Printable View
And that's exactly why i always stated "this men", religion is just an idea, without man's to support it and spread it, you have nothing, so all come from the interpreatation that some man's did from that and from other interpretation that comes directly from the bible, like the hate towards homosexuality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
There's no "forced mutation" because mutation is inherently random, like sugar is inherently 'sweet' to your tongue/brain and planets are inherently 'round'. You're mixing up Natural selection and Mutation. These are two different processes, concept and phenomenon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Get your concepts straight first before you blow over.Quote:
The same can be said for almost all domestic animals. Man has been forcing small mutations on animals for years. It would take many pages and a complete thesis to show you how incorrect you are, but even then you will try to counter it with some attempt that really only digs you deeper into the false premises you have about evolution, mutation and selection.
Okay I am done being polite and will point out very clearly how little you know of evolution. For examble mutation is not Mutation is still naturally, inherently, and independently random.
You are mixing up Mutation and Natural Selection. Even if you breed dogs or flowers, the mutation inside that dog or flower is exclusive.
Again, no. That's not mutation , but Natural selection.Quote:
Mutation can be forced by man.
Yes, that is exactly the point! However I won't call that "forced", because that implies order.Quote:
It can be forced by nature based upon the change of environment.
Nature is random and chaotic. Light is scattered (and with different wavelengths, polarity etc.) not like Intelligently Designed light like LASER. Lightning hitting the same spot twice? Wind with same vector? Surf waves with same dimensions?
Likewise, the mutational changes in your body is as random because the forces and the mechanism involving mutation is not ordered. Mutation occurs randomly.
God isn't saying "Oh I hate Peter Jennings, I'll mutate his DNA here, here and here so that he gets cancer". Peter Jennings was a smoker and smoking increased his risk of getting cancer.
God isn't saying "These humans are using vaccines and drugs to eliminate malaria and the flu, well, I'll mutate my killer babies so that they resist the drugs. Ok, I'll make a new strain that is drug resistant". The virus or living pathogens will mutate randomly REGARDLESS whether you have a drug to kill it or you actually deliver that drug. The only difference is that the selection pressure won't be the drug.
God isn't saying "This big shrub is outcompeting and killing my favorite flowers, I'll mutate it so that it grows bigger than the shrub". God isn't mutating the flowers and creating conditions that will favor and naturally select any specie to be the fittest and survive. That flower will mutate regardless if there is a shrub or a tree beside it.
No. There's no Intelligent Design. There is no God that is picking which one will mutate, when will it mutate, how it will mutate and which ones will survive! There is no God-force that is causing lighting to hit at a particular place at a particular time at will either. See the analogy?
In every single terminal cell you have that still has DNA, the DNA is mutating randomly. This is the same for all organisms that have DNA. But god has no hand in it, hence, zero input, hence no Intelligent Design.
Don't mix up Natural Selection and Mutation!Quote:
Some scientific studies on selective breeding and how it relates to evolution.
Here is the Wikipedia reference about artifical selection and how it relates to evolution - a term that was initially coined by Darwin himself. You might want to actually read some of what Darwin wrote - since he posulated exactly what I have been saying in regards to selective breeding by man of animals to force mutations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection
Virus randomly mutates to a drug-resistent strain by chance. The virus is not thinking that "oh no, here comes the drug, I'll mutate". The mutation happens exclusively and it so happened that the mutation inhibits the effect of the drug, hence drug-resistant.
Drugs made by humans naturally (or you can say artificially) selects the fittest survivor by killiing the non-resistent strain. But the virus wasn't thinking or god is not mutating that so that it can resist the effects or delivery of that drug. The mutation is random.
Understand the basic, rudimentary concepts first before you use it as an argument. See my above post. ~:)Quote:
[sarcasm on] Oh wait just in case you refuse to acknowledge Wikipedia as a source of information - here is another [sarcasm off]
http://www.biofact.com/cloning/
To put it simply man has been practicing intelligent design on evolution for many years prior to Darwin coining the phrases about Natural Selection and Mutation of animals causing evolution.
