Try this

[zultr]

Go to Google. Type "origin of man." Click search. Check out the first few links. I'll give you a hint: you won't see Darwin until you scoll down a few.

Imagine yourself as a student trying to uncover some research on the subject and this is your tool.

How does Google work? I know the "miserable failure" routine will get you the White House based on links; are creationists using the same tactic in their efforts to attack evolution?

[Taffer]

The first site in the list, "The Scientific Evidence For the Origin of Man", is a load. It is basically a Creationist propaganda site, which spouts the usual rubbish about the "flaws" in evolution, and the usual "coverups" surrounding it. This is a sad state of affairs for anyone trying to find the scientific theory of our origins.

[zultr]

Actually, you can ditto that for the first four links.

[BracesForImpact]

This is precisely why critical thinking should be taught much earlier than college level.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by zultr
How does Google work?
Its search algorhthym is called PageRank (http://www.webworkshop.net/pagerank.html), which is explained in a nutshell as follow: Google organizes its search results based on the importance of page, the importance of a page is determined by the number of hyperlinks that point to that page.

Those pseudoscientific links are at the top of Googles search results because large groups have Google Bombed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb) the site, meaning they have organized many groups into linking to those sites at the top of the search in an attempt to influence their ranking in the results.

[c4ts]

For more fun, Google your screen name.

I found out I have my own website:
www.c4ts.com

[Taffer]

Originally posted by c4ts
For more fun, Google your screen name.

I found out I have my own website:
www.c4ts.com

I found out that my handle is all-too common. :(

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zultr
Go to Google. Type "origin of man." Click search. Check out the first few links. I'll give you a hint: you won't see Darwin until you scoll down a few.

Imagine yourself as a student trying to uncover some research on the subject and this is your tool.

How does Google work? I know the "miserable failure" routine will get you the White House based on links; are creationists using the same tactic in their efforts to attack evolution? Things don't evolve, in-as-much-as they unfold ... which, is a sure sign that things were "laid out" beforehand.

[Taffer]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Things don't evolve, in-as-much-as they unfold ... which, is a sure sign that things were "laid out" beforehand.

:rolleyes:

The mountain of proof points to evolution. Where is the proof to back up your statement? What do you mean "unfold"? Even if they did, why must they be "designed" before hand?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Taffer
:rolleyes:

The mountain of proof points to evolution. Where is the proof to back up your statement? What do you mean "unfold"? Even if they did, why must they be "designed" before hand? Because all of the information is within the seed, that tells the plant how to grow ... which, merely unfolds according to its design. There is nothing miraculous (that occurs at random) about how a plant grows outside of that.

[wollery]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Because all of the information is within the seed, that tells the plant how to grow ... which, merely unfolds according to its design. There is nothing miraculous (that occurs at random) about how a plant grows outside of that. So why aren't all plants of the same species completely identical?

[Taffer]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Because all of the information is within the seed, that tells the plant how to grow ... which, merely unfolds according to its design. There is nothing miraculous (that occurs at random) about how a plant grows outside of that.

And why couldn't this information have evolved? What is your reasoning behind claiming that this information must have been designed?

[uruk]

"Design" does not imply a "designer". It's just a word to describe something.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wollery
So why aren't all plants of the same species completely identical? Because each is affected differently in its overall design with the Universe.

[Taffer]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Because each is affected differently in its overall design with the Universe.

This is a nonsense statement. How is "it's overall design with the Universe" effected? Define "Universe". Define "design".

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Taffer
And why couldn't this information have evolved? What is your reasoning behind claiming that this information must have been designed? Evolved from what? The environment? ... As if to say the enivronment mysteriously wooshed itself into place out of nowhere? Not a chance!

[wollery]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Because each is affected differently in its overall design with the Universe. I'm sorry, but that statement doesn't really make much sense, you'll have to clarify; do you mean that the design in each seed is different, or that outside influences alter how the plants develop?

