jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (17 posts)

Black or White

  1. Eng.M profile image74
    Eng.Mposted 8 years ago

    Good day everyone

    my argument is targeting all and specificlly evolutionists

    *Are creation and evolution the only explainations for life existence?

    *Is evolution proprtional to chance in your opinion?
    if not,  what is it ?
    is it by intention?
    does any intention need a deriving mind?
    is there any existence way except chance or creation by purpose?

    just some thoughts

    thanx

    1. Inspirepub profile image86
      Inspirepubposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      No.



      No.



      A logical process following natural laws like the law of gravity.



      No.



      Yes. It is called "natural selection".



      I believe the definition of "intention" assumes the existence of a consciousness. Which is not necessarily the same as a "mind".

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        No.



        No.


        Common sense, and an abundance of physical evidence show there is nothing "chance" in the equation.

        What is the "chance" that there is an all-powerful creator? lol



        No.


        Absolutely. Chance had nothing to do with it. Trial and error is more like it. Please see this thread . I started this in an attempt to educate people such as yourself. Getting them to actually read it seems to be a little difficult.
        http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/7572


        If you start from a faulty assumption as you are doing, I guess so. You are not actually asking this question. You have assumed that anything that happens must have a mind that created it.

        Yet you have been unable to back this up with any argument other than, "It must have happened this way because I cannot conceive of anything else, therefore it is correct."

        You are making two assumptions. You start from the premise that there is a creator. You then assume that there is "intention," in everything. This then "proves" that there is a creator.

        Got a link for you:

        Intelligent Design

      2. Eng.M profile image74
        Eng.Mposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        I suppose you are gnna say 'natural selection' is another one and it is not by chance.

        Chance

        the link refers to probability as chance and many evolutionists define'natural selection' as strength survive and many probabilities .
        I realized that you adopt the idea that 'natural selection' is neither chance nor plan.

        so what is it?

        I don't think there is something else besides these two .



        who set these laws initially.



        animals have consciousnesses but not minds if that what you meant.

        1. Inspirepub profile image86
          Inspirepubposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Let me put it this way. There is nothing "chance" in the fact that slow-moving animals will generally be caught by predators, while faster-moving ones will generally escape.

          That's just common sense and logic.

          Chance may play a role in which INDIVIDUAL lives or dies on one particular day, but across millions of individuals and millions of years, the law of averages will apply. Slower ones will be killed off, and faster ones will survive.



          Nobody "set" the law of gravity - it just happens. You step off a building, you fall down. No "adjuduction" required.

          It doesn't take a person to "decide" that lions will catch slower gazelles and fail to catch faster ones. Or that after you eat contaminated food your stomach will hurt.

          These things happen by cause and effect.



          So are you saying that animals can have intentions, or that they can't?

          Jenny

          1. Eng.M profile image74
            Eng.Mposted 8 years ago in reply to this

            good day Jenny

            I guess we would go around in circles as we don't agree to same definitions of words like
            law, chance, nature or logic

            we will argue differently that a human law has a different meaning of the natural law.

            you say that everything just happened but we don't know why, we had some biological changes and observations that we may assume they are relieable. then it makes it more a scientific issue than a religious one.

            I won't argue more in chance and laws but I will provide a very strong proof to make evolution as you picturize invalid.

            that is ' LOVE'

            love has no place in your theories.
            you may say it is chemical changes in our minds and hearts but you would just having assumption.

            LOVE has a provider I guess.

            1. Inspirepub profile image86
              Inspirepubposted 8 years ago in reply to this

              Now you are just "having assumption". No "provider" required.

              I see your LOVE and raise you BLUE.

              BLUE is the same type of thing as LOVE.

              You may say BLUE is just particular wavelengths of light, but that can not capture the experience in our hearts when we see the blue sky break through grey clouds, or watch the blue sea crash against the shore ... there is so much more to BLUE than just wavelengths of light.

              BLUE has the same provider that LOVE has - the natural world, as subjectively experienced by an individual.

              1. Ben Bush profile image61
                Ben Bushposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                Jenny,

                I see your BLUE and raise you HEARTS

              2. Eng.M profile image74
                Eng.Mposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                All observations and analysis people make over natural phenomenons go around the circle of ' How? '

                we ask about how this world works and have answers as much as we can.

                But the question I ask to let you know what I mean is ' Why ?'

                *does this world need a reason to firstly exist?
                *does this reason need a decision maker?

                I like to ask as much questions as I can but I don't expect them all to have answeres.

                Mohammed

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                  Not really.

                  No we don't.

                  It is.

                  No.

                  No.

                  Simple isn't it?

                  Mark

                  1. Eng.M profile image74
                    Eng.Mposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                    loooooooooooooooool

                2. mohitmisra profile image59
                  mohitmisraposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                  The how and why are intelligent questions not only for the outside but yourself as well.

                  Who am I and why am I here?
                  Has just beome my greatest fear. smile

                  How are you creating is what I want to know,
                  That is the only way I can grow. smile

                  1. mohitmisra profile image59
                    mohitmisraposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes there is a reason and there is a decision maker-God smile

                3. Eng.M profile image74
                  Eng.Mposted 8 years ago in reply to this

                  well , answering myself

                  'Why' and 'How' could have the same answer sometimes.

                  reasoning can be classified to many categories BUT in my opinion natural selection would be answering How rather than Why.

                  may be there is no need for Why??

    2. mohitmisra profile image59
      mohitmisraposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      For the intelligent life is a total mystery,unfathomable in totality. smile

 
working