You might want to try reading this particlur site - notice how the two scientists talk about the issue.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html
1+1=3 whether you pick up the "phrase" in a Joke, a Book, a scrap of paper, or a Gossip column is wrong. And you should be able to say it is wrong in that context. You can't say 1+1=3 is wrong, while 1+1=5 is brilliantly correct.Quote:
And now to the gravity arguement - it has become obvious that you don't want to ackownledge one simple fact. The Intelligent Falling theory is what I have been talking about - not gravity and how it relates to the creator. For instance where have I stated that God did not create gravity. Again notice what is actually written verus what you percieve to be written. Here is what I initially stated.
So to make the point - the Intelligent Falling theory would immediately be reject by Christians for the simple issue of that the theory does not fall in line with the teachings and the meaning of the Parables in which it is based upon.
Which is the answer to your orginial question and assumption that there is no difference between the theory of Intelligent Design and Intelligent Falling. Something that you seem to refuse to ackownledge - and instead of addressing the answer - you chose to go on a tangent now saying this.
You can't say Intelligently Design as brilliantly correct while Intelligent Falling is wrong either.
I did say it was my question didn't I? You're afraid to answer this question:Quote:
Now this is nothing other then an attempt of redirection from your orginal arguement. Which is fine - however I have not answered that question for the simple fact - that you have not concided the initial point - you are attempting to avoid where it.
"What is the relationship between God and Gravity?"
because it's not in the bible? That is weird.... ~:confused:
Ok. ~:cool:Quote:
Oh I played around there alittle bit in the discussion around the gravity issue - purposely not answering the question because I was being applying sarcasm to your arguemetns. However its obvious that you did not catch the sarcasm on and sarcasm off notations.
So, if the Old Testament mentioned God creating Gravity, you will believe in Intelligent Falling.Quote:
However when you address the intial point of the difference between the two theories is that "Intelligent Design" is based upon the teachings, in both context and concept of The Old Testament - Genesis; While the "Intelligent Falling" theory is just satire based upon an out of context and out of concept teachings of two different verses, one verse out of the Old Testament and one out of the New Testament.
Then I will explain how God and Gravity are related - I will give you a hint it is also in Genesis of the Old Testament.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The only thing that is holding you back is that it isn't in the bible. Likewise, the only reason why you believe Intelligent Design is that is contained in the Bible.
All I'm saying is that line of thinking is biased and dogmatic.
ID = God drives Evolution.
IF = God drives Gravity.
I maintain that they are the same and both are false. You're saying they aren't the same concept and ID is correct only because it's in the bible and IF is incorrect because it's not in the bible.
Well it seems you might want to talk to some research sciencists and get them on the same sheet of music - since most research is based on forcing the mutation via natural selection - or as Darwain called it artificial selection because of man's involvement. By the way Planets are not inherently round - they are something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Or by the way a researchers words on forced mutation. Several of them in fact
http://info.bio.cmu.edu/Courses/0344...o/mutation.htmQuote:
Hoban, professor of food science and sociology at North Carolina State University, wrote in an editorial published November 26, 2000 by the Washington Post:
"Starlink, developed by the French-based drug company Aventis, is really no different from other corn, except for the addition off a gene that produces an insect-fighting protein. Corn had already been dramatically modified from the "natural" plant originally found in the wild. Those ancient ears of corn were the size of your little finger and looked more like grass than modern yellow corn. Over the ages, crossbreeding and, more recently, forced mutation, has produced the ear of corn we eat today. Starlink, with its one gene added to the approximately 60,000 in this modern ear, represents a very modest, precise change by comparison."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectionQuote:
Twelve populations of E.coli B from a common ancestor were serially propagated for 10,000 generations. Click here fore experimental overview. In other words, like the previous experiment, each of the 12 populations started out with the same genome, and was forced to modify its genome through mutation to fit into the new environment which is also identical among populations. Each generation, some cells are taken from the culture, and their genomic DNA was harvested by a standard method. Every clone was scored for the presence or absence of each fragment that hybridized with a particular IS probes. In addition, phylogenies were constructed with the the actual common ancestor at the root of the tree. This is to illustrate the divergence of the clones. (3)
So in short -Quote:
Natural selection is distinguished from artificial selection, which is the alteration of domesticated species resulting from human intervention as opposed the "natural environment". [b]However, the mechanisms of natural and artificial selection are essentially identical, and in fact the observed effects of artificial selection were used by Darwin to illustrate how natural selection works.
