Intelligent Design?

[Bunyip]

I'm sure they are, and new designs introduced into automobiles and cell phones are also ACTED UPON BY SELECTION!!! - that goes without saying.

but according to ToE, are you disputing that those changes are posited to be introduced by random mutation?

Guy you are just being obtuse, I'm bored. Catch you later. Read what I wrote in the previous post - it was already a repeat of the one before and I don't care to post it a third time just so you can pretend you didn't see it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm sure they are, and new designs introduced into automobiles and cell phones are also ACTED UPON BY SELECTION!!! - that goes without saying.

but according to ToE, are you disputing that those changes are posited to be introduced by random mutation?

Changes in allele frequency (i.e mutations) are random. The process of naturally selecting those mutations is not.

Therefore, the end result is a process which is not random, as it relies upon a selection process.

 

[Altfish]

Before we sinned there was no destructive entities our bodies were perfect and we didn't even have need of clothes so attempting to compare the state of everything now to our own concept of what we think good or perfect is will not work.
saying that anything is imperfect as you see it now doesn't reflect on our maker rather it points out how far away from perfection we have devolved since our initial state of perfection and our sin has also affected the world and all created things as well.
In order for anyone to be able to judge any perfect design of anything would require the judge to know perfection otherwise your opinion is relevant only to your own perception.
This much I am certain of we did not create ourselves and random chemical interaction did not create us so all that is left is intelligent design. for any one to believe that the complexity of even the simplest cell (which can be compared to an average city in complexity) came about randomly and is as perfect as it is and then made stupid mistake during what you call evolution is idiocity, how to you get the perfection of the smallest thing and yet have everything else be stupid? if as you say there are unintelligent designs in the living things we can see then why wouldn't there be stupidity in the micro thing we can't see? why doesnt a cell have odd things that make no sense for form and function?

Do you have any details or even better sketches of these pre-sin bodies?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Guy you are just being obtuse, I'm bored. Catch you later. Read what I wrote in the previous post - it was already a repeat of the one before and I don't care to post it a third time just so you can pretend you didn't see it.

it's a very simple question Bunyip, everybody agrees that design changes are acted upon by selection, however the change is affected- that's a given

but how are the design changes introduced? according to ToE by complete blundering random chance, which is so problematic that many believers can't bring themselves to even acknowledge it

 

[Bunyip]

it's a very simple question Bunyip, everybody agrees that design changes are acted upon by selection, however the change is affected

but how are the design changes introduced? according to ToE by complete blundering random chance, which is so problematic that many believers can't bring themselves to even acknowledge it

The design changes are introduced generationally as a result of selection. Which is a feedback process, and not random.
Not random chance, but selection Guy. Now I guess you just repeat yourself?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The design changes are introduced generationally as a result of selection. Which is a feedback process, and not random.
Not random chance, but selection Guy. Now I guess you just repeat yourself?

selection... of what Bunyip?, cmon you can say it!

 

[Bunyip]

selection... of what Bunyip?, cmon you can say it!

You are kidding? You have spent all this time trying to 'debate' and you don't know what selection even means?
Selection of beneficial traits Guy. That is like page one of any primary school biology book - and you are here pretending to talk science?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You are kidding? You have spent all this time trying to 'debate' and you don't know what selection even means?
Selection of beneficial traits Guy. That is like page one of any primary school biology book - and you are here pretending to talk science?

okaaaay and how did that beneficial trait appear before it could be selected?? you can't say it can you?

 

[Bunyip]

okaaaay and how did that beneficial trait appear before it could be selected?? you can't say it can you?

I have stated it outright four times. Guy, talking to you is obviously pointless, goodbye.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have stated it outright four times. Guy, talking to you is obviously pointless, goodbye.

you can't bring yourself to say random mutation? why not? because it sounds absurd I know, but there is no way around it- the entire theory relies on improvements being created by chance.