[Taffer]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Evolved from what? The environment? ... As if to say the enivronment mysteriously wooshed itself into place out of nowhere? Not a chance!

Evolutional Theory does not suggest it "wooshed itself into place out of nowhere". Life evolved from simple chemicals (or rather, from complicated chemicals that came from simple chemicals), for example self replicating RNA. What is your problem here?

EDIT: Removed an erronious "DNA".

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by uruk
"Design" does not imply a "designer". It's just a word to describe something. "Design" describes a "predictable" relationship between "things." Whereas if it doesn't imply a designer, where does the predictability come from? Pure happenstance? Not!

[wollery]

Originally posted by Iacchus
"Design" describes a "predictable" relationship between "things." Whereas if it doesn't imply a designer, where does the predictability come from? Pure happenstance? Not! There a quite a few good examples of how large numbers of random events can produce predictable outcomes. Try reading up on probability theory, you may learn something!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by wollery
There a quite a few good examples of how large numbers of random events can produce predictable outcomes. Try reading up on probability theory, you may learn something! And what pray tell makes all these events random? Your inability to comprehend all the variables involved? That does not make it random. As I have already said, this is merely evidence that things "unfold."

[Taffer]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what pray tell makes all these events random? Your inability to comprehend all the variables involved? That does not make it random. As I have already said, this is merely evidence that things "unfold."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was refering to something like rolling a die 100,000 times, and counting the number of 6's that show. How many times do you think it'll show? That's right! 1/6th of the total! Well done, you just predicted the outcome of a large number of random events. Congratulations!

[Alkatran]

If random events can't converge to non-random events, Quantum Physics is wrong. Period. But guess what? Quantum physics' predictions converge to those of classical physics as you move from micro to macro! WOW!

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Things don't evolve, in-as-much-as they unfold ... which, is a sure sign that things were "laid out" beforehand. And you are one of the best arguments we have against ID...


Oh, and thanks for marking another thread, and pretty much rendering it unfit for human consumption..

[uruk]

"Design" describes a "predictable" relationship between "things." Whereas if it doesn't imply a designer, where does the predictability come from? Pure happenstance? Not!

Why not? Do you "design" your child? Or does your child's traits come from the happenstance combination of the parents genes?

design and predictabilty is described by the observer. The phenomena "just is".
To state that there is a designer is to imply that the designer has a designer ad infinitum. To say that there is an ultimate designer is to arbitrarily pick a starting point. i.e. a designer with no designer. If you are willing to accept this you must also be willing to accept that the design can have no designer. You saying that it is impossible for the universe to whoosh into existance from nothing but yet in the same breath you say that an entity can just whoosh into existance from nothing. The same goes for saying that an entity has always existed. You say the the univers could not have always existed yet you say that an entity has always existed.

[zultr]

Perhaps interested members here can "google bomb" a site on Darwin. Or maybe here.

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by uruk
"Design" does not imply a "designer".

Actually, technically it does. Order, on the other hand, does not require an orderer. At its most basic, the argument from design incorrectly infers that certain things were designed because they have certain kinds of order, and based on that fallacious inference, concludes that those certain things were designed.

In short, be very careful about the difference between design and order.

[Taffer]

Originally posted by zultr
Perhaps interested members here can "google bomb" a site on Darwin. Or maybe here.

