Evolution II
Take, for example, an apple. Either way you look at it, whether it was made for people or people were made for it, it shows awareness of human needs, and the human body shows awareness of what the apple offers. No matter which "adapted" to which, the question is: the ability to adapt, the fact that the body knew exactly how to digest those apples, how to grow in order to reach the apples, what limbs it needed to reach the apples, etc -- was that accident or intelligence?
That is the issue here - there are only two possibilities: (a) accident or (b) intelligence.
To say that it adapted or evolved just evades the question: adaptation and evolution are either accident or intelligence. Either a string of billions and trillions of perfectly aligned accidents or there is something in the organism that knows what direction it needs to evolve.
And don't forget - the organism needs the ability to be able to "evolve" to begin with. If we were all made of stone we couldn’t "evolve" lungs, etc.
So the proof still remains: the perfectly designed and aligned natural phenomenon could not have, by any reasonable odds, accidentally ended up this way.
And the only alternative to accident is intelligence.
It doesn't matter if the apple "adapted" for people or people "adapted" for the apple. Either way, accident is beyond believable odds.
What is referred to as "likelihood" of life evolving, still amounts to staggering odds. The numbers are too large to describe (please see the Proofs to the Torah forum where the math is done).
The fact that elements got together and life came from them is itself ridiculous by accident.
And the fact that life "knows" how to evolve is also impossible by accident.
You may not realize the level of coincidence that is needed to do this. Did your stomach "evolve" before the lining that protects it from the acids? If so, it would have been destroyed after the first meal. If the lining evolved before the acids, then nature must also be endowed with prophecy, because it was burdened for millions of years with some useless lining, until the acid evolved.
The chicken egg needed to be the right thickness - not too thick and not too thin - to allow the development and hatching of the chicken, from the start. Or else even one generation of chicken would not have been able to survive.
And even if, theoretically, all this did evolve, the fossil evidence would have to show the billions and billions of species that did not survive - the "non fittest" that fell by the wayside. For every survivable species, you are talking about countless non-survivors. The odds are ridiculous. And the fossil record so far has ONLY COME UP WITH VIABLE LIFE FORMS.
We still have no answer to the question: How does anyone account for the staggering odds of life forming by accident?
What the scientists are saying in essence is, "Yes, but it could happen."
Well, that is of course true, but then you would be unable to prove anything at all, because similarly, "It could always happen."
If G-d Himself would come and reveal Himself to the entire world an say "I am Hashem", that, too, by atheist standard wouldn't prove anything because a happy string of coincidences could account for natural sounds and sights that happened to have coincidentally united at the right time and place to cause such a phenomenon.
It could happen.
Proof, in any other context other than atheists talking about G-d, is not expected to reach the level of absolute impossibility. There is no such thing as absolute impossibility. Anything "could" happen, as long as it is not an absurd concept that cannot exist (such as a triangle that is round).
You would send someone to the electric chair if you were a juror and the defendant’s fingerprints were found on the strangled victim's neck. A video of the murder, and perhaps 20 witnesses would make the verdict a no brainier.
But witnesses could lie, a video could be forged - one may even go so far as to claim that some technology exists out there that we are as yet unaware of that synthesized such a realistic video.
And please note, that there is no proof anywhere that says two people cannot have the same fingerprints. In fact, there is absolutely nothing in nature at all that precludes duplicate fingerprints. How in the world would my fingers know, when I am born, the patterns of fingerprints that have already been "placed" on the fingers of every other human being? How do my fingers know which fingerprints are "used" already so as to avoid duplicating them?
The only reason that we assume - yes, assume! - that two sets of fingerprints cannot be alike, or that two snowflakes cannot be alike, is because there are so many billions of possible fingerprint patterns, and snowflake patterns, that the odds of two like patterns existing are so staggering that we don’t even consider it a possibility.
Even though it could happen.
So if you are a juror and the defense attorney claims that nobody "proved" that the fingerprints on the victim's neck were really the defendants - because it could happen that by coincidence two identical sets exist, and that you can't "prove" that the 20 witnesses told the truth (they could have all lied and coincidentally made up the same exact details in the story), and that you can't "prove" that the video cannot be faked, he would be laughed out of the courtroom.
Even though it all "could happen".
And you would send the defendant to his death, because you saw proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that this man is guilty.
