Only my knowledge of the world. Are you saying you do not suspect it?
That's not my argument.
Nothing.
No.
No.
NA. Atheists demand that of IDists as shown by your reply before this one.
"Evolution" is presently all about randomness, because atheistic scientists exclude the possibility of intelligence. It is inherent in the word "evolution."
Do you ever read any text books or journals on biology or evolution?
Not much. I read this article:
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf
I don't.
A sample count I made here that seems to be confirmed by various things. The posts of theistic evolutionists are relatively scarce here.
"...certainly neither side can hope for anything close to "proof." Although Spetner denies that he is "obliged to prove a non-existence" of such a chain of mutations, his whole effort in the correspondence seems to be directed to just that aim. Evolutionists have the job of defending the reasonableness of such a series of mutations. I believe that Spetner would agree with this."
I concentrated on the highlighted portions.
That is not my point, as I have tried to explain.
Show me where I said it was.
Perhaps if you quote the particular phrase that has misled you...?
Not easily. It was someone's notes about his email communications with Spetner dealing with "intelligent design." I think that is what I searched.
Pass. I cannot find what this relates to.
Several evolutionists here have said the process cannot be observed and they referred me to a link that said it was a "mistake." Others said the exact cause is unknown.
The same link said 1 in 100 million. Later other writings said more frequently and not well known.
Not easily.
Partly. I say "partly" because there have been no observations past, present or future of the process or the precise causes, evolutionists' assumptions are necessarily based on circumstantial evidence, which is scant.
We have better circumstantial evidence of the things I am not arguing about.
I hope Jones had something better than that. I think that is a misrepresentation of the ID viewpoint. It certainly misrepresents mine.
Find my post about the Mandelbrot set and look at Beastt's post on this thread about the deceptiveness of randomness-- it creates evidence of intelligence. Why do we think it looks intelligent? That is what Dembski is trying to answer. Evolutionists seem to me to say that because the patterns of the mandelbrot set look like a product of intelligence but are actually a product of an "irrational" fomula that makes dots in random order, we cannot consider the fact that a design looks like a product of intellignece to
constitute evidence of intelligence. I believe that argument is flawed. I hope Dembski or others can determine some rules to distinguish whether apparent intelligence is a product of real intelligence or just randomness.
Have you read "Does God Play Dice?" by Ian Stewart. I was in the middle of it when I got sidetracked by this site. Einstein spent 2/3rds of his life trying to prove the negative, and never did.
Weather systems may be deterministic or random or controlled by God on unbelievably minute levels. They are certainly more predictable than mutations. Gravity conforms to a clear formula and seems very predictable.
The answer doesn't matter to me much although I have read a lot about it and it is pretty fascinating.
Pass. I leave it to the scientists, but I doubt many are concerned about whether God is playing dice with the rain.
What are the laws governing the random mutation?
I did not make that claim. I said it is possible and I want the question to be explored.
Well, I made him in my own image and likeness or maybe it is vice versa.
What is your life's meaning to you? I do not remember if I ever knew. Are yu an atheist. What is the meaning of one's life to an avowed atheist?
Bummer.
Ohmm.
I have not yet found their reaction to Jones opinion in any detail. I am anxious to see it.
I'm not very impressed by that.
Apparent intelligence is everywhere, like I explained a little fuller above.
Well SamCJ, I am going to stop here. I have already asked many questions of you and this should be enough for now.