Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So you concede that it's not design?Already dealt with this. In fact I done some more research and it seems that snowflakes also come under what is known as chaos theory and fractals.
Snowflakes, tornado's, stalactites, stalagmites the behavior of those things are governed we now know as something that is called Chaos theory. Chaos theory is the study of how order forms naturally without design.
http://cosmicfingerprints.com/read-prove-god-exists/language-dna-intelligent-design/
I wouldn't expect anything less from an atheist and leader in bagging religion such as Lawrence Krauss.Attn @stevevw. Lawrence Krauss discusses Ben Carson's scientific ignorance in the The New Yorker:
Thats what the article seems to say that though snowflakes have patterns they are not the product of intentional design. As was stated Not all patterns are designed, but all designs have patterns.So you concede that it's not design?
So we are to regard Carson as an authority on the evolution of the brain, despite multiple signs pointing to his lack of expertise in that area, but we are to disregard Krauss as an authority on physics, even though he has demonstrable expertise in that area?I wouldn't expect anything less from an atheist and leader in bagging religion such as Lawrence Krauss.
Which means that you do in fact concede the point: complex structure does not entail design.Thats what the article seems to say that though snowflakes have patterns they are not the product of intentional design. As was stated Not all patterns are designed, but all designs have patterns.
I already acknowledged that earlier by saying that it wasn't just about complexity alone but also other things like ordered codes, patterns, systems, languages ect. I also stated that we have to do the calculations and maths to determine whether something is designed and has a high level of information in it. The point is many of the things that are held up as examples for nature being able to design also have patterns, codes, languages, systems, patterns that have a high level of order and info to them.Which means that you do in fact concede the point: complex structure does not entail design.
Those are examples of complex structures.I already acknowledged that earlier by saying that it wasn't just about complexity alone but also other things like ordered codes, patterns, systems, languages ect.
Yeah, they are examples of complex structures, and you just conceded that complex structure does not entail design.I also stated that we have to do the calculations and maths to determine whether something is designed and has a high level of information in it. The point is many of the things that are held up as examples for nature being able to design also have patterns, codes, languages, systems, patterns that have a high level of order and info to them.
As you said you dont have to be an expert to be able to know some of the basics about evolution. He certainly should know enough about the brain and no one has challenged him on that. So as I stated originally he should know enough above a lay persons understanding about the difficulties for evolution to evolved something complex like the brain.So we are to regard Carson as an authority on the evolution of the brain, despite multiple signs pointing to his lack of expertise in that area, but we are to disregard Krauss as an authority on physics, even though he has demonstrable expertise in that area?
Yes, and as previously established, his grasp of the fundamentals of evolution is inadequate. So how can he be expected to know the conditions necessary for brain evolution?As you said you dont have to be an expert to be able to know some of the basics about evolution. He certainly should know enough about the brain and no one has challenged him on that. So as I stated originally he should know enough above a lay persons understanding about the difficulties for evolution to evolved something complex like the brain.
Yes complex patterns alone that dont have the qualities of design. The trick is to investigate beyond the superficial to see if there is a high level of ordered structure, patterns, systems and info that make them. Evidently there isnt when it comes to snowflakes and they are the product of unpredictable forces like the weather.Those are examples of complex structures.
Yes complex structures alone do not entail design.Yeah, they are examples of complex structures, and you just conceded that complex structure does not entail design.
Which means you've conceded the point! Can't you see that? You've acknowledged that patterns, structure, complexity, etc., does not entail design.Yes complex patterns alone that dont have the qualities of design. The trick is to investigate beyond the superficial to see if there is a high level of ordered structure, patterns, systems and info that make them. Evidently there isnt when it comes to snowflakes and they are the product of unpredictable forces like the weather.
Yes complex structures alone do not entail design.
How can his grasp on the fundamentals of evolution be inadequate when he studied biology and chemistry at uni and passed. That doesn't make sense. Even lay people know the fundamental claims of evolution and that life evolved gradually through mutations and natural selection. That evolution morphed more complex things out of less complex things. He is just saying that he believes that the brain is to complex to have been created this way. You dont have to be a rocket scientists or should I say biologists to know this.Yes, and as previously established, his grasp of the fundamentals of evolution is inadequate. So how can he be expected to know the conditions necessary for brain evolution?
So what? If he also studied physics and passed would that mean he had a good grasp of the fundamentals of the Big Bang? No, not necessarily. His comments indicate otherwise.How can his grasp on the fundamentals of evolution be inadequate when he studied biology and chemistry at uni and passed.
Biology covers evolution. Biology covers things like cell biology, reproduction, genetics, evolution, biochemistry, anatomy and physiology of plant and animals. With his higher level of knowledge about the brain he should be able to have a general overview of what it would take for evolution to evolve a brain.So what? If he also studied physics and passed would that mean he had a good grasp of the fundamentals of the Big Bang? No, not necessarily. His comments indicate otherwise.
We have already established that his understanding of evolution is inadequate, so no. Imagine if he subscribed to the Stork Theory of reproduction. Would you still be saying, "But he took biology in college and passed!"Biology covers evolution. Biology covers things like cell biology, reproduction, genetics, evolution, biochemistry, anatomy and physiology of plant and animals. With his higher level of knowledge about the brain he should be able to have a general overview of what it would take for evolution to evolve a brain.
You have established that you think he doesn't understand evolution not me. You used certain evidence that you thought showed this. I provided other evidence that I though showed he did have an understanding for the particular things he was talking about. So nothing was really proven.We have already established that his understanding of evolution is inadequate, so no. Imagine if he subscribed to the Stork Theory of reproduction. Would you still be saying, "But he took biology in college and passed!"
Go back, re-read.You have established that you think he doesn't understand evolution not me. You used certain evidence that you thought showed this. I provided other evidence that I though showed he did have an understanding for the particular things he was talking about. So nothing was really proven.
You brought him up!But in any case he was more knowledgeable that not knowing the basics such as a stork being used for reproduction. Are you honestly saying a scientists of his status which would take a certain level of brains in general could be so dumb. But still we are going on about the credibility of one man which is totally irrelevant to anythings we were talking about and seems a silly thing to want to go on with.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?