force is generated by the will of some powerful aliens.
   
  

 

Since the force between the planets and the sun determines the motion of the former and both theories posit the same type of force, the predicted motion of the planets will be identical for both theories. the second theory, however, has additional baggage (the will of the aliens) which is unnecessary for the description of the system.

 

Therefore for the discription of the solar system we don't need the aliens, but that doesn't prove that they don't generate that force, just that the origin of the force isn't needed for the description of that system; but the O. Razor would eliminate the second theory, even if it could be right when we look at the system of the galaxy (aliens in the center that create mass to keep it together or....).

Thus you completely miss how OR is applied to shave away the 2nd proposition.

 

In the example YOU provide, the 1st proposition asserts that the motion is controlled by a specific force. The 2nd proposition asserts the same specific force AS WELL AS an ADDITIONAL AGENT. If the 1st proposition provides the same level of accuracy in understanding and predictability, then the ADDITIONAL AGENT in the 2nd proposition is unneccesary and thus shaved by OR.

 

There is NOTHING in OR that would say we arbitrarily REMOVE the aliens from the 2nd for the comparison. Just that their addition in the 2nd produce no increase in accuracy/ predictablity while it DOES "multiply entities unnecessarily''.

 

But maybe I understood something wrong, a possiblke erreor I see in my reasoning is that the two theories should provide the same predictions in all cases before applying the O. razor, then the elctrodynamic example would be wrong as only the second predicts the stability of an electron around a nucleus.

I don't see anything that would support your seeing OR any other way.

[TeleMad]

Originally posted by: TINNY

Here's a great resource that will totally destroy all forms darwinism

 

 

HarunYahya</p>

 

 

Care to posts something from there? In my skimming of "Darwinism" part I couldn't find anything that didn't require me to buy it or spend hours downloading it. If you've got the goods, let's see 'em.

[Uncle Martin]

TeleMad,

 

If you're still interested, I went to the site referenced above and found "refutation of Darwinism" in the column on the right side of the front page. Click on that and you'll find links to the full text article. It is quite amusing in my opinion. A rather biased religious site that convolutes scientific process for it's own agenda.

 

Tinny,

 

I just don't see that this destroys any "forms of Darwinism". Sorry.

[TeleMad]

Uncle Martin: It is quite amusing in my opinion. A rather biased religious site that convolutes scientific process for it's own agenda.

 

Here's a keeper...

 

This superstitious belief of materialism is called "evolution". (http://www.harunyahya.com/dna01.php)

 

I skimmed through one other page...

 

Francis Crick, the biochemist who discovered the structure of DNA, won a Nobel prize with respect to the research he had made on the subject. Crick, who was an ardent evolutionist, stated the following scientific opinion in a book he has written after testifying the miraculous structure of DNA:"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."3 Even in Crick's view, who was one of the biggest experts on DNA, life could never originate on earth spontaneously. (http://www.harunyahya.com/dna02.php)

 

I can’t really blame this guy too much for giving the misleading quote because Crick has been improperly quoted on that “famous” statement of his so many times. But the author’s subsequent conclusion is just plain wrong, and he can’t quote Crick saying such in that book (the book is called “Life Itself”…funny how the author didn’t mention the title...bet he's never even read it).

 

The data in DNA, which is made up of 5 billion letters, is composed of a special and meaningful sequence of letters A-T-G-C. However, not even a single letter error should be made in this sequence. A misspelled word or a letter error in an encyclopedia may be overlooked and ignored. It would not even be noticed. However, even a single mistake in any base pair of DNA, such as a miscoded letter in the 1 billion 719 million 348 thousand 632nd base pair, would cause terrible results for the cell, and therefore for the person himself. For instance, haemophilia (child leukemia) is the outcome of such an erroneous coding.

 

Taken at face value that is completely ridiculous. Fact is that there are more than a billion base pairs in our DNA that are “junk” – a change in anyone of those would most likely cause no harm and would go completely unnoticed. However, how does the author define “mistake” and “miscoded”? If he defines mistake as a change that causes harm, then yeah, any mistake would cause harm…but that would be circular reasoning.

 

 

 

 

 

Next we see the author telling us that God causes cancer!

 

In truth, it would be incorrect to call this "erroneous coding", because like every other thing that exists, the human DNA, too, is created by God and even the seldom occurring mistakes come about with respect to a hidden cause (divine purpose). The coding mistake which causes cancer is a specially created disorder. It is created specially for a certain hidden cause to show man his own weakness and impotence, remind him of the delicate balances man's creation depends on, and of what kind of troubles he may face in case of the slightest disturbance in these balances.

[Uncle Martin]

The simple fact that he suggests haemophilia is analogous to childhood leukemia tells me he is not doing any real research. He must pull his claims out of thin air.