Good idea! I'm keen for that.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Taffer
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was refering to something like rolling a die 100,000 times, and counting the number of 6's that show. How many times do you think it'll show? That's right! 1/6th of the total! Well done, you just predicted the outcome of a large number of random events. Congratulations! I think the only way you could even begin to approach a random roll of the die were if everything involved were in state of perfection and equillibrium which, of course is impossible in the physical sense. Otherwise you have a whole multitude of variables -- even if it was just a matter of splitting atoms -- that are going to affect the outcome. Whereas a whole multitude of variables divided by 6, is still a whole multitude of variables. Which of course doesn't add up to anything random here.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Oh, and thanks for marking another thread, and pretty much rendering it unfit for human consumption.. Well, without the reference to the "creationist tactics" in the original post, I probably wouldn't have said anything. Do you understand how that works?

are creationists using the same tactic in their efforts to attack evolution?So, I figured what the heck, I might as well put in my two cents about evolution as well.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by uruk
Why not? Do you "design" your child? Or does your child's traits come from the happenstance combination of the parents genes?If there was no inherent design within the seed, would it grow?

design and predictabilty is described by the observer. The phenomena "just is". Really? Then why are scientists so determined to predict the "outcome" of things?

To state that there is a designer is to imply that the designer has a designer ad infinitum. To say that there is an ultimate designer is to arbitrarily pick a starting point. i.e. a designer with no designer.Well, we can begin with the here and now. Does nothing in fact beget nothing?

If you are willing to accept this you must also be willing to accept that the design can have no designer.The only thing I'm unprepared to accept is that something can come from nothing. Whereas the proof of that something (always existing) is the fact that we are here.

You saying that it is impossible for the universe to whoosh into existance from nothing but yet in the same breath you say that an entity can just whoosh into existance from nothing.From nothing? As you say, the phenomenon "just is."

The same goes for saying that an entity has always existed. You say the the univers could not have always existed yet you say that an entity has always existed. Which is to say, the Universe just "wooshed" itself into existence, correct?

[Taffer]

If there was no inherent design within the seed, would it grow?

Did you not before tell people to be careful between 'design' and 'order'? There is no design in the seed, but there most definately is order. But now, there is order in a lot of things, and they seem to be no problem?

Really? Then why are scientists so determined to predict the "outcome" of things?

They aren't. Scientists try to formulate theories that 'save the phenomenon', and let them predict, with the most accurate outcome, any described even.

Well, we can begin with the here and now. Does nothing in fact beget nothing?

How is something coming from nothing? You have, so far, not shown a single bit of evidence to shows that this must be the case. Give me a step by step argument, with a number of premises and a conclusion.

The only thing I'm unprepared to accept is that something can come from nothing. Whereas the proof of that something (always existing) is the fact that we are here.

This is nonsense. There is no proof that something always exists just because we are here. We are here by chance, and natural selection. This does not mean there is proof that something "always" exists. Furthermore, some things do "come from nothing". Certain quantum particles pop into and out of existance. Explain that.

From nothing? As you say, the phenomenon "just is."


He is saying, if god exists, where did he come from? If you claim that everything designed needs a designer (life, for example), then you must admit that God (who is far more complicated then us) must have a designer. But who designed the designer of the designer? Ad Infinitum.

Which is to say, the Universe just "wooshed" itself into existence, correct?

Nonesense. He simply pointed out the double standard of your argument. The universe once did not exist, and now does, by the design of some creator that has always existed. And why can not the universe come from nothing? You have failed to give any reason why 'something from nothing' is not possible.

[c4ts]

If I roll 20 dice, what are the chances that I will roll a 6?

[Alkatran]

The chance of getting at least one 6 in twenty rolls is
1 - (5/6)^20 =~ .974

Assuming a fair die.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Alkatran
Assuming a fair die. Yes, and there becomes the problem. How does one assume such a thing, unless everything were in a (physical) state of perfection? In which case there will always be some variable involved which, will affect how the die is rolled, one way or the other.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Taffer
Did you not before tell people to be careful between 'design' and 'order'?No, I did not.

There is no design in the seed, but there most definately is order. But now, there is order in a lot of things, and they seem to be no problem?Order is in fact what outlines "the script" which, everything must follow.

[Taffer]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, I did not.

My bad. I got you and jjramsey a little confused.


Order is in fact what outlines "the script" which, everything must follow.

Again you are being as ambiguous as possible. Why must there be a 'script' if there is order?

