Understanding Evolution

JacksBratt said:

Yes, a streams path is random.

Click to expand...

No, it's not.

Water flows downhill, that is true. However, the lay of the land, the hardness of the soil and the ridges of rock or deposits of sand along the way, are all random

Click to expand...

No, they aren't and even if they were, the fact that they dictate the direction of the water flow makes the streams path not random.

and will cause it to veer left or right. There is no plan, blueprint or guidance to it's path. It flows down and is randomly directed by the obstacles in it's way.

Click to expand...

No. It flows downward, always taking the first available path downward.

It's not random.

Dizredux said:

No you do not understand the concept of random as it is used in science very well. I will give you Wiki's definition Randomness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the primary definition science uses. To use your definition in a scientific setting would result in confusion which is what we seem to have here.

this case, non random would be that it is predictable.

Again I think you are very confused about the concept of random.

No, I just like to be specific and random has other meanings in other fields but none that will help your case.

Dizredux

Click to expand...

And, another:

random


Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective.

I can search until I find a definition that speaks for my argument too.


I believe I predicted your response when I stated that you would say something about how it is viewed "in the case of evolution".

One could almost make a list of special definitions created to fit the model of evolution.

Euler said:

Yes, we assume that what we see is the real world. And part of that 'seeing' is observing that non-random processes create patterns which can be mistaken for design.

But we can easily demonstrate that those patterns are NOT designed.

Click to expand...

Feel free to demonstrate.

Euler said:

Oh that's too easy.

Now, I could rave on about snowflakes and the ripple patterns in sand at a river bank or beach, but here's a really easy one you can do for yourself.

Get a pair of dice. Throw them a couple hundred times, recording the total each throw. If they are fair dice, you will find there's a pattern to those totals. You'll find that a normal distribution, or bell, curve forms around the mean of number 7, with a near perfect gradation back to numbers 2 and 12. The more trials you run, the more perfect the pattern will be.

Someone who knew nothing about probability might think that such a perfectly patterned curve was 'designed'.

But I'm sure you'd agree that only wishful thinkers, or the ignorant, would think in such a way?

Click to expand...

Throwing dice is very different than the randomness in nature.

There are only six sides to each die and the opposites sides always add up to seven.

I learned this in grade 7 for goodness sake. We, as a class predicted the outcome and graphed it. Then threw dice for the afternoon to proof it.

Nature is not a stacked deck, as your example implies. It is totally random with millions of variables.

As for ripples in the sand and snowflakes...they follow the laws that govern them. The physics of fluids will affect suspended solids in a liquid. The characteristics of a compound such as H2O demand it's crystals to form at angles demanded by the elements that form it. The beauty is not random but the result of the blueprint of the elements.

IF you want to explain away a conundrum, explain why water contracts like all liquids, when cooled, until 4 degrees centigrade, then, if cooled further and even after frozen, it continues to expand again.

Just think of the disaster if water didn't do this.

Loudmouth said:

You are reaching the conclusion by a logical fallacy. Your premise is the same as your conclusion.



The same evidence we have been showing you from the very start. The independent twin nested hierarchies that match each other.

Click to expand...

The independent twin nested hierarchies do not explain the complexity we find in the earliest life forms.

Dizredux said:

How do you differentiate between a natural bridge and a neolithic bridge? Please be specific.

Click to expand...

Exactly like I can tell in my picture that wall is designed and the bridge is not. Now it's possible for an intelligent being to make a designed bridge to look natural just as a murderer will try their best to make the victim's death look like an accident or natural death.

Does this bridge looks natural or designed? (I don't know about anyone one else but I seem to be able to tell which are the designed rocks from the natural rock used for the bridge.)

justlookinla said:

It hasn't been done once for me.

Click to expand...

That it was a quote mine was done in post 261 and 435.

justlookinla said:

Again, point out where the "random" claim is changed in any way to something other than "random".

Click to expand...

You are moving the goalposts. That there is a random component to evolution is not in dispute.

justlookinla said:

There are fellow church members who do participate on the forum. I'm not sure if there's anyone I personally know who participates on the forum.

Click to expand...

Then you will not be inviting anyone to see your accomplishments here?

