Evolution v Creationism (Part II Responses) (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 13, 2014, 00:46 (3723 days ago) @ dhw

Part Two
> 
> TONY: The observed elements of life, once understood, would make logical sense 
> and lack random messiness of random chance evolution.[observed] 
> 
> DHW: Evolution as a process makes perfect sense.-
Why it DOESN'T make sense:-


• No mechanism for adding new information to the genome of the necessary complexity to innovate/invent new long term biological elements. Evidence shows the exact opposite, that mechanisms are in place to PREVENT long term changes to biological elements.

• Species appear de novo fully formed with no evidence of trial and error at all.

• Survival because they are fit to survive is a tautology, not logic.

• No one has ever come up with a criteria for what 'fittest' actually is, so it can literally mean anything. What survives, survives. 

• Evolutionist claim that it is unlikely that any transient forms were preserved as fossils, yet accept the gross statistical unlikeliness that evolution ever happened to begin with. (Double Standards)

• How would a creature know what is a best fit for the environment? Which is more fit, the shark or the whale? "Fittest" implies that there is an ideal. Shouldn't everything then cluster around that ideal, or show some continuous movement towards that ideal? If fittest is the criteria, why would we have lambs when it is so much more beneficial to be the lion?


--> 
> TONY: Now, you tell me which one has less evidence from observations, evolution or creation. 
> 
>DHW: There is no evidence here for either theory. Most of what you have written applies to [all of them].-I disagree. See elsewhere for specific reasons for the various elements.-
> 
> DHW: In the name of Occam, wouldn't it be simpler for God to create a mechanism that can devise its own programmes as and when they're needed? 
> 
 
>DHW: We all agree that there was no NEED for life to evolve beyond bacteria ..So some WILL develop further if the environment allows, and others will remain unchanged. -This is contradictory. If there were no NEED, then no innovation/adaptation would have taken place, making evolution false. If there is no NEED, then evolution would be a worst case scenario, not a best case. Innovation takes work. Work consumes energy. High energy consumption is an evolutionary pit fall.--> 
> TONY: When you stop treating god like Houdini or a Djinn that snaps his fingers or twitches his nose to make galaxies *poof* into existence, then what he has done makes perfect sense.
> 
>DHW: Wearing my theist's hat, I would object very strongly to the finger-snapping image. I would see God as a scientist, not a magician. We might, however, disagree on what constitutes perfect sense. For example, you see extinctions as part of a great plan with an ultimate purpose connected with humans. -Because the evidence leads me to that conclusion. All life has purpose. I have, in the past, commented on the specific purposes for a variety of life forms. Even humans have a purpose as stewards of the earth. Not that we have done such a great job fulfilling that purpose. -
>DHW: An alternative would be that the ultimate purpose is to relieve God's boredom with an ongoing entertainment. That too constitutes perfect sense.-This only makes sense if you view god as the bully that pulls the wings off flies or puts ants under the magnifying glass. Assuming that entertainment was part of the purpose (which I do not agree with, at least not as you state it here), why would god take such pains to make sure everything was so perfectly balanced, so harmonious, only to destroy it? If that were all he was interested in, why not simply make temporary planets and temporary creatures and then invent new ways to kill them off?->DHW: If I put on my atheist's hat, I can see that the comings and goings within an impersonal universe leave us to find our own purpose in life, because there is no overall purpose. That too makes perfect sense. -Except that all of the laws, all of creation forms a cohesive, unified structure that works together harmoniously. We saw this anywhere else, we would acknowledge without hesitation that it was designed, and as such, we would spend more thought on the purpose of its creation than we do.->DHW: I can see that all the hypotheses concerning Evolution v Creationism make sense up to a certain point, but none of them provide what you might call a “definitive” answer. 
> -God driven creation DOES give a definitive answer, it is just not one that you want to hear. That is not meant as an insult, by the way, just a simple observation. God driven creation implies a purpose. Recognizing that there is a purposes imposes an obligation to learn and understand that purpose, and then to fulfill our part in it. Evolution, inventive cells, alien seeding, these all appeal to people because they do not obligate us to anything excepting what we want to do. They allow action without consequence (beyond this life) and a certain strange fatalism. Peoples lives become cheap things that can be used and thrown away. The harm people cause to themselves and each other becomes trivial. Want proof of that? Watch the news...-(And no, I am not saying that YOU are lazy or that you think peoples lives are cheap.)

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.