[ Yes, and there becomes the problem. How does one assume such a thing, unless everything were in a (physical) state of perfection? In which case there will always be some variable involved which, will affect how the die is rolled, one way or the other.

Then lets change the example. Lets look at radioactive decay events in a U238 nucleus. The average decay rate of U238 is 25MBq (25,000,000 becquerel). One Becquerel is defined as one decay event per second, so 25MBq is 25 million decay events per second. But radioactive decay is completely random! There is no way to predict when any single individual event will take place, but as n becomes huge, it approaches a set value (in this case, 25MBq).

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Things don't evolve, in-as-much-as they unfold ... which, is a sure sign that things were "laid out" beforehand. This is Claim CI120 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI120.html), "A purpose for an object indicates that the object is designed."

It is not uncommon for undesigned objects to have a purpose. The North Star, for example, has a purpose in navigation, but it got that purpose entirely through the chance of its being in a certain spot.

Even with designed things, it is common for purposes to come and go. The same object can have different purposes at different times or even multiple purposes at the same time. It will gain and lose its purposes as conditions change.

(Three other refutations not quoted.)

Originally posted by Iacchus
Evolved from what? The environment? ... As if to say the enivronment mysteriously wooshed itself into place out of nowhere? Not a chance!This is Claim CA100 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html), "Argument from incredulity."

Really, the claim is "I can't conceive that (fill in the blank)." Others might be able to find a natural explanation; in many cases, they already have. Nobody knows everything, so it is unreasonable to conclude that something is impossible just because you do not know it. Even a noted antievolutionist acknowledges this point: "The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results" (Behe 2003).

(One other refutation not quoted.)

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, we can begin with the here and now. Does nothing in fact beget nothing?This is Claim CF101 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF101.html), "Matter/energy cannot come from nothing."

Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero (Guth 1997, 9-12,271-276; Tryon 1973).



Everything Iacchus has posted so far in this thread is a variation on one of the above three refuted ideas.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Beleth
This is Claim CI120 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI120.html), "A purpose for an object indicates that the object is designed."

It is not uncommon for undesigned objects to have a purpose. The North Star, for example, has a purpose in navigation, but it got that purpose entirely through the chance of its being in a certain spot.

Even with designed things, it is common for purposes to come and go. The same object can have different purposes at different times or even multiple purposes at the same time. It will gain and lose its purposes as conditions change.

(Three other refutations not quoted.)And do not all the members of the body come together to serve the purpose of the whole?

This is Claim CA100 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html), "Argument from incredulity."

Really, the claim is "I can't conceive that (fill in the blank)." Others might be able to find a natural explanation; in many cases, they already have. Nobody knows everything, so it is unreasonable to conclude that something is impossible just because you do not know it. Even a noted antievolutionist acknowledges this point: "The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results" (Behe 2003).

(One other refutation not quoted.)It's not enough to believe that things don't happen for no reason? Take a look around you, and tell me where this doesn't apply.


This is Claim CF101 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF101.html), "Matter/energy cannot come from nothing."

Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero (Guth 1997, 9-12,271-276; Tryon 1973).

Everything Iacchus has posted so far in this thread is a variation on one of the above three refuted ideas. So, what caused this so-called "singularity" to fluctuate then?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And do not all the members of the body come together to serve the purpose of the whole?

It's not enough to believe that things don't happen for no reason? Take a look around you, and tell me where this doesn't apply.

So, what caused this so-called "singularity" to fluctuate then? Does this mean you are not going to refute the statements I posted?

Make declarative statements instead of questions, sir, and we can proceed.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and there becomes the problem. How does one assume such a thing, unless everything were in a (physical) state of perfection? In which case there will always be some variable involved which, will affect how the die is rolled, one way or the other.

First you can see if the sides are all different numbers. For example, a six-sided die with a 1 on each surface is not a fair die. That doesn't require any physical state of perfection.