Yes indeed - someone needs to take their own advice. It seems that your own arguement on evolution is a contradiction of published research scientists to include Darwain. Again it seems your knowledge is lacking compared to published scienists and researchers.Quote:
Get your concepts straight first before you blow over.
Your accepting of the "Intelligent Falling" theory as something that Christian sciencists are advocating is another examble of this. You failed to get your concepts and context of the theory correct and/or straight before you chose to blow over and believe a satire article from The Onion. Yes indeed someone does need to follow their own advice
The rest of your post is the same - accusations and statements that run counter to establish research documents and statements, or is an attempt at misrepresenting the actual research done. Nor does the concept of Intelligent Design say any of the things that you stated. That is all hyperbole on your part.
And you would still be incorrect. Someone needs to heed once again thier own words Understand the basic, rudimentary concepts first before you use it as an argument. I said Intelligent Falling does not follow the concept nor the context of the verse used to support the theory. The actual wording is available multiple times in the posting - but since you seem not to understand or it might be that you refuse acknowledge your own inablity to understand here it is again.Quote:
I maintain that they are the same and both are false. You're saying they aren't the same concept and ID is correct only because it's in the bible and IF is incorrect because it's not in the bible.
So to make the point - the Intelligent Falling theory would immediately be reject by Christians for the simple issue of that the theory does not fall in line with the teachings and the meaning of the Parables in which it is based upon.
However it seems that you only want to believe what you wish to ackownledge about evolution, natural selection, mutation, and the works of the many research sciencists who have spent there lives on the theory of evolution.
Just like you chose to believe the satire as being correct because of your baised views about Religion and your failure to understand the text of the Bible.
Someone needs to understand what is stated - not what they wish to believe was stated. Genesis 1:1 says God Created heaven and earth - so therefor he also created gravity at the same time. And no I would not believe in Intelligent Falling for the simple reason as already stated multiple times. The Intelligent Falling Theory is satire based out of context and out of concept of the referenced Biblical passages. Therefor it can only be a false teaching.Quote:
So, if the Old Testament mentioned God creating Gravity, you will believe in Intelligent Falling.
Again, get real. THINK! Accept Jesus as a savior to mankind - those that accept his word (as in, love thy enemy), or deny his word ("love thy enemy") and determine what is to be believed versus what a church wants us to believe. Church, and the word of God or Jesus are not synonimous - they need not be the same. Human perception, or the incursion of a person's intent to twist the word of God in their favor or to their philosophy is not the same as the original intent. We tend to over amplify, modify, and take phrases out of context to justify our purpose - well, some do. It is how we as humans try to justify our belief in a GOD. It is how some twist the poetry to justify their own ideas - their political purpose. Hiding behind the cross od Jesus is time honored ideal of scoundrels. IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
~D
Forcing Mutation via Natural Selection? ~:confused: Mutation is not a function of Natural Selection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Manipulation of the DNA inside the laboratory is not the random Mutation process that drove Evolution for billions of years.
So you are saying Humans are behind evolution after all? ~:confused:Quote:
- or as Darwain called it artificial selection because of man's involvement. By the way Planets are not inherently round - they are something else.
The point here is Random Mutation in additionton to Natural Selection DROVE evolution for Billions of years! Not man, not god.
Humans aren't behind Evolution Not God either.Quote:
Or by the way a researchers words on forced mutation. Several of them in fact
Describe in detail how "forced Mutation", as broad as a 'term' and 'technique' as it gets, factor in billions years of Evolution.
Mimicking natural forces in the laboratory environment doesn't mean Humans are driving evolution.
You are fishing. Did you even read this?
Read the first sentence of this paper you Googled: "Mutations are naturally occurring events in any genome".
What does that mean to you?
So Humans created Evolution, that's what you are saying?Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
So in short -
Yes indeed - someone needs to take their own advice. It seems that your own arguement on evolution is a contradiction of published research scientists to include Darwain. Again it seems your knowledge is lacking compared to published scienists and researchers.
Your accepting of the "Intelligent Falling" theory as something that Christian sciencists are advocating is another examble of this. You failed to get your concepts and context of the theory correct and/or straight before you chose to blow over and believe a satire article from The Onion. Yes indeed someone does need to follow their own advice
The rest of your post is the same - accusations and statements that run counter to establish research documents and statements, or is an attempt at misrepresenting the actual research done. Nor does the concept of Intelligent Design say any of the things that you stated. That is all hyperbole on your part.