You have no proof that your dessert is not poisoned, but you would take the chance of eating it anyway.
Once the odds reach a certain point, we don't consider the alternative as viable.
Even though your dessert could be poisoned.
And so, the amount of "coincidence" and lucky accidents needed to create life are so ridiculously beyond reason, that you’re talking about a universe of people with duplicate fingerprints and continents of totally identical snowflakes.
You're talking about a monkey typing away at a keyboard and producing the Works of Shakespeare. Or, more like, the entire stock of the library of congress.
It could happen.
We live our lives laughing at such claims. We would call the ambulance at someone who really believes those things.
Except for the atheist discussing G-d.
It's amazing how, on that level of reasonableness, a person would risk his life and send others to their death, but to avoid eating pork, for that, he needs "absolute proof".
The question is not "can we prove G-d?" The question is, given the proof that we do have, why in the world would anybody NOT believe in G-d???
And to that, so far, no atheist has come up with anything close to a sensible answer.
------
If the chances of getting heads in a coin flip is 1/2, if you throw the dice twice, or even 100 times, each time you’ll still get a 50-50 chance of getting heads.
If you throw a die, you have a 1/6 chance of rolling a 1. If you throw it 6 times, you still have a 1/6 chance each of those times of rolling a 1. It doesn’t change. Dice have no memory. And if you do roll a 1 lets say on the 3rd try, and not the first two, that was totally random.
No matter how many times you throw the dice, they will have to overcome the 1/6 odds to come up with any given number. Even if you roll them a million times, each throw still has to overcome the 1/6 odds.
Now 1/6 odds is not so hard to overcome, and if it happens, it's totally random, unrelated to the number of times you threw the dice.
And no matter how many universes there are, in order for life to accidentally arise, it would have to overcome, on its own, without the help of any of the gazillions of other universes, the 1/innumerable chances. And that doesn't happen.
And besides all this, life doesn't spring up at once - it takes time, and each of the gazillions of happy accidents have to have time to happen, on their own, independently, and even if one would be missing, the whole organism would fail.
In fact, even according to the most conservative estimate of the age of the world according to evolutionists, there hasn't been enough time since the beginning for life to develop, by any reasonable standard. You would need so many happy accidents, numbers beyond anything we can imagine, to have happened precisely in the right place and time, one after the other, with some kind of maintaining device existent all the while to ensure the continued life of the organisms while they were developing but only partly developed.
The whole thing is logically absurd. I don’t see how anybody can even entertain such a remote possibility.
The only people who do, I would imagine, are those with such unhealthy psyches that they would be afraid to go out on a sunny day lest they get hit by lightning, the odds of which are infinitely greater than life developing anywhere, ever; or those paranoid people who live in bomb shelters because they're worried lest a meteorite smash their homes into dust, which is much more likely than them having evolved from monkeys, who evolved from pond slime completely by accident.
It's very strange, and explainable only by way of the irrational inside all of us, that people actually believe the world exists with no Creator.
Anything is possible even given one try. It is not the amount of tries that makes something "possible", it is your definition of "possible", which is useless in the real world, and dishonestly applied to nothing in life except religion.
Naive people are naive even though what they believe is "possible"; foolish people are foolish even though what they think is "possible"; paranoid people are paranoid even though it is "possible;" that the whole world is indeed after them.
"Proof" does not mean negating an impossibility. No scientific or other type of proof negates all possibility of something being untrue. "Possibility" by this definition is a meaningless philosophical term that has no relevance in the real world.
All "proof" has to do in order to motivate you to act upon it is remove doubt, not remove impossibility. Removing impossibility in this sense is, well, impossible.
It is probably less possible for you to be abducted by aliens every day of your life - time after time.
And so if you are not worried about taking a stroll around your block, lest the aliens get you, you certainly do not have to worry about Judaism being false.
And it is probably less likely to be false than every one of your deserts poisoned by your enemies who, although you do not know it, want to kill you. It could happen, you know.
And so, if you eat your dessert without fear for your life, then it would be dishonest to eat a cheeseburger without fearing for your soul.
And it is possible that if you jump off the roof, you will fly. But you have to be an idiot to take that chance.
