Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
SunDogDayze

Using Creationists' Theory to Prove Evolution

Recommended Posts

SunDogDayze

Hello everyone. I just found this video and I have to say that it is one of the most brilliant counterarguments I have ever seen to Creationism.

Everyone has heard a creationist use the comparison that life is too complex to be an accident, and that in itself is indication of a designer. They'll say "It's like taking a box full of watch parts, shaking it, and expecting the watch to build itself.

That's not exactly a correct comparison, but it was never debunked properly because scientists know how incorrect the comparison is. However, this guy corrects the comparison by adding variables found in life and uses it to prove how obvious evolution is...

Enjoy!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

*BTW I have lost the html editing buttons on the top of my typing field, (add link, pics, etc) so all I can add is a copy and paste for you. If someone can fix it I would be appreciative, and if someone can tell me why mine are gone, I'd be REALLY appreciative! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
BlindMessiah

It's different from a watch simply because organic material has chemical bonds. That alone throws the watch argument in the trash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Wow! He made a straw man! How very... predictable. "Let me set up all of the parameters, develop the process by which things will happen, establish the way they will happen, and then pretend it's all completely random... and I'll make fun of you if you try to point out how this is a rigged situation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SunDogDayze

Blind Messiah~

Exactly, the clock argument cannot be used logically because it is a bad comparison. But, the author of the video corrects

that by adding binding parts and reproduction, something missing from the original comparison, making it more accurate. He then writes a program that acts like natural selection (which is a natural factor) and starts with clocks that don't work right (being animals that aren't best suited to their environment) and watches as the natural selection process weeds out the inaccurate clocks and the accurate clocks take over the population. He does it like 6 times. He didn't design the accurate clocks, he only provided parts and natural selection, the only things evolution claims to explain anyway.

It looks like it is the corrected straw man 'clock' theory that has been thrown in the trash.

Iamsson~

Did you watch the entire video? It breaks down exactly how natural selection works on things with mutation matrixes and reproduction. I don't think he was making fun of anything, he was proving a theory. That's, um, how it is done in science. You take an idea, and you experiment with it. You are the one making fun of him, and accusing him of 'rigging' his experiment (probably because you either didn't watch the whole video, or you didn't understand the experiment) but it's of course the scientist with facts that must be wrong, huh?

Why so defensive?

Edited by SunDogDayze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fullywired

It is a waste of time trying to prove anything to creationists ,they simply do not want to know ,they want the bible to be right and will not accept anything they see as a challenge to their beliefs

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs
Wow! He made a straw man! How very... predictable.

Oh, the Irony.

The example of a clock automatically assembling itself is possibly the best example of a Creationist Straw Man argument.

Clock parts don't occur in nature. Hydrocarbons, however, do.

Edited by Tiggs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
It's different from a watch simply because organic material has chemical bonds. That alone throws the watch argument in the trash.

That an organic material is well... organic materials, and the creatures that evolved... well... are ALIVE. A watch isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zorba9987654

Looks like cdk007 (cyclin dependent kinase 007?) has demonstrated the validity of the front-loaded evolution hypothesis. Create the necessary staring material and natural parameters and viola , inevitable teleological evolution. Now how about a non-telic example, that would be groundbreaking stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SunDogDayze
Looks like cdk007 (cyclin dependent kinase 007?) has demonstrated the validity of the front-loaded evolution hypothesis. Create the necessary staring material and natural parameters and viola , inevitable teleological evolution. Now how about a non-telic example, that would be groundbreaking stuff.

It would in the sense that it would prove that there didn't have to be an intelligent designer for life's origins. But that's not what evolution claims to explain, so I think this video is a bit of ground breaking information in it's own right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zorba9987654
It would in the sense that it would prove that there didn't have to be an intelligent designer for life's origins.
No the clip shows that the initial conditions and parameters where rigged/designed/front-loaded to demonstrate evolution can follow a path. The result was known (complete watch) and the parts were broken down with pre-conceived qualities that allowed them to interact with specific parts. True, non-telic evolution has no purpose and direction.

But that's not what evolution claims to explain, so I think this video is a bit of ground breaking information in it's own right.
Ground breaking in the sense that showing a program can follow a front-loaded set of information to demonstrate evolution? Nope, lots of those are present. Avida, ev etc... All with front-loaded parameters. Edited by Teleological

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KBA

Don't know if some of the people here realize, but he had to set it up in a specific way because he was trying to match the setting of nature.

Evolution doesn't claim to explain the origins of the system of nature. It only explains the effects of the system of nature. As far as anybody knows, the environment in which we evolved is how it is for no particular reason, completely random. If you are going to reproduce that environment, you have to set up certain factors. Evolution is not attempting to explain where the fundamentals of the universe itself came from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SunDogDayze
Don't know if some of the people here realize, but he had to set it up in a specific way because he was trying to match the setting of nature.

Evolution doesn't claim to explain the origins of the system of nature. It only explains the effects of the system of nature. As far as anybody knows, the environment in which we evolved is how it is for no particular reason, completely random. If you are going to reproduce that environment, you have to set up certain factors. Evolution is not attempting to explain where the fundamentals of the universe itself came from.

Exactly. So it doesn't matter if it was front loaded or not, because evolution was front loaded as well. Someone or something put the ingredients down (chance, God, universe, FSM) and then evolution took over. That's where the theory of evolution starts. If it went any earlier than that, it would be abiogenesis.

