05 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt is a distinction without a difference, again, people using their views
[b]…Evolution does not make predictions, people do. .....
That is just word play and I think you know it -I didn’t say nor imply that the “evolution process” makes a prediction -I said the “theory of evolution” makes a prediction -specifically, the prediction that natural selection will generally select for the beneficial mutations -surely you don’t deny this simple fact?[/b]
about what they see in front of them make predictions. You want to
credit the work of great minds and give the credit to the name of a
theory, simply because people credit evolution with sending their
thinking down a particular path, it does not mean at all that, that path
is actually playing out exactly as they are giving it credit for. So yes, I
actually do deny what you are suggesting, evolution is a theory,
people not evolution make predictions.
Kelly
05 Dec 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI’d almost be willing to say that pattern recognition has more to do
How does this answer my question?
How does this even relate to my question?
Do you deny that evolution has some predictability?
An explicit prediction is often part of a scientific theory.
with many of the predictions than actually viewed macro evolutionary
change, since great change supposedly takes so long it is only
assumed to have taken place the way people say it has and that is
where I have great issue with the theory.
Kelly
05 Dec 08
Originally posted by PBE6Yes, I believe the eye along with the rest of our bodies and the
Thanks for clarifying. So do you believe that the human eye was ever otherwise? Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? I was under the impression that the "creationist model" implies that humans were created as we are now, hence the rib situation and all that rot.
bodies of all other life were better at one time. That however is a
matter of faith on my part since where I go for that knowledge has to
be either accepted or rejected, which is scripture.
I do want to make this quite clear, it isn't scripture that keeps me
from believing in the common views about evolution, it is the design
of functional complex systems. It is only there I'd debate evolution,
since my faith/beliefs about scripture are just that, my faith and
beliefs, the issues I have with the common view of evolution rests in
the here and now, not in scripture that is thousands of years old. I do
not call scripture rot by the way.
Kelly
05 Dec 08
Originally posted by PBE6I agree, if you read scripture as is without adding to it or taking away
Your "design issues" aside, the theory of evolution posits that man evolved from other species which directly contradicts the scripture you just quoted.
from it, evolution cannot be part of the process moving from the
simple to the complex; however, it can break down into subspecies.
Kelly
05 Dec 08
Originally posted by PBE6Check out the start of this thread, I put three longer posts in it that
I'm genuinely surprised! I thought you didn't know what the theory of evolution was, but you've summed up some of the key points right here!
[b]Natural selection does not have a plan, it is not following some script to cause 'good things' to occur over time. Yes!
All it really is, is the process of life playing out, saying that those that can sur ...[text shortened]... anything. However, also like a sieve, some items will pass through it and some won't.
I think you'll see more about why I complain about it. Again, tomorrow
I'll put more into this if I can. This is a full weekend for me.
Kelly
05 Dec 08
Originally posted by sonhouse"Just out of curiosity, why are you asking a bunch of engineers, technicians..."
Just out of curiosity, why are you asking a bunch of engineers, technicians, chess players and such all these questions? If you truly were interested I would think you would go to the experts. Could it be you are already prejudiced against them and cannot take them seriously and here you can safely rail against their flaws?
I'd say an engineer would see design issues long before some of
your so called experts. To answer your question about why I am
asking the people here, its because this is where I am. 🙂
Kelly
05 Dec 08
Yes, I believe the eye along with the rest of our bodies and the
bodies of all other life were better at one time. That however is a
matter of faith on my part since where I go for that knowledge has to
be either accepted or rejected, which is scripture.
You can't call looking up scripture in a faith driven book Knowledge.
05 Dec 08
Originally posted by sonhouseExactly how do you think faith works?
Yes, I believe the eye along with the rest of our bodies and the
bodies of all other life were better at one time. That however is a
matter of faith on my part since where I go for that knowledge has to
be either accepted or rejected, which is scripture.
You can't call looking up scripture in a faith driven book Knowledge.
Kelly
05 Dec 08
Originally posted by KellyJayhttp://geneticsevolution.suite101.com/article.cfm/darwin_evolution_selection
It is a distinction without a difference, again, people using their views
about what they see in front of them make predictions. You want to
credit the work of great minds and give the credit to the name of a
theory, simply because people credit evolution with sending their
thinking down a particular path, it does not mean at all that, that path
is act ...[text shortened]... y what you are suggesting, evolution is a theory,
people not evolution make predictions.
Kelly
Extract:
“…What Is Natural Selection?
Selection is the process by which the organisms that are best adapted to their environment tend to be the ones that survive to reproduce and pass on their genes to the next generation….”
The prediction of evolution is exactly just as stated above -do you deny this?
In what way is that not a “prediction“?
I repeat my question; how can evolution by a purely random process when is has same predictability?
05 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…I’d almost be willing to say that pattern recognition has more to do
I’d almost be willing to say that pattern recognition has more to do
with many of the predictions than actually viewed macro evolutionary
change, since great change supposedly takes so long it is only
assumed to have taken place the way people say it has and that is
where I have great issue with the theory.
Kelly
with many of the PREDICTIONS than actually viewed macro evolutionary
change..... (my emphasis)
So you DO acknowledge the fact that the theory of evolution makes “PREDICTIONS”?
-at least we are getting somewhere here at last;
-does this mean you acknowledge the fact that evolution has some predictability? -if so, how can it be a purely random process?
05 Dec 08
Originally posted by KellyJayWould you renounce your faith, or at the very least your faith's interpretation of Genesis, if you were ever convinced that active design on the part of a designer is not necessary for the development of life?
I do want to make this quite clear, it isn't scripture that keeps me
from believing in the common views about evolution, it is the design
of functional complex systems.
BTW, who designed the designer, arguably the most complex organism in your pantheon?