Humans inducing mutation is no longer mutation but Gene Manipulation and Gene Therapy etc. You're just pulling words on Google.
If you say 1+1=3 is correct regardless of the math because of book x and say 1+1=5 is incorrect because it is not in book x is bias.Quote:
And you would still be incorrect. Someone needs to heed once again thier own words Understand the basic, rudimentary concepts first before you use it as an argument. I said Intelligent Falling does not follow the concept nor the context of the verse used to support the theory. The actual wording is available multiple times in the posting - but since you seem not to understand or it might be that you refuse acknowledge your own inablity to understand here it is again.
[b]So to make the point - the Intelligent Falling theory would immediately be reject by Christians for the simple issue of that the theory does not fall in line with the teachings and the meaning of the Parables in which it is based upon.
Speak for yourself. LOL. You have not the slightest idea what Evolution, Natural Selection and Mutation is. Know the rudiments first, I'd say.Quote:
However it seems that you only want to believe what you wish to ackownledge about evolution, natural selection, mutation, and the works of the many research sciencists who have spent there lives on the theory of evolution.
Just like you chose to believe the satire as being correct because of your baised views about Religion and your failure to understand the text of the Bible.
Someone needs to understand what is stated - not what they wish to believe was stated. Genesis 1:1 says God Created heaven and earth - so therefor he also created gravity at the same time. And no I would not believe in Intelligent Falling for the simple reason as already stated multiple times. The Intelligent Falling Theory is satire based out of context and out of concept of the referenced Biblical passages. Therefor it can only be a false teaching.
How do you know? This has to be one of the most inane threads Ive ever seen. The point here is that many claim that god is behind all this. You can post until you die and you cannot prove ot disprove the existance of God. Is it so hard for you to comprehend that he may be behind all of this? Man created different breeds of dogs and cats through inatural selection. "Races" of men occured almost the same way through forced selection in that they interbred with those around them. They didnt tend to travel very far back then. This doesnt mean that the system was not designed by God.Quote:
The point here is Random Mutation in additionton to Natural Selection DROVE evolution for Billions of years! Not man, not god.
That is not what the researchers state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Yes I know that - however when I brought up selective breeding which has been done for 1000s of years to modify and change domestic animals you tried to claim that that was not evolution. Again the selective breeding programs on animals is artificial selection which is part of Darwains Theory which he used to prove Natural Selection.Quote:
Manipulation of the DNA inside the laboratory is not the random Mutation process that drove Evolution for billions of years.
No I am saying humans are behind the evolution of certain domestic animals to change them to our benefit. And that this process was used by Darwin to prove Natural Selection - which seems to be your base for the Evolution Arguement.Quote:
So you are saying Humans are behind evolution after all? ~:confused:
LOL - are you getting a little frustrated - again the scientists used artificial slection to prove Natural Selection. The scientists use forced mutation to prove the effects of mutation on natural selection. However when you presented your initial arguement - you tried to dismiss this.Quote:
The point here is Random Mutation in additionton to Natural Selection DROVE evolution for Billions of years! Not man, not god.
Again your running counter to how Darwian proved Natural Selection and how man proves evolution. Scientists again use artificial selection to verify natural selection. Man is wholely involved with artifical selection - which makes man play a part in the evolution of some species. Many of our current food crops are part of this process, dogs, cattle, sheep and several other types of animals are all exambles of man's involvement in evolution.Quote:
Humans aren't behind Evolution Not God either.
ITs really easy to figure out - forced mutation is used to prove how mutation effects natural selection.Quote:
Describe in detail how "forced Mutation", as broad as a 'term' and 'technique' as it gets, factor in billions years of Evolution.
Try explaining what has been done with several plant species, and several animal species. Man has driven evolution on certain species.Quote:
Mimicking natural forces in the laboratory environment doesn't mean Humans are driving evolution.
Oh I read it - and used the part that supports the part about forced mutation being used to prove the science theory. A subtle point I know - but it requires one to think beyond their own baised view.Quote:
You are fishing. Did you even read this?
Explained aboveQuote:
Read the first sentence of this paper you Googled: "Mutations are naturally occurring events in any genome".
What does that mean to you?
Nope - I am saying man has played a part in forcing certain species to evolve.Quote:
So Humans created Evolution, that's what you are saying?
