Evolution. Any Kind Of Evolution
One said that evolution is the key to creation. Really?
Evolution could change a thing totally different? Nope
If, just if ... you think evolution is a sloooow process, okay i accept that possibility, but, any example? Nope, there could be just guessing
In betweeen thousand yeaaars ... million yeaaars ... and so forth, the proof is just laid on these words "miliion years"
When you did a valid rebuttal, then at least try not to use a verrry loong gap, which is an empty gap. Again just guessing. It's invalid. And this is absurd reasoning. That's it
1⃣ Pessimist about humanity:
So what about experiments like Long term E coli Evolution experiment by Dr Richard lenskey
- https://www.nature.com/subjects/experimental-evolution
See for yourselves 😁
2⃣ (Admin) Anti-atheism:
E cole evolved into a spider ?
😂
It is like saying , i grew hairs and it is a proof that Evolution is true 😂
- Pessimist about humanity:
Before trying to mock evolution please understand what is it 🌚 - Can you please define what's evolution?
- You've mistaken evolution with witchcraft here 💀😂
Evolution …
3⃣ (REBUTTAL) ❇️ Seremonia:
That shows that evolution occurs through experimentation (involving intelligence)."
Whether through anything , natural selection or else, the point is ,changing gradually?, it’s okay, but not changing totally. unless, involving our own expertise
He (admin) said that changing by nature based on potentiality, it’s not evolution. he (admin) stated that for any means, there is no reason for evolusionist. unless they must accept the only probability as changing not totally, and the possibility is changing totally but involving inteligent agent (human)
It means? If through evolution it is proven that there is a total change, precisely the example proves that intelligence is involved, not by chance
Rebuttal - Evolution
Pessimist about humanity:
Looks like you don't have much understanding about this experiment. It just replicated a possible natural scenario (nutrient availability in the growth media). Other than that no other human interventions occurred in the evolution of those microbes under study
It's not just any changes, but modifications that are inherited. By any means, genetic variations, gene drift, mutation, natural selection 🙂
❇️ Seremonia:
like i said it involved human (intelligent agent) not just coincident
Pessimist about humanity:
It's just an experiment and except human made set up, no human intervention was made on the evolutionary mechanism 🌚
❇️ Seremonia:
like i said it involved human, a dependency to human, even for the slightest. still involved intelligent design
proven that it involved intelligent design
Pessimist about humanity:
Not on evolution itself 😂
❇️ Seremonia:
still there is dependency, to intelligent design
☃ Pessimist about humanity:
Yeah. To conduct that experiment / to replicate normal evolutionary mechanisms in a laboratory 😌 only to that extend 🌚
❇️ Seremonia:
still that's the only makes sense example we found so far
☃ Pessimist about humanity:
Have you looked at the list I've sent?
❇️ Seremonia:
the point, is intelligent design involved or not? you already answered here https://t.me/antiatheism2/203?comment=292
Pessimist about humanity:
The answer is No, if you mean intelligent design as evolution caused by an intelligent agent.
The intelligence involved is the setting up of the experiment to observe a natural phenomena (ie, evolution) which has no direct involvement in the evolutionary dynamics of the bacteria under study
I can see that you're trying to state that evolution is caused by an intelligent agent 🌚
❇️ Seremonia:
that's the most make sense for an example you can show to me. otherwise, nothing found a proven example without being helped by intelligent design
at least ... it has relation with intelligent design
Pessimist about humanity:
Evolution as a natural phenomena does not require an intelligent agent as the cause (feel free to give scientific evidence against this notion). It can happened in nature and in experimental set ups.
(I think) Your intentional application of term intelligent design is to state that evolution as a whole is caused by an intelligent agent, which is nothing but a pseudoscience / fallacious statement 🤷🏽
You're trying to mix up the experiment and the topic under study.
I'm not interested in further discussion until you have made a clear distinction between evolution as a phenomenon and the experiment which is done by human agent
❇️ Seremonia:
i knew it's natural phenomena but for changing totally, nothing found a proven example without involving dependency to an intelligent being
the point is ...you need a valid proven example that changing totally in evolution without involving intelligent agent
but you can't give such an example. it's science of the gaps (laid on concept of "thousand years") but once they saw a great scenarios of evolution, but ... there was intelligent design involved there. it's invalid example
surely, because the main problem is here
https://t.me/antiatheism2/203?comment=307
Pessimist about humanity:
Nothing will change completely within any given finite time 🌚. Plus you are just assuming an addition to theory of evolution without proper valid explanation
❇️ Seremonia:
the point is you consider it's a proven example of coincident?
that's your science of the gaps
so i can say either that at any given finite time, proven, it can be verified that creature involves intelligent agent. which one the most stronger rebuttal?
〰〰〰
Which one is the most stronger rebuttal ❓
- 1⃣ In millions of years, intelligent creatures can form without involving intelligence, but complete examples of evolution always involve the presence of an intelligent agent, even though their role is considered small and limited to preparing examples in the laboratory ❓❌
- 2⃣ In a short period of time, evidence of the creation of creatures involving intelligence can be observed ❓✅
〰〰〰
Essentially, the atheist version of evolution, a lack of involvement of intelligence, yet every time atheists present strong evidence, it always involves intelligence.
Even if it is argued through gradual changes over millions of years, it is still just a hypothesis. And if this hypothetical evidence is to be proven, once again it always involves the presence of intelligence.
Ultimately, they revert back to the position that "changes over millions of years are merely hypotheses without scientific evidence".
FINAL ANALYSIS
Something cannot surpass itself without the addition of something external. "One cup of tea will not become one gallon of water". Coincidence cannot surpass certainty. Effect cannot surpass cause.
- 👉 Likewise, a coincidence cannot surpass its own situation (coincidence will always occur) to become certainty, unless there is an intervention outside of coincidence involving certainty.
- 👉 Similarly, in evolution which involves coincidence, it will never generate certainty if there is no intervention of certainty in the process that is considered coincidence.
Because cause cannot be the same as its effect. Coincidence cause cannot be the same as the effect which is certainty, so there must be a cause that intervenes in coincidence which is intelligence that has the potential for certainty beyond human beings.
Other factors of certainty that influence coincidence indicate the existence of intelligence that characterizes certainty beyond the product of coincidence itself (i.e. surpassing human beings as its result).
And whoever intervenes in the process of coincidence, of course, surpasses humans, because the process beyond coincidence involves intervention that exceeds the potential for certainty in humans, so whoever intervenes in the process of coincidence involves intelligence that surpasses human intelligence
