Reverse Pascals Wager

[Godscreated]

So the general form of your arguments against evolution are Arguments from Incredulity and are an informal logical fallacy, either as:

I can't imagine how X could possibly be false
Therefore, X.

I cannot imagine how X could possibly be true
Therefore, not-X.

This is a fallacy because someone else with more imagination may find a way (bioligists). This fallacy is therefore a simple variation of argument from ignorance. In areas such as science and technology, where new discoveries and inventions are always being made, new findings may arise at any time.

Now I'm sorely tempted to leave it there because even if I couldn't respond to your arguments, your arguments would still not go through. Your questions however do not have simple responses, as there are complex processes at work. I totally agree that evolution is a blind bottom up process which is mindless. But to describe it as accidental is misleading in 2 ways. Firstly some genetic mutations (perhaps most) are random, but the process of natural selection means that variation within species with positive survival results are selected for (not by a mind) but by the fact the organisms survive for longer and have better reproductive chances (as will their offspring survive more often). Secondly there are changes to the gene phenotype which permits the organism to adapt to its environment as ity grows, these are not random (see epigenetics). These changes can get passed on to offspring effectively turning stuff on and off. Other similar mechanisms can be simulated in the lab eg we can turn on the reptilian genes dormant in birds by applying chemicals during the development stages "whilst in the egg", these chemicals activate the dormant genes (junk genes present in all living creatures) and the birds will develop teeth and reptilian tails.

Of the points you raise:

DNA gaining code. Not sure what you mean by this, I know you've tried to clarify it, but DNA and for that matter RNA mutates spontaneously (and this has been observed). Over time changes accumulate via flow through and other mutational mechanisms. Are you representing the ID claim that new 'information' cannot make its way onto DNA? If so it will help me, to help you with this argument?
Why and how did the eye evolve. Ah the poster child of ID along with the blood clotting cascade and the bacterial flagellum. All very well documented. Rather than me regurgitate it you can look it up; Richard Dawkins and Ken Miller (the latter a practising catholic) has summarised the research in these areas. But there is lots more detailed research out there that back up the findings.
Why was there colour before eyesight. Not sure why this is a problem at all, or in particular for evolutionary theory?
Fabulous cuttlefish skin Random mutation combined with natural selection. Cuttlefish that could camoflage had an evolutionary advantage.
Skeletal structures in the hand. I agree if I/you were the designer and if creationism is true, then I would re-use designs whether the eye or the foot. The major flaw in this argument is that there is only evidence of design by a blind causal process. Because equally if I/you were the designer I /you would not leave useless structures in place that would lead to more suffering than add value (the human breathing and eating holes pass through the same plumbing, meaning people choke to death every day), nor imperfect designs (eg flatfish such as the flounder), nor leave junk genes in place etc.

First of all I do not side with ID because it doesn't include God. In my opinion it is another way to eliminate God.

I do believe in changes within species for survival purposes, I do not believe that one species can evolve into another species because of the enormous amount of time for all the information(coding) to come about without destructive information coming into play and ending a species change I just can not see that being a possibility. We've seen that natural destructive forces can change nature in very short order and I believe this to be inherent to the entire natural world.
I also have trouble with lab processes as you mentioned above because that is interference into what is suppose to be natural processes. The things that are done in a lab come from an intelligent being and is in no way natural or random and would not likely happen in nature.

The eye problem came along far earlier than ID. The enormous amount of information that creatures would need to develope just to have any one part of the eye is something I can not see as a possibility let lone the entire eye, then there is the optical nerve and the the most complicated part of all, the sight center of the brain, and all this to develope at the same time so that no one part of this system would become useless and fall away. Can not understand how this could ever be possible.

Useless parts or structures causing problems of suffering I do not know of any. Scientist and doctors use to believe that there were useless parts in the human body but as they learn more the less they believe that any part of the body is useless. I'm not sure what you are saying about flatfish such as the flounder it's design is of a great advantage to its survival in both feeding and hiding from it's prey. Also these junk genes you refer to could be there as a future adaptation for a species survival.

I see the plumbing of the throat as a great design, for one thing it can help to prevent accidental drowning by allowing water that enters the nose to be ejected out the mouth or into the stomach. Also helps smokers not to look foolish walking around with cigareetes sticking out their noses ha ha ha! I'll throw this out there also not sure if it's correct, wouldn't the expansion of the lungs interfer with the swallowing process. We could go on and on about this for a long time and probably never change each others mind but if you want to continue this I'm game.

---

[quote=godschild]

Explain to me if you will how it's possible for a single cell creature with limited DNA to evolve upward into a different species that has more DNA, how is it possible to gain code.

Imagine the early earth. a primordial soup of organic matter, amino acids and other complex molecules bouncing around interacting, being stimulated by ultraviolet radiation and intense bursts of lightening, its a dynamic changing environment. Into this the first life was born simple,(probably).
Over time this developed probably a sexually gradually gaining in complexity, but what is certain that eventually this simple life would have become food for later life.

If these organisms are developing upwards then the former organism is now the present organism with nothing to eat.

Why did the eye evolve if all the species were getting along without eye sight. How would it be possible to evolve eye sight with it being one of the most complicated systems.

oh for fuck sake read a book that isnt the bible for once, Darwin de-bunked this one two hundred years ago.
Creatures alive today have sensitive spots on their skin that react to light, this imparts an advantage over creatures that cant detect changes in light, (a sudden shadow might mean a predator is ovehead), from this you can evolve to where we are today, TA DA.

Darwin had no idea of the complexity of eyesight. Ta Da.

I believe the earth's systems are far to complicated for the trillions of trial and error accidents to have occurred in an order to reach today's earth systems before a disastrous occurance in the DNA coding would have at least limited the evolution of earth's systems to something far more primative.

Heres a revelation they dont have to all happen one after another, There are three trillion people on earth today each with differing DNA, theres three trillion evolutionary possibilties right there. does that help your math.(come on you can do it).

And you think I need to read a book Ta Da Ta Da!

---

I used to muse on it as follows:

They say you have lost nothing if you go ahead an believe. But what if you believe and God is not a God of love but a monster? What if what you believe in is not true?

Seems basic, but it's so damn obvious. Poor Pascal. He quit math for God.

The underlined would mean a person is looking for an insurance policy just encase there is God. This in no way represents christianity.

The italicized:If He were a monster then why would Christ have died to save us from our sins?

Why would I believe in something that's not true and what makes you think it's not true?