LOL - what do you think Gene Manipulation is? It is causing a mutation for a spefic reason. And yes I use google searches to find the articles and updates from informatin I was taught 20 years ago in biology, zoology, physics and chemistryQuote:
Humans inducing mutation is no longer mutation but Gene Manipulation and Gene Therapy etc. You're just pulling words on Google.
doubtful I would ever say something like that - unless I was trying to prove a higher math theory.Quote:
If you say 1+1=3 is correct regardless of the math because of book x and say 1+1=5 is incorrect because it is not in book x is bias.
Well speak for yourself - I understand much more then the rudiments. I know what artificial selection is and how it was used to prove Natural Selection. That this same artificial selection was the base for how the effects of mutation was on natural selection. However it seems someone else does not.Quote:
Speak for yourself. LOL. You have not the slightest idea what Evolution, Natural Selection and Mutation is. Know the rudiments first, I'd say.
Redleg,Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Your google Links + Your "input" = Never ending stream of Non Sequitur.
Learn the basics first before moving forward.
Mutation
Natural Selection
Evolution
Are the key term you need to understand firsts.
Because of all the mechanisms of Evolution are random. There's no God input. Just plain nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
No, no. Breeding doesn't equal Mutation. When you breed that is an artificial way of Natural Selection
Mutation is a chemical process in your DNA. The DNA code is the source of the Proteins. Those proteins then are used by your body. When the DNA changes, that Protein changes as well right?
DNA Mutation ---> (RNA Transcript change) ----> Protein Changes.
Take two plants for example:
Plant 1 mutated and as a result, Growth hormone production are always "on", that means that plant will be huge.
Plant 2 mutated and as a result, Growth hormone production is always "off", that plant will be tiny.
That is Mutation. It is a separate, independent process, that is random.
Now, if that two plants were living side by side, the Giant plant will outcompete the other Dwarf plain in resources such as water, sunlight, etc.
That little dwarf plant will die and as a result, the Giant plant was Naturally Selected.
God did not cause that Giant plant to produce more hormone, no. The Mutation was random and it chemical by nature. God didn't pick that Giant plant either. There's no God in the process.
It is Evolution.
Mutation is random. But the rate of change can be changed according to the environment. It would be interesting to see if any organisms purposely change habitats to increase or decrease the rate of change.
Strictly speaking that is not true when you add in sex. Choosing a mate is a strategic decision not a random one... well with the exception of large quantities of alchohol fueled orgies ~:cheers: .Quote:
Because of all the mechanisms of Evolution are random.
How do you know this? I consider god to have caused nature to be as it is including evolution. Again you dont know anything of what lies outside our universe or if there a millions of such universes. Science is just mans attempt to uncover the workings of god or nature or whatever you choose to call it. Because we discover how it works has no bearing on whether god created it or not. We do know that man didnt cause all this to happen and thats about all we know.Quote:
Because of all the mechanisms of Evolution are random. There's no God input. Just plain nature.
Just so we understand what the term non sequitur meansQuote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Quote:
Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It should be stressed that in a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All logical fallacies are actually just specific types of non sequiturs. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.
Well since you began the non sequitur with your attack on christianity by assuming that some christians were expousing some theory called "Intelligent Falling."
Face it Quietus you believed the satire because it fits within your views of religion. A major Non Sequitur on your part.
But the whole discussion has been very amusing to me because it has shown how ideological baised your views are - you are evening discounting know research and published papers of scientists who have studied evolution by discounting artifical selection - which by the way is the basis of proof for all of Darwains theories and most if not all of all the other theories around evolution.
Yes indeed don't accuse me of non sequitur when you have been doing it the whole time yourself. LOL - so much fun today, sometimes it just amazing how baised we all are.
Do Lightning hit the same ground over and over and over? The changes in your DNA is as random.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
There is one organism that does this all the time. That organism changes its environment to meet its needs, it changes its eating methods and habits to meet its needs, it uses other resources to change itself to meet its needs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Can you guess which organism does this?
And your point?Quote:
Do Lightning hit the same ground over and over and over? The changes in your DNA is as random
I cant believe you just said that as I just used the same word in another thread ~DQuote:
Just so we understand what the term non sequitur means
But the process is still natural, that's the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Picking a mate is Natural Selection. You don't choose a Donkey or an Elephant as a mate right?Quote:
Strictly speaking that is not true when you add in sex. Choosing a mate is a strategic decision not a random one... well with the exception of large quantities of alchohol fueled orgies ~:cheers: .
