Evolution is not really a theory

[Nando Ronteltap]

Then I'm not understanding you. If my questions are childish and you actually have answers it should be straightforward to explain.

I'm earnestly interested in how your world view could be applied to the real world on any level.

Personally the closest I've come to being "triggered" is the irritating and frankly, mildly offensive use of the term triggered. I would truly appreciate you not use it about me.

I'm having intellectual problems with your version of "choice", not emotional ones. I haven't yet been able to understand what you mean by the word and how it applies.

If you have any interest in actually discussing intelligent design, I'm interested, but please try to have a conversation and don't just throw childish, ill-defined insults like "attitude" and "triggered".

But you know free will is doubted in philosophy for centuries. So it's obvious many people have problems with it. You make a problem about inferring intelligent design, from the observation that organisms look designed. So why wouldn't you be one of those people who has fundamental problems with free will altogether. And that is why you become hyper critical of theory about it, like intelligent design.

Free will provides predators and prey with surprise in attack and escape. You cannot know which way a choice is going to turn out, prior to it being made. So that is one aspect in which free will of organisms provides a useful survival function. One way in which knowledge about how things are chosen is useful.

To make a choice means to make an alternative future the present. Or it can be defined as making a possible future the present or not. It's simple and fundamental. Having secure knowledge of a single choice made, we must then generalize this finding to it's natural limits. Like Newton generalized gravity from observing an apple fall. And there are no limits, the entire universe fits with the concept that it is chosen. Everything in the universe can be or not be, which are two alternatives in a choice.

I don't know exactly what the decision processes were by which organisms came to be. It could be many independent choices coincedentally coming together. It could be a few intelligent choices, etc. I think parsimony is the default hypothesis. The basic ordering of the universe is the same as the basic ordering of the dna system, is the same as the basic ordering of the human mind. The DNA system can develop a wide variety of organisms. So I think the DNA system acts similar to a human mind, and that the organism is chosen in the dna system. Possibly in relation to the basic decisionprocesses in the universe in general. Possibly in relation to a brain or nerve celss already developed by an organism. Nature would use things that are available to be used.

Also instantaneous creation in whole is not beyond the scope of what is impossible to be chosen.

Intelligent design theory should predict that there is a balance between bases C and A, and T and G, or any other variation thereof. Also intelligent design theory should predict that the DNA system can be in a state where new DNA can be made. So that the DNA system has the stuff at the ready for making the new DNA, and that every combination of CATG is equally likely to occur. So you have a future of all possible combinations DNA, which can be decided on.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

only one with attitude is you here, you've been rude this entire time.

That's not what is going on here. These people have problems with free will.

 

[loveofourlord]

That's not what is going on here. These people have problems with free will.

Free will has nothing to do with evolution so your the one that doesn't get it. Expplain how free at all relates to anything with evolution? Stuff without free will still evolve.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

We disagree because there is a big gap between looks designed and is designed, we have programs that can create randomly very incredible looking things that would appear designed, but arn't. How do you tell the difference between something that is designed, but only looks designed through some natural process?

You must simply look for the actual decision processes by which they came to be.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

Free will has nothing to do with evolution so your the one that doesn't get it. Expplain how free at all relates to anything with evolution? Stuff without free will still evolve.

Choice is the mechanism of creation, intelligent design theory.

 

[loveofourlord]

Choice is the mechanism of creation, intelligent design theory.

whats the choice in random mutations giving bacteria resistance to a drug, so that when they run into it some have that mutation and survive. Where is the choice? It happens without choice.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

whats the choice in random mutations giving bacteria resistance to a drug, so that when they run into it some have that mutation and survive. Where is the choice? It happens without choice.

As far as I know, the resistance is quicker than expected by random mutation. When evolutionists argue about requiring millions of years for organisms to evolve, then generally if the period becomes shorter it more indicates intelligent design.

 

[loveofourlord]

As far as I know, the resistance is quicker than expected by random mutation. When evolutionists argue about requiring millions of years for organisms to evolve, then generally if the period becomes shorter it more indicates intelligent design.

No it doesn't, unless you want to claim god wants people to die in hospitals due to bacterial resistances. It's not quicker, you have billions of billions of billions of bacteria gaining mutations every few minutes to days of course they would gain random mutations that might benefit that.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

No it doesn't, unless you want to claim god wants people to die in hospitals due to bacterial resistances. It's not quicker, you have billions of billions of billions of bacteria gaining mutations every few minutes to days of course they would gain random mutations that might benefit that.

