The Case Against Evolution

[Ummon]

It is not necessary to add 2 to 2 because you can add 1 to 3. Given that they are all composed of 1s, the only necessary condition for 4 is 4 itself.

[Copperknickers II]

It is not necessary to add 2 to 2 because you can add 1 to 3. Given that they are all composed of 1s, the only necessary condition for 4 is 4 itself.

But 2 is the given value. Ie: Given 2, what is neccessary for 4? The only answer is 2.

[Ummon]

Because you cannot add 1+1+1+1?

[Gaidin]

Given that they are all composed of 1s, the only necessary condition for 4 is 4 itself.

You say that they are composed of 1s and then say the only thing you need for 4 is 4. This does not follow. For integer math the requirements are 1, 0, and operation axioms. 4 is not a requirement.

[Ummon]

It is necessary that the sum of components is 4. Because infact, mathematics is a completely deductive matter, where there is only a complicated (and emergent) form of tautology.

[Gaidin]

Mathematics is also inductive...how do you think the integers are formed?

[Ummon]

One might assert that infact, they are preexistent, not formed. Pythagoras did.

[Gaidin]

One might assert that infact, they are preexistent, not formed. Pythagoras did.

Pythagoreas is an old fart that made assumptions that we don't make today. Tell me how you properly define the integers without some sort of inductive logic.

[Ummon]

From the very concept of quantity, 1 already implies all the rest. But aren't we verging on the extreme off-topic?

I translate: the inductive or deductive nature of mathematics doesn't change the fact that what copperknickers proposed is not a necessary condition.

And we were offtopic already with this God thing.

[Gaidin]

No we aren't because one does not imply all the rest unless you accept the axioms regarding the definition of the set, which involve strong inductive reasoning to define them in the first place.

[Ummon]

I translate: the inductive or deductive nature of mathematics doesn't change the fact that what copperknickers proposed is not a necessary condition.

[Copperknickers II]

The inductive or deductive nature of mathematics doesn't change the fact that what copperknickers proposed is not a necessary condition.

And we were offtopic already with this God thing.

On the contrary, we are verging on the very essence of this thread, as soon as we get our numerous analogies out of the way, which i will deal with later. The question is, if animals did not evolve, why are they in such variety today? Most Anti-Darwinists give the answer that God made them, which is of course a ridicoulous proposition on its own.

But to continue beyond the assertation that 'God made all living creatures' into the realms of paleontology and genetics is pure speculation on the part of religious people, as the bible gives them no information on these subjects. In this respect (ignoring that fact that belief in a God goes against all aspects of the scientific method) they are at a bit of a disadvantage in debates. But returning briefly to mathematics and human flight:

It is not necessary to add 2 to 2 because you can add 1 to 3. Given that they are all composed of 1s, the only necessary condition for 4 is 4 itself.

But 2 is the given value. Ie: Given 2, what is neccessary for 4? The only answer is 2.

Although i admit i should really have provided you with a key to my analogy, you are forgetting that its sole purpose is as an analogy for human flight. If i am not mistaken, the given values in that argument are humans and flight. By attaching that to your statement, you are arguing in effect what constititutes as 'human'. That is completely off the point.

Human (2) and flight (4) are both given values, you cannot change or remove them. To say that 'humans can fly' as an assertation made by someone who said it before it was physically possible, is wrong. What i am trying to say is that given the present tense and point of view of the speaker, it is illogical to add in conditions. If a condition is added and fulfilled, then it is true. If that condition is then removed, the assertation returns to its original state of fallacy. Agreed?

[Qymaen Jai Sheelal]

I perfer not to agree with anything like this it just shows how strange some people can be to believe some guy who sits in a shed poking a monkey's brain all day.

But its always quite a good laugh to listen to people who do.
If everyone does have proof of such wacky ideas show me!!

I think its something in he water myself.

[Copperknickers II]

I prefer not to agree with anything like this it just shows how strange some people can be to believe some guy who sits in a shed poking a monkey's brain all day.

Not to agree with what exactly? And i can assure you that no scientist to my knowledge has ever sat in a shed and poked a monkey brain, much less based any conclusion on such a thing (except in a rather shady incident involving a brain transplant on two monkeys, which is a different story). Like it or not, evolution is happening. We can even prove it happening in a human lifetime, if you prefer to only believe what you see in front of you when it comes to time and how long it takes for thigns to happen.

[Keeper of the Keys]

Adaption is happening. We can even prove it happening in a human lifetime.

I've fixed it for you.

If theres such proof of evolution why have you not shown him like he asked?
I have no problems to believe in Adaption but not Evolution. Even when I went to a debate (not in TWC) they could not answer all my questions they just got angry with me. And there scientists...

[Gaidin]

I've fixed it for you.

If theres such proof of evolution why have you not shown him like he asked?
I have no problems to believe in Adaption but not Evolution. Even when I went to a debate (not in TWC) they could not answer all my questions they just got angry with me. And there scientists...

Good thing for you that adaption is a step on the way to evolution. Fruit fly tests are your best bet to seeing how far experiments have gotten. They haven't duplicated special change yet, but then they haven't tried. One doesn't skip from Theory 1 to Theory 10 in showing a certain thing is possible. First they need to figure out what is necessary for it to happen in the first place and duplicate that in lab. It's like how we didn't land on the moon until Apollo 11. They first were just making sure certain things happened and worked. Start googling for fruit fly experiments in scientific peer reviews and you'll see the build up.

[Ummon]

Given that you have no basis for your claim, the probability of the unproven subject in question is zero.

For someone who ignores probability theory.

[Keeper of the Keys]

For someone who ignores theory.

There are a lot of probabilitys. what you believe them all?

[AlexanderSextus]

hey guys i know this is OT but what about people that believe that the process by which God created life WAS evolution? As in, God didn't just go "BAM" and *poof* life existed.

[Copperknickers II]

Evolution isnt about creating life, though, that is abiogenesis.