It is even more of a risk that eating that cheeseburger will not send you to Gehinnom. So if you are not ready to jump off the roof based on the possibility of flying, it would be dishonest of you to eat that cheeseburger based on the possibility of Judaism being false.
The issue is black and white simple.
That is the issue here - there are only two possibilities: (a) accident or (b) intelligence.
To say that it adapted or evolved just evades the question: adaptation and evolution are either accident or intelligence. Either a string of billions and trillions of perfectly aligned accidents or there is something in the organism that knows what direction it needs to evolve.
And don't forget - the organism needs the ability to be able to "evolve" to begin with. If we were all made of stone we couldn’t "evolve" lungs, etc.
So the proof still remains: the perfectly designed and aligned natural phenomenon could not have, by any reasonable odds, accidentally ended up this way.
And the only alternative to accident is intelligence.
It doesn't matter if the apple "adapted" for people or people "adapted" for the apple. Either way, accident is beyond believable odds.
What is referred to as "likelihood" of life evolving, still amounts to staggering odds. The numbers are too large to describe (please see the Proofs to the Torah forum where the math is done).
The fact that elements got together and life came from them is itself ridiculous by accident.
And the fact that life "knows" how to evolve is also impossible by accident.
You may not realize the level of coincidence that is needed to do this. Did your stomach "evolve" before the lining that protects it from the acids? If so, it would have been destroyed after the first meal. If the lining evolved before the acids, then nature must also be endowed with prophecy, because it was burdened for millions of years with some useless lining, until the acid evolved.
The chicken egg needed to be the right thickness - not too thick and not too thin - to allow the development and hatching of the chicken, from the start. Or else even one generation of chicken would not have been able to survive.
And even if, theoretically, all this did evolve, the fossil evidence would have to show the billions and billions of species that did not survive - the "non fittest" that fell by the wayside. For every survivable species, you are talking about countless non-survivors. The odds are ridiculous. And the fossil record so far has ONLY COME UP WITH VIABLE LIFE FORMS.
We still have no answer to the question: How does anyone account for the staggering odds of life forming by accident?
What the scientists are saying in essence is, "Yes, but it could happen."
Well, that is of course true, but then you would be unable to prove anything at all, because similarly, "It could always happen."
If G-d Himself would come and reveal Himself to the entire world an say "I am Hashem", that, too, by atheist standard wouldn't prove anything because a happy string of coincidences could account for natural sounds and sights that happened to have coincidentally united at the right time and place to cause such a phenomenon.
It could happen.
Proof, in any other context other than atheists talking about G-d, is not expected to reach the level of absolute impossibility. There is no such thing as absolute impossibility. Anything "could" happen, as long as it is not an absurd concept that cannot exist (such as a triangle that is round).
You would send someone to the electric chair if you were a juror and the defendant’s fingerprints were found on the strangled victim's neck. A video of the murder, and perhaps 20 witnesses would make the verdict a no brainier.
But witnesses could lie, a video could be forged - one may even go so far as to claim that some technology exists out there that we are as yet unaware of that synthesized such a realistic video.
And please note, that there is no proof anywhere that says two people cannot have the same fingerprints. In fact, there is absolutely nothing in nature at all that precludes duplicate fingerprints. How in the world would my fingers know, when I am born, the patterns of fingerprints that have already been "placed" on the fingers of every other human being? How do my fingers know which fingerprints are "used" already so as to avoid duplicating them?
The only reason that we assume - yes, assume! - that two sets of fingerprints cannot be alike, or that two snowflakes cannot be alike, is because there are so many billions of possible fingerprint patterns, and snowflake patterns, that the odds of two like patterns existing are so staggering that we don’t even consider it a possibility.
Even though it could happen.
So if you are a juror and the defense attorney claims that nobody "proved" that the fingerprints on the victim's neck were really the defendants - because it could happen that by coincidence two identical sets exist, and that you can't "prove" that the 20 witnesses told the truth (they could have all lied and coincidentally made up the same exact details in the story), and that you can't "prove" that the video cannot be faked, he would be laughed out of the courtroom.
Even though it all "could happen".
And you would send the defendant to his death, because you saw proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that this man is guilty.
You have no proof that your dessert is not poisoned, but you would take the chance of eating it anyway.
Once the odds reach a certain point, we don't consider the alternative as viable.
Even though your dessert could be poisoned.
