Originally posted by KellyJayTell me Kelly, if what you say is true - why do we not find fossils of modern animals among those of dino.'s.
I don't declare evolution false, I don't give it the credit others do for
the vast amount of living creatures we see today. I believe it started
after creation and within kinds/species there have been changes, but
they have stayed within kinds/species we just get variations of same,
so evolution did not take a simple cell and through generations and
time evolve into a whale in one direction and a blade of grass in
another.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIt's nothing to do with what I "want". It's simply to do with what there is evidence for and what there isn't any evidence for. Stop trying to muddy the water.
I know, and that is my point, you don't know, you want there to be
nothing required, so you that is the process and chain of events that
you cling to. As far as there being a direction being given, you want
to say none is required, yet people build things that run around all
the time that are not as complex as life, books are written with not
nearly as ...[text shortened]... re to be true, so that is what you want to
be true, it does not matter if it is or not.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzHere's what KJ responded to:
It's nothing to do with what I "want". It's simply to do with what there is evidence for and what there isn't any evidence for. Stop trying to muddy the water.
No, I go with it because it explains all the evidence without reliance on the FSM, Muffy or any other mythical construct you choose.
Now your statement does lean in the direction he's suggested. 'It' explains everything 'without reliance on', could be read as, you need an explanation that doesn't refer to or rely on the supernatural.
Nothing wrong with that in my view - that's exactly how I feel.
But if you intend to rely on a purely scientific and objective framework (probably a bit of pipe dream let's face it) then you go where the evidence points. And this may lean towards agnosticism rather than atheism.
Originally posted by KellyJayCan you quit saying variation only occurs within species, we can see speciation happening right now. Just stick with your undefined 'kinds'. I'll be quite happy then since a 'kind' is undefined it could be all of biological life. Then I'd agree with you.
I believe it started
after creation and within kinds/species there have been changes, but
they have stayed within kinds/species we just get variations of same,
Kelly
I asked a while ago where this barrier to variation occurs and I haven't had an answer yet. Must less a logical / testable justification.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by XanthosNZ"You design"
You design the algorithm to give higher scores to circuits that will perform the job better.
In nature the algorithm is the ability to survive and produce offspring. The job? To survive and produce offspring. See how that works?
"perform the job better"
Man, that sounds weird, like something... other.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFreaky, you're either an idiot a bullcrap artist. I can't decide.
[b]"You design"
"perform the job better"
Man, that sounds weird, like something... other.[/b]
You know exactly what I mean and yet you percist in attempting to claim that any mention of design in the application of Evolutionary techniques to design problems implies a Designer in reality.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMust ... resist ... the ... urge ... to ... fight ... back ... aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh!
[b]"You design"
"perform the job better"
Man, that sounds weird, like something... other.[/b]
No, I'm unable.
Could it be that something is driving me?
Do I have no free will?
Anyway.
What the?
Surely you get that using language - including simile and metaphor and analogy - to describe something, does not immediately infer the characteristics of these descriptions to that something?
Yes, of course you do.
It's just the compulsion we share isn't it?
Process ... force of nature ... they're all just words ...
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZI, sir, am a bullcrap idiot who happens to be an artist. But that's beside the point. You would think that after 150 years of trying, the evolutionist camp could come up with the correct terminology to explain the process.
Freaky, you're either an idiot a bullcrap artist. I can't decide.
You know exactly what I mean and yet you percist in attempting to claim that any mention of design in the application of Evolutionary techniques to design problems implies a Designer in reality.
Why, the casual observer might ask, have they been so stymied in their effort? The answer is painfully simple: natural selection acts like nothing else, cannot be defined by a formula, is not a force, and cannot be described by any terms other than those which infer design because... it is specifically designed to replace acts of design.
It walks, talks and acts like a duck because it is a duck. We just have to call it a different name.
Originally posted by amannionHow can we use words which describe the actions of say, a duck, and then not have the final result be a duck?
Must ... resist ... the ... urge ... to ... fight ... back ... aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh!
No, I'm unable.
Could it be that something is driving me?
Do I have no free will?
Anyway.
What the?
Surely you get that using language - including simile and metaphor and analogy - to describe something, does not immediately infer the characteristics of these descripti ...[text shortened]... he compulsion we share isn't it?
Process ... force of nature ... they're all just words ...
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAssume there is a God. Assume that he does all the selecting across the entire world. Now assume I can build a bubble that will exclude the influence of God within it.
I, sir, am a bullcrap idiot who happens to be an artist. But that's beside the point. You would think that after 150 years of trying, the evolutionist camp could come up with the correct terminology to explain the process.
Why, the casual observer might ask, have they been so stymied in their effort? The answer is painfully simple: natural sel ...[text shortened]... ks, talks and acts like a duck because it is a duck. We just have to call it a different name.
Inside my anti-God bubble I put a population of animals, food, water all that crap. And then I leave it alone.
Will the population change over time?
Originally posted by XanthosNZI hate to burst your bubble (this is some of my best stuff, folks), but the only thing that gets stronger over time is death. Assuming gradual decay is equal to change, then my answer is yes.
Assume there is a God. Assume that he does all the selecting across the entire world. Now assume I can build a bubble that will exclude the influence of God within it.
Inside my anti-God bubble I put a population of animals, food, water all that crap. And then I leave it alone.
Will the population change over time?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhen I describe the operation of electrical circuits to my students - in particular the movement of electrons in conductors - I often use the water analogy: that is water flowing through pipes acts in some ways like (the key word being like) electrons in a conductor.
How can we use words which describe the actions of say, a duck, and then not have the final result be a duck?
This doesn't mean that electrons are the same as water in a pipe. It's simply a convenient everyday description that kids can use to understand (or try to understand anyway) the operation of electricity, which itself is not necessarily obvious or intuitive.
That's the role of analogy.
You, my friend, know this.