Smidlee said:

Exactly like I can tell in my picture that wall is designed and the bridge is not. Now it's possible for an intelligent being to make a designed bridge to look natural just as a murderer will try their best to make the victim's death look like an accident or natural death.

Does this bridge looks natural or designed? (I don't know about anyone one else but I seem to be able to tell which are the designed rocks from the natural rock used for the bridge.)

Click to expand...

Smidlee said:

Exactly like I can tell in my picture that wall is designed and the bridge is not. Now it's possible for an intelligent being to make a designed bridge to look natural just as a murderer will try their best to make the victim's death look like an accident or natural death.

Does this bridge looks natural or designed? (I don't know about anyone one else but I seem to be able to tell which are the designed rocks from the natural rock used for the bridge.)

Click to expand...

The only thing you are giving me is that one looks designed to you and one doesn't.

I requested you be specfic. That it looks designed to you doesn't mean a lot. Pretend you are a archelogist. How do you differentiate between a natural bridge and a neolitich designed one. Kinda looks designed just isn't going to cut it.

What about the choppers? How can you tell them from stones found on a mountainside? Why are the choppers considered to be designed and the natural stones not. Again I know the answer but you don't which is the point I am trying to make. It isn't all that hard to find out if you would make the effort.

You are trying to make complex scientific absurdly simply. Trust me, it isn't. Deciding if something is natural or designed is a major issue in archeology and it is far from simple. It might be worth your while to do some quick research on these kind of things before posting. It would help your credibility a lot.

Dizredux

Dizredux said:

The only thing you are giving me is that one looks designed to you and one doesn't.

I requested you be specfic. That it looks designed to you doesn't mean a lot. Pretend you are a archelogist. How do you differentiate between a natural bridge and a neolitich designed one. Kinda looks designed just isn't going to cut it.

What about the choppers? How can you tell them from stones found on a mountainside? Why are the choppers considered to be designed and the natural stones not. Again I know the answer but you don't which is the point I am trying to make. It isn't all that hard to find out if you would make the effort.

You are trying to make complex scientific absurdly simply. Trust me, it isn't. Deciding if something is natural or designed is a major issue in archeology and it is far from simple. It might be worth your while to do some quick research on these kind of things before posting. It would help your credibility a lot.

Dizredux

Click to expand...

One word "Purpose"

justlookinla said:

No evidence has been found for ONLY random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms capable of creating humanity by chance from a single life form of long long ago.

Click to expand...

Is that the only argument you can make, just repeating your mantra over and over. It is not a good substitute for looking at the evidence and considering it.

Think about that when you're sitting in your quite place, pondering.

Click to expand...

I do think about you and just shake my head.

'Scientists' propose science. Individuals define 'science'.

Click to expand...

What does this mean? Makes no sense to me, please explain.

'Scientists' present the 'scientific' view frequently.

Click to expand...

Yes indeedy they do and usually stay with the facts especially when writing papers.

Sounds like you've missed the very basic views of current atheistic creationist 'science' in all your reading. You ever read anything concerning intelligent design creationist science?

Click to expand...

Not really, I have been tracking this for better than 50 years reading such sources as AIG, ICR, the Discovery, Baugh and many others not to mention books on the subject.. I wanted to understand their view and put quite a bit of effort into it.

I've been reading the pros and cons of various views since the usenet days of the early 1990s.

Click to expand...

It might have been useful if you had read some scientific sources while you were at it as it is obviously you didn't.

What I refused to do was go down the rabbit trail of links.

Click to expand...

Links are the primary way of learning new material and keeping up with research using the internet. I am quite aware that this not something you wish to do and it shows.

Well yeah, I believe in micro evolution.

Click to expand...

And I believe our solar system is heliocentric and the earth rotates. The primary problem is that you know so little about evolution and apparently are unwilling to learn. A good way to look foolish.

Then we agree that "random" doesn't mean "directed"?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think I can agree with this but I am confident you will be confused on the issue in another post.

Dizredux

justlookinla said:

Something, or someone, created the eye. Now, quick, tell us who or what did it and how.

Click to expand...

According to our present knowledge, evolution.

