Actually not all Evolutionists agree on there being no set path.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Actually...

[TGLS]

Alright I've found the time to watch this silly video. The argument presented the video basically ends up just pulling back to the unmoved mover. That has so many problem I won't bother reiterating them here.

The evidence presented basically all really come down to: physical laws constrain evolution. The fact that there are few ways to do things is why convergent evolution is a thing. Here's a silly example; suppose Q made a copy of Earth in 1880 and put it somewhere. He comes back a hundred years later, and compares the technology of the Earths. Unless civilization collapsed for some reason or another, both would have many technologies that are superficially identical. There will probably be differences (standard voltages, etc.), but both are going to have swept wing jets, for example. There are only so many ways to do things, and the local maxima can be found easily.

[KitWargSpectacle]

I'll watch the video later, however if it really does say what it seems to be saying acc. to the replies here, then a few general points here:

"Evolution" exclusively refers to the biological changes *post* the abiogenesis process (i.e. the formation of life, of cells or cell pre-forms, components, genes or whatever the cutoff point is). While some creationists'/IDers' tendency to use the term to refer to the ENTiRE process of the blind formation of the universe may make sense linguistically, internally etc?., that's not what the mainstream definition happens to be - and this term misuse seems to be heavily rooted in fundamental ignorance as well as a cultish attitude towards the word "evilution" as a represntation of modern Satanic scientism delusion or the likemao.

So "prime mover" Big Bang stuff is waaaaay outside the topic there.

Chuck's objections are entirely about the *biological* notion that the change of organisms between generations is somehow following a program like the growth of zygotes/embryos etc. into adults does. Like Trek or Prometheus portrayed it.

Claiming that the development of the universe is following a program is sth else entirely - other than IDers or "simulationists" I'm currently not aware of any "scientific" groups that make such claims.

[McAvoy]

I'll watch the video later, however if it really does say what it seems to be saying acc. to the replies here, then a few general points here:

"Evolution" exclusively refers to the biological changes *post* the abiogenesis process (i.e. the formation of life, of cells or cell pre-forms, components, genes or whatever the cutoff point is). While some creationists'/IDers' tendency to use the term to refer to the ENTiRE process of the blind formation of the universe may make sense linguistically, internally etc?., that's not what the mainstream definition happens to be - and this term misuse seems to be heavily rooted in fundamental ignorance as well as a cultish attitude towards the word "evilution" as a represntation of modern Satanic scientism delusion or the likemao.

So "prime mover" Big Bang stuff is waaaaay outside the topic there.

Chuck's objections are entirely about the *biological* notion that the change of organisms between generations is somehow following a program like the growth of zygotes/embryos etc. into adults does. Like Trek or Prometheus portrayed it.

Claiming that the development of the universe is following a program is sth else entirely - other than IDers or "simulationists" I'm currently not aware of any "scientific" groups that make such claims.

In my experience Creationists and Intelligent Design-ers don't really research what they are argue against. In fact it seems they get their info from the same place, because alot of them use the same arguments. Like incorrectly using the tornado hitting a junkyard making a fully functional jet plane for example. Or simply just misusing the word 'theory' in place of scientific theory.

So yeah, using Evolution to include the creation of the Universe is pretty common. Is it because they are willingly ignorant? Or are they just plain ignorant on the subject? Depends on the person.

[Artabax]

Anthropic Principle: if the Gravitational constant were a zillionth part smaller of the Electric constant were a zillionth part larger, there would be no galaxies, no stars, no people. This proves Yehowah.

Not exactly. In all the Universes with probable numbers, there will be no people saying "Gosh this Universe is so probable." There will only be people in Universes with the right numbers.

[Madner Kami]

Anthropic Principle: if the Gravitational constant were a zillionth part smaller of the Electric constant were a zillionth part larger, there would be no galaxies, no stars, no people. This proves Yehowah.

Not exactly. In all the Universes with probable numbers, there will be no people saying "Gosh this Universe is so probable." There will only be people in Universes with the right numbers.

Exactly. The universe isn't what or how it is, because of how or what we are. We are how and what we are, because the universe is what or how it is.