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
A logical process following natural laws like the law of gravity.
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".
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?
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.
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:
I suppose you are gnna say 'natural selection' is another one and it is not by 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
No we don't.
Simple isn't it?
The very existense of the universe is beyond question because it was, it is and it will be.
There is no need of any decision maker because it goes with natural law. Everything here
follow a set of rules.
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.
How are you creating is what I want to know,
That is the only way I can grow.
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??
For the intelligent life is a total mystery,unfathomable in totality.
by Taurus2 5 years ago
Prove that this is how all life on earth, and man especially, came into existence in this planet. You got no evidence, come on samurais, you got no chop!!
by Alexander A. Villarasa 4 years ago
The naturalist's perspective that life could come from non-life, and intelligent life from non-intelligent life is so simplistic as to defy logic and reason. The nature of life and intelliegnce is so complex for them to be expressed in such a seemingly simple concept called "evolution by...
by Eng.M 10 years ago
I know most of us are not scientists but we could think.if natural selection which is the basis of evolution was valid then:*does it need somebody to set it up as it is knid of a rule?*if not, is it infinite? or just made by chance?
by David Bowman 17 months ago
Warning: This thread is intended as a serious discussion for those interested in philosophy. Posts that attempt to proselytize or derail the discussion with an unrelated subject matter will not receive a response from me.Now to the topic of this thread: One of the favorite arguments of the...
by kirstenblog 21 months ago
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes...
by Alexander A. Villarasa 5 years ago
"Sometimes is is difficult to avoid the conviction that life is just a two-dimensional cinema screen, hung amid blackness and nothingness, upon which a, random and meaningless narrative is being enacted. But more usually there could be intimations of meaning, and since the universe is so...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|