05 Dec 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI'll say it again, people not evolution predict things!
http://geneticsevolution.suite101.com/article.cfm/darwin_evolution_selection
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 j ...[text shortened]... epeat my question; how can evolution by a purely random process when is has same predictability?
Kelly
05 Dec 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonPeople not evolution predicts things.
[b]…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..... (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?[/b]
Kelly
05 Dec 08
Originally posted by PBE6No one designed God, for God is eternal there never was a time He
Would 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?
BTW, who designed the designer, arguably the most complex organism in your pantheon?
wasn't here, He is here now, and there will never be a time He is not
here. So no one, or nothing caused what always was, is, and will be.
Kelly
05 Dec 08
Originally posted by PBE6I would and could change my mind about that yes.
Would 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?
BTW, who designed the designer, arguably the most complex organism in your pantheon?
Kelly
05 Dec 08
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd you think this is more plausible than a series of small changes adding up to a big change? Please compare the two in terms of plausibility.
No one designed God, for God is eternal there never was a time He
wasn't here, He is here now, and there will never be a time He is not
here. So no one, or nothing caused what always was, is, and will be.
Kelly
05 Dec 08
Originally posted by PBE6One has nothing to do with the other.
And you think this is more plausible than a series of small changes adding up to a big change? Please compare the two in terms of plausibility.
God being eternal has nothing to do with the amount of small
changes required to come off just right over time and getting us
here from this planet having no life in it to the variety we see today.
Kelly
05 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThey're in direct opposition.
One has nothing to do with the other.
God being eternal has nothing to do with the amount of small
changes required to come off just right over time and getting us
here from this planet having no life in it to the variety we see today.
Kelly
But let's recap, because we seem to meander quite a bit. Your original question was about the human eye, with your position being that it was too complex to have been created out of a process based on random mutation. Several posters have provided you with plausible explanations on how this could have happened, but you still deny its plausibility (on grounds known only to you). However, you have no problem believing in the most complex being imaginable, not simply springing into existence spontaneously but existing without end or beginning, having access to knowledge about every particle and force in the universe (normally denied to any observer in a fundamental way as described by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle), the only being in existence able to transform a collection of molecules into a living organism by breathing into it (all the while leaving such an organism indistinguishable from said collection of molecules), a being with design skills so vast that the entire plan for the universe and everything in it was carefully arranged and constructed by the deft arrangement of particles within 7 days, but who still somehow forgot that leukemia kills kids.
Can you please quantify and clarify the relative plausibility discrepancy between the two alternatives above?
05 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayAgain, obviously I wasn’t referring to the process of evolution but rather the theory of evolution.
People not evolution predicts things.
Kelly
The theory of evolution DOES make predictions AND I have clearly already shown you a link that proves that fact.
Secondly, that doesn’t answer any of my questions:
-do you acknowledge the fact that evolution has some predictability?
-if so, how can the process evolution be a purely random process?