That's why most people don't buy it,

If belief requires utterly recoiling from acknowledging the core principle- the basic engine of change, that's a pretty big red flag

 

[ImmortalFlame]

NOTE TO ANY POSTER: I think Guy Threepwood has put me on ignore. Could you do me a favour and quote this post so that he can see it?

you can't bring yourself to say random mutation? why not? because it sounds absurd I know, but there is no way around it- the entire theory relies on improvements being created by chance.

He said it REPEATEDLY:

The mutations are random, that is roughly 150,000 minor variations in the average human. This is one of the four principle driving forces of evolution. Random mutations acted upon by selection.

Random mutations ACTED UPON BY SELECTION is one of the four principle driving forces of evolution. I put the bit you ignored in caps, hope that helps.

This is just more blatant dishonesty on your part.

 

[rusra02]

That's nice. But the point is that the argument from first cause is demolished by claiming an uncaused first cause. It reduces the argument to nonsense.

How is that less believable than all was caused without any Creator? That it just happened? Where is the sense in that?

 

[Bunyip]

you can't bring yourself to say random mutation? why not? because it sounds absurd I know, but there is no way around it- the entire theory relies on improvements being created by chance.

That's why most people don't buy it,

If belief requires utterly recoiling from acknowledging the core principle- the basic engine of change, that's a pretty big red flag

I don't wish to participate in your painfully dishonest game playing. Why can't I bring myself to say something that I confirmed in four consecutive posts? Guy, I thought you were a decent bloke, I made a mistake.


How in you mind it made sense to suggest that random mutations acted upon by selection is LESS plausible than a magical Hebrew sky wizard creating a universe out of nothing I find just unfathomable.

Really Guy? People doubt evolution, a thoroughly proven and observed phenomenon because it is driven in part by random mutations acted upon by selection?
Because the sky wizard theory, in which an invisible magical being who existed before the universe made the universe out of a word?
Really Guy? The second option is so much more reasonable to you is it mate? Good for you.

 

[Bunyip]

How is that less believable than all was caused without any Creator? That it just happened? Where is the sense in that?

Well that isn't my argument. You must have confused me for somebody else. As to why the argument from first cause is worthless - it is because (as I said) it refutes itself. God is not caused,, therefore all things do NOT need a cause. (One of many catastrophic logical failures in the kalam).

 

[Bunyip]

NOTE TO ANY POSTER: I think Guy Threepwood has put me on ignore. Could you do me a favour and quote this post so that he can see it?


He said it REPEATEDLY:





This is just more blatant dishonesty on your part.

Cheers

 

[rusra02]

Well that isn't my argument. You must have confused me for somebody else. As to why the argument from first cause is worthless - it is because (as I said) it refutes itself. God is not caused,, therefore all things do NOT need a cause. (One of many catastrophic logical failures in the kalam).

The first Cause argues for someone to start causing things. I find it completely logical and believable. As Hebrews 3:4 argues simply but forcefully; "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God."

 

[Sapiens]

The first Cause argues for someone to start causing things. I find it completely logical and believable. As Hebrews 3:4 argues simply but forcefully; "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God."

In that case, who built your god?

 

[Bunyip]

The first Cause argues for someone to start causing things. I find it completely logical and believable. As Hebrews 3:4 argues simply but forcefully; "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God."

How is it logical to assume that 'someone' existed before the universe? How this this somebody come to be? Did he just pop into existence from nothing?

 

[rusra02]

How is it logical to assume that 'someone' existed before the universe? How this this somebody come to be? Did he just pop into existence from nothing?

Some things are beyond the grasp of our intellect. We are aware, for example, of no known limits of space or time, or numbers even. I know the concept of an infinite God is difficult to grasp. The Bible shows the true God had no beginning and will never end. Psalm 90:2 affirms; "Before the mountains were born Or you brought forth the earth and the productive land, From everlasting to everlasting, you are God." I believe the only way to know the true God is to study what he chooses to reveal about himself, in the book he has provided to all mankind.

 

[rusra02]

In that case, who built your god?

As mentioned in another post, I believe Jehovah has always existed. "Before the mountains were born Or you brought forth the earth and the productive land, From everlasting to everlasting, you are God." (Psalm 90:2)