I think you are just wrong, and that the bacteria responsively changes it's DNA. That it is qucker than random.

 

[loveofourlord]

I think you are just wrong, and that the bacteria responsively changes it's DNA. That it is qucker than random.

Thats not how it works, and we can test this out by finding out if the change came before the threat, and we do in various tests. And it's reality also, because if you were right then bacterial resistanfce would be 100% effective and all the time, not taking decades to be gainedk, which makes more sense if it's through random mutations over a long period of time.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

Thats not how it works, and we can test this out by finding out if the change came before the threat, and we do in various tests. And it's reality also, because if you were right then bacterial resistanfce would be 100% effective and all the time, not taking decades to be gainedk, which makes more sense if it's through random mutations over a long period of time.

That's not how intelligence works. Lots of people don't use their intelligence much. Intelligence works by choice only, so you always have several ways it can turn out. You are thinking in terms of cause and effect, things being forced.

 

[Monk Brendan]

That would be impossible. So no.

How is the technical scientific use of the word "theory" impossible?

Or are you talking about evolution?

I was taught in school that evolution is an orderly process of development from simpler to more complex forms.

This is the pattern I see in Genesis.

Don't forget that the Bible was not written as a science or history book as we understand those disciplines today.

Rather than comparing Genesis with Darwin, it would be better to compare it with the creation stories of surrounding cultures. Among other major differences, creation is a free act of God and subject to no law of necessity.

I realize that Darwinism is based on the idea of random mutations, but to paraphrase Betsy ten Book, there's nothing random in God's world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Choice is the mechanism of creation, intelligent design theory.

There is no "intelligent design theory" . It appears that you do not know what a theory is. A theory has to be falsifiable. That means at the very least one has to have a reasonable test that could show the concept to be wrong. What reasonable test could refute intelligent design theory?

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

There is no "intelligent design theory" . It appears that you do not know what a theory is. A theory has to be falsifiable. That means at the very least one has to have a reasonable test that could show the concept to be wrong. What reasonable test could refute intelligent design theory?

That no intelligent decisionmaking processes were found in the origins of some organism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That no intelligent decisionmaking processes were found in the origins of some organism.

I know that English is probably not your first language, but that makes no sense as a test. Either clarify what you meant or think of another test. From what I can understand it fails as a reasonable test.

I can tell you right now that to date no intelligent decision making processes have been found in the origin of some organisms.

 

[loveofourlord]

That's not how intelligence works. Lots of people don't use their intelligence much. Intelligence works by choice only, so you always have several ways it can turn out. You are thinking in terms of cause and effect, things being forced.

And? You still not explaining why what your saying has anything to do with evolution. Mutations are random and the mutations that have benefits are selected for by pressure. There is no choice or intelligence required, your trying to add something not required.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Prediction: This thread is screaming down hill fast and will be moderated by the time I get home. (No, I'm not going to try to trigger moderation. That would be cheating.)

Well, I missed on that prediction. At least the timing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

He's referring to Aquinas' assertion that theology is the queen of the sciences. (Not the only thing Aquinas was wrong about.) The MDiv is a master of divinity.

I thought it was some sort of IEEE error I didn't recognize at first.

Theology /= Science

None of the schools I've ever been at gave such degrees. (It would have been illegal.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's not what is going on here. These people have problems with free will.

I don't have any problem with free will (at least in it's limited form; I don't think I have the "free will" to instantly transport myself to Mars, or levitate, or go 5 weeks without food, or become invisible)

I certainly think I have the free will to make, or not make this post (and the ones above it). I chose to post. No predetermination of that as far as that goes.

 

[inquiring mind]

Pointing towards the planets and saying the position of them changes, is not really a theory. Pointing to populations of organisms and saying they change is likewise not a theory. Saying "things change" is a rather meaningless catchall frame of reference. Especially when they made no change part of evolution theory, as by punctuated equilibrium, it shows evolution theory is essentially meaningless.

To say evolution is occurring basically means to say that occurrences are occurring. There is not a single occurence which falls outside the frame of reference of evolution theory.

How organisms are actually formed is by intelligent design. That is a real theory.

Crick and Watson thought that DNA was so complex that they even had reservations about life just evolving in the relatively short period of time between the earth cooling enough to be livable and the appearance of life in the fossil record. That only leaves design, which they ruled out because they were atheist, or an extraterrestrial source. I believe I’ll stick with ‘God did it.’