I think the video does an excellent job of demonstrating how NATURAL evolution is. It's a logical step by step process that not only works on living creatures, but given the correct parameters (ability to bond, reproduction, natural selection), it works just as well on non living objects as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Beckys_Mom
It is a waste of time trying to prove anything to creationists ,they simply do not want to know ,they want the bible to be right and will not accept anything they see as a challenge to their beliefs

fullywired

Why yes they do want their bible to be correct...so a lot will deny any proof of evolution...but you must remember, it's their belief...so they have to see it that way

BUT there are christians that deep down do understand that evolution holds so much more logic than the bibles quick answer to creation........but they aren't going to debate it on here...haven't you not noticed how only a tiny handful of christians on this board defend creationism?? And in some cases, just ONE will try and defend it....thats most likely because in the back of it all, a number of christians could well see the logic and agree with it..but wouldnt post due to saving face...only because they still believe in Jesus ect...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SunDogDayze
Why yes they do want their bible to be correct...so a lot will deny any proof of evolution...but you must remember, it's their belief...so they have to see it that way

BUT there are christians that deep down do understand that evolution holds so much more logic than the bibles quick answer to creation........but they aren't going to debate it on here...haven't you not noticed how only a tiny handful of christians on this board defend creationism?? And in some cases, just ONE will try and defend it....thats most likely because in the back of it all, a number of christians could well see the logic and agree with it..but wouldnt post due to saving face...only because they still believe in Jesus ect...

I also wonder why so many Christians still can't accept the fact that Evolution and a belief in God are still possible. You don't have to deny one to validate the other. That's what gets me the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom
Blind Messiah~

Exactly, the clock argument cannot be used logically because it is a bad comparison. But, the author of the video corrects

Good find SunDog...it was indeed interesting...I have read a couple of posts in the past that used a clock to disprove evolution...LMAO I can't recall who said it..but I remember telling them in responce that using a clock is a poor way to explain how evolution is false...(actually come to think of it, it wasn't that long ago)

That aside...Good thread SunDog...queenie strups all over the joint :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom
I also wonder why so many Christians still can't accept the fact that Evolution and a belief in God are still possible. You don't have to deny one to validate the other. That's what gets me the most.

Because a lot will say, when talking about their faith in the bible - it's ALL or nothing....no picking and choosing...and a lot will tend to be so judging of another christian..lost count how so very often one christian has made another christian feel bad about themselves..claiming they arent true christians...this is their biggest downfall...too busy judging...and forget their saviour states - Judge not lest ye be judged!!!!!! Due to this judgement and remarks being thrown about, it makes it uneasy for a christian to come on and say listen I believe evolution holds so much logic more so than the bible..but I still believe in God and Jesus...ect ect...Ive heard one say this to me before...and even I threw out the ole - all or nothing..only because ive seen it said so many times..then I understood it

I hold a great belief in God...I strongly believe that evolution is fact and has been proven as fact...BUT I believe God is responsible for evolution...like an experiment ...we all evolved over millions and millions of years...took some time but that I believe is all part of Gods experiment...therefore evolution is fact

I get the best of both worlds...I still hold on to my faith..and favour evolution LOL <--my cake and im eating it....well no point in having a cake if you can't eat it LOL :w00t:

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
I also wonder why so many Christians still can't accept the fact that Evolution and a belief in God are still possible. You don't have to deny one to validate the other. That's what gets me the most.

I keep asking that question but I never get an answer. Will a creationist PLEASE comment on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
I keep asking that question but I never get an answer. Will a creationist PLEASE comment on that?

The silence truly is deafening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
Hello everyone. I just found this video and I have to say that it is one of the most brilliant counterarguments I have ever seen to Creationism.

Everyone has heard a creationist use the comparison that life is too complex to be an accident, and that in itself is indication of a designer. They'll say "It's like taking a box full of watch parts, shaking it, and expecting the watch to build itself.

That's not exactly a correct comparison, but it was never debunked properly because scientists know how incorrect the comparison is. However, this guy corrects the comparison by adding variables found in life and uses it to prove how obvious evolution is...

Enjoy!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

*BTW I have lost the html editing buttons on the top of my typing field, (add link, pics, etc) so all I can add is a copy and paste for you. If someone can fix it I would be appreciative, and if someone can tell me why mine are gone, I'd be REALLY appreciative! :)

sorry this video has nothing to do with the start of life. It only has to do with evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
sorry this video has nothing to do with the start of life. It only has to do with evolution.

Umm... thats exactly what the thread is about... evolution...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SunDogDayze
sorry this video has nothing to do with the start of life. It only has to do with evolution.

Yeah, I know. That's my point.

So, if evolution doesn't claim to explain creation, why do Creationists deny evolution??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent. Mulder

because they think evolution is a substitute for how life came upon a lifeless planet. and that it disproves god for w/e reason.

and because they think we all came from dirt, and then made our children have sex with each other to get where we are today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
sorry this video has nothing to do with the start of life. It only has to do with evolution.

I think that's what we were saying. Now that we're all on the same page, what's your point?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero
Exactly. So it doesn't matter if it was front loaded or not, because evolution was front loaded as well. Someone or something put the ingredients down (chance, God, universe, FSM) and then evolution took over. That's where the theory of evolution starts. If it went any earlier than that, it would be abiogenesis.

I think the video does an excellent job of demonstrating how NATURAL evolution is. It's a logical step by step process that not only works on living creatures, but given the correct parameters (ability to bond, reproduction, natural selection), it works just as well on non living objects as well.

But at the same time, evolution follows the said "framework" because it's simply how the universe is. If the parameters of the universe were different, then evolution could have possibly followed that as well. So nothing seems intelligent about it to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.