And so, the amount of "coincidence" and lucky accidents needed to create life are so ridiculously beyond reason, that you’re talking about a universe of people with duplicate fingerprints and continents of totally identical snowflakes.
You're talking about a monkey typing away at a keyboard and producing the Works of Shakespeare. Or, more like, the entire stock of the library of congress.
It could happen.
We live our lives laughing at such claims. We would call the ambulance at someone who really believes those things.
Except for the atheist discussing G-d.
It's amazing how, on that level of reasonableness, a person would risk his life and send others to their death, but to avoid eating pork, for that, he needs "absolute proof".
The question is not "can we prove G-d?" The question is, given the proof that we do have, why in the world would anybody NOT believe in G-d???
And to that, so far, no atheist has come up with anything close to a sensible answer.
------
If the chances of getting heads in a coin flip is 1/2, if you throw the dice twice, or even 100 times, each time you’ll still get a 50-50 chance of getting heads.
If you throw a die, you have a 1/6 chance of rolling a 1. If you throw it 6 times, you still have a 1/6 chance each of those times of rolling a 1. It doesn’t change. Dice have no memory. And if you do roll a 1 lets say on the 3rd try, and not the first two, that was totally random.
No matter how many times you throw the dice, they will have to overcome the 1/6 odds to come up with any given number. Even if you roll them a million times, each throw still has to overcome the 1/6 odds.
Now 1/6 odds is not so hard to overcome, and if it happens, it's totally random, unrelated to the number of times you threw the dice.
And no matter how many universes there are, in order for life to accidentally arise, it would have to overcome, on its own, without the help of any of the gazillions of other universes, the 1/innumerable chances. And that doesn't happen.
And besides all this, life doesn't spring up at once - it takes time, and each of the gazillions of happy accidents have to have time to happen, on their own, independently, and even if one would be missing, the whole organism would fail.
In fact, even according to the most conservative estimate of the age of the world according to evolutionists, there hasn't been enough time since the beginning for life to develop, by any reasonable standard. You would need so many happy accidents, numbers beyond anything we can imagine, to have happened precisely in the right place and time, one after the other, with some kind of maintaining device existent all the while to ensure the continued life of the organisms while they were developing but only partly developed.
The whole thing is logically absurd. I don’t see how anybody can even entertain such a remote possibility.
The only people who do, I would imagine, are those with such unhealthy psyches that they would be afraid to go out on a sunny day lest they get hit by lightning, the odds of which are infinitely greater than life developing anywhere, ever; or those paranoid people who live in bomb shelters because they're worried lest a meteorite smash their homes into dust, which is much more likely than them having evolved from monkeys, who evolved from pond slime completely by accident.
It's very strange, and explainable only by way of the irrational inside all of us, that people actually believe the world exists with no Creator.
Anything is possible even given one try. It is not the amount of tries that makes something "possible", it is your definition of "possible", which is useless in the real world, and dishonestly applied to nothing in life except religion.
Naive people are naive even though what they believe is "possible"; foolish people are foolish even though what they think is "possible"; paranoid people are paranoid even though it is "possible;" that the whole world is indeed after them.
"Proof" does not mean negating an impossibility. No scientific or other type of proof negates all possibility of something being untrue. "Possibility" by this definition is a meaningless philosophical term that has no relevance in the real world.
All "proof" has to do in order to motivate you to act upon it is remove doubt, not remove impossibility. Removing impossibility in this sense is, well, impossible.
It is probably less possible for you to be abducted by aliens every day of your life - time after time.
And so if you are not worried about taking a stroll around your block, lest the aliens get you, you certainly do not have to worry about Judaism being false.
And it is probably less likely to be false than every one of your deserts poisoned by your enemies who, although you do not know it, want to kill you. It could happen, you know.
And so, if you eat your dessert without fear for your life, then it would be dishonest to eat a cheeseburger without fearing for your soul.
And it is possible that if you jump off the roof, you will fly. But you have to be an idiot to take that chance.
It is even more of a risk that eating that cheeseburger will not send you to Gehinnom. So if you are not ready to jump off the roof based on the possibility of flying, it would be dishonest of you to eat that cheeseburger based on the possibility of Judaism being false.
The issue is black and white simple.
Labels: Evolution
posted by Moderator at 2:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home