Certainly because it ain't random... it may be natural... but not all of Evolution is random, DNA mutation is random, mate selection is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
How can you add/link God's intention there if the process is random....?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Random intention is oxymoronic. Random Intelligent Design is oxymoronic.
It does make sense though. ~:)Quote:
I cant believe you just said that as I just used the same word in another thread ~D
And it is also done artificially by man by selective breeding on different animal and plant species. Or would you just like to disregard certain new types of plants that have been developed by man. Or will you continue to deny that man has interfered by design in how dogs, cattle, cats, and several other domestic animals have been significantly altered over the years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Some people have been know to attempt to mate with other species. You know the sheep jokes. LOLQuote:
Picking a mate is Natural Selection. You don't choose a Donkey or an Elephant as a mate right?
I'm not talking about eating and other life things that humans and other self propelled nomadic species use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I'm thinking of an organism purposely choosing environments based on radiation levels and chemical levels that will effect its DNA rate of mutation. I'm wondering if there are organisms that actively choose an environment to change the rate of mutation.
Well man did put himself in space where radiation levels are different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Why cant god add randomness to his creation? In fact its built in. Heck even we can make things that are random. Like random number generators. How does the fact that some things happen randomly prove that god had nothing to do with it? Also it may seem random to us but in fact not be random.Quote:
How can you add/link God's intention there if the process is random....?
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I was just pondering if there is any micro-organisms that actively change environments to mutate...
You are correct - but then I am only using non sequitur arguements right now like someone accused me of earlier - hopefully he will see the difference in the arguement styles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
~D
Tadpoles ~;)Quote:
I was just pondering if there is any micro-organisms that actively change environments to mutate...
Pape,Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
This is a socially complex gray area. Can we agree, just for argument's sake that it is socially 50/50 but genetically, the mechanistic change is random?
Probability of you meeting your wife the first time.
Probability of you meeting your wife the second time etc.
Probability of your wife attracted to you
Probability of you attracted to your wife
Probabliity of you being a Gigolo
Probability of you being a Rapist
Probability of you using a Sperm bank
Probability of you being in a country at War
Probability of you being Gay
Probability of you being Jail
Probability of you being Sterile
Probability of you being Disabled
etc.
(I hope you didn't mind me using you as an example ~:) )
Pape + Wasabi (random & nonrandom) = Equal Segregation + Independent Assortment + Recombination etc. (random) = Genetic change = Anakin.
What do you mean creation? Create what part?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
God made man in his likeness randomly?Quote:
Heck even we can make things that are random. Like random number generators. How does the fact that some things happen randomly prove that god had nothing to do with it?
God gave man "free will" randomly?
God picked Earth randomly?
God picked the physical composition of earth randomly?
How about the other planets, how about the moon?
Other Galaxies? Black Holes?
Billions of years of Evolution.
If you want to write a novel, you don't throw in a random letter generator.
If you want to create a computer game, you don't just randomly generate code.
An omnipotent god you are implying would Create life instantenously, perfectly and prevalently.
But no, random Evolution for billions years, organisms are far from perfect and we are alone in our solar system just because the physical conditions on earth is unique. "Life" on earth happened by chance.
So you are saying God is really controlling all the thunder, ocean waves, earthquake, sunlight and even Gravity (can you say Intelligent Falling? ~;) )Quote:
Also it may seem random to us but in fact not be random.
Disagree... neither of us rolled a d20 for the marriage vows... the act of choice makes that part non random. Hence your statement that everything is random is not strictly correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
I've overused the word random in the original premise you called out. I should have said natural. The mechanism for evolution is natural, and random for the very most part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
So again I ask socially 50/50 (random & nonrandom), just for argument's sake, would you agree?
If you didn't meet your wife for example, would you still have Anakin? Meeting your wife is a random probability. As well as the other scenarios I've place. It's a socially complex gray area, as I've said.
If you still disagree, then we agree to disagree then. ~:)
I agree that it is natural and random for the most part.
However the man (or really woman) selection process does have some interesting implications.
The menu to select from may be random, but the choice is much less so...
The ability to choose enhances evolution, it doesn't detract from it.