Dizredux

Smidlee said:

Exactly like I can tell in my picture that wall is designed and the bridge is not. Now it's possible for an intelligent being to make a designed bridge to look natural just as a murderer will try their best to make the victim's death look like an accident or natural death.

Does this bridge looks natural or designed? (I don't know about anyone one else but I seem to be able to tell which are the designed rocks from the natural rock used for the bridge.)

Click to expand...

So, you're saying God didn't make rocks now? I thought you were on the I.D. side.

Oncedeceived said:

Non random processes can occur absent intelligent design. Like the perfectly round shape of the moon, for example.

Like evolved life forms, for example.

Click to expand...

Prove it.

Click to expand...

Once you know better than this. You cannot prove anything in science. There is plenty of support for both how moons and worlds are formed and how evolution works. What the burden on you is to falsify this. Both of these have had many attempts to falsify but so far no one has been able to do it for these two subjects.

I also might be useful for you to read some material on how moons and planets are formed and why they are round.

It is not our job to prove these things to you. We can cite plenty of evidence and support but you would need to read the material.


Dizredux

Smidlee said:

One word "Purpose"

Click to expand...

OK how do you define purpose and how do you detect it in the examples we are discussing? A good starting place is the choppers I referred to. How do you show purpose in those as opposed to a similar but not identically shaped rock that you found.

Dizredux

Smidlee said:

Laptops are not anywhere as efficient as human brain so I don't know where he got that idea. Also our brains (and our bodies) are 100% recyclable which doesn't filled up landfills.

Click to expand...

Hahaha, wow, you'd actually be amazed at some of the toxins present in our bodies. For that reason, in many countries they have issues with the practice of spreading ashes.

Oncedeceived said:

Okay, what this tells me as far as you are concerned then that the ToE does indeed claim that it is a process that is unguided as far as a goal or purpose is determined is mindless and mechanistic. So as I stated it is an unguided mindless process without goals or purpose...is that correct?

Click to expand...

Not exactly. You are trying to make an issue with a lot of gray area into something black and white here. With or without a deity being involved, evolution could be an unguided process and yet have a purpose, or a guided process without a purpose, mindless or mindful. But I will say this, if a deity is involved, the degree of involvement is either fairly low, or purposely covered up.

Mod hat: Back to the subject guys....just deleted a couple posts but even a few more I left in there shows this thread could be getting off track....has this thread run its course perhaps?

Dizredux said:

Once you know better than this. You cannot prove anything in science. There is plenty of support for both how moons and worlds are formed and how evolution works. What the burden on you is to falsify this. Both of these have had many attempts to falsify but so far no one has been able to do it for these two subjects.

I also might be useful for you to read some material on how moons and planets are formed and why they are round.

It is not our job to prove these things to you. We can cite plenty of evidence and support but you would need to read the material.


Dizredux

Click to expand...

Don't talk down to me. Its rude. I know the theories on planet formation.

Paul said:

Non random processes can occur absent intelligent design. Like the perfectly round shape of the moon, for example.

Like evolved life forms, for example.


It is his claim that non-random processes can occur absent of intelligent design in the case of life forms and the shape of the moon. IF he makes the claim he needs to provide the evidence that there was no Intelligent design involved.

Oncedeceived said:

Don't talk down to me. Its rude. I know the theories on planet formation.

Paul said:

Non random processes can occur absent intelligent design. Like the perfectly round shape of the moon, for example.

Like evolved life forms, for example.


It is his claim that non-random processes can occur absent of intelligent design in the case of life forms and the shape of the moon. IF he makes the claim he needs to provide the evidence that there was no Intelligent design involved.

Click to expand...

Shape of the moon he probably could, but overall I agree with you. But, he said it can occur that way, not that it did occur that way. Technically, a deity could have created life on earth without a deity actually being necessary for life to exist in general.

PsychoSarah said:

Shape of the moon he probably could, but overall I agree with you. But, he said it can occur that way, not that it did occur that way. Technically, a deity could have created life on earth without a deity actually being necessary for life to exist in general.

Click to expand...

How would one prove that the shape of the moon which relies on the laws of physics to form that it was devoid of ID?

Technically? How technically could have God created life on earth without it being necessary for life to exist in general?