Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
Yes indeed, and they are evidence the Builder exceeds man to a great degree in many capacities.
I regret to be the one to have to inform you that the Hawaiian Islands are the result of natural processes, to wit the Pacific crustal plate moving via continental drift over a hot-spot in the Earth's mantle.
They weren't built.
Hey, rapid-fire double-posting is cheating!
Rade is now talking to himself. mumble mumble mumble
The "regulars" on these threads do take holidays, don't they?
hehehe
What's that?
Here's one of the early ones (2/11/2002) about textbook labels:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/804648/posts
It ran to 6836 posts...
Line forms to the rear......
;-)
I don't think that creationism was confined by my last post to the school of those who are young earth. I think I allowed that the word could be used otherwise, even though it isn't what is normally considered "creationist."
Now, they could believe that the designer is the easter bunny, but that isn't part of the model, so who cares?
Likewise, once more.....intuitively it makes sense that complex systems are designed rather than accidentally assembled. Intuition is not without error, but the mathematical model that says "accident is improbable" then launches the search in a direction other than accident/randomness/mechanistic.
Therefore, one has to look in the direction of non-random/non-accident/non-mechanistic.
Let me see....if random is south, then isn't purposeful other than south? Hmmmmm....
The math is correct; the assumptions are irrelevant. ID calculates the odds of a specifide outcome. But evolution deesn't specify outcomes in advance.
Evolution doesn't have a specified direction.
You call them "natural processes." Do "natural" processes happen without the assistance of certain laws? Do natural selection and random mutation account for the presence of those laws? If so, how? If not, what?
I call them "designed processes" not only because I believe the complexities and results involved to exceed my own capacities as an intelligent being, but also because I believe God is present and active in the universe He created.
Random is by definition, any direction.
Make that 6837 -- RA is time-travelling again.
And I keyed the date wrong, it was 12/11/2002...
Would you please give a sample of one or two of their assumptions so we can discuss how or whether they might be relevant? Do you believe mathematics and probabilities are inappropriate tools for providing evidence of intelligent design? What about characters of the alphabet arranged in patterns capable of communicating ideas? What about visible patterns communicating to the eyeballs? Are any of these things approprite for giving evidence of intelligence or design?
A lot of questions, I know. But a simple, short reply in your own words would be fine.
To bring you up to date, "random" is the direction we will NOT look in. Therefore, you cannot proceed in any direction that is "random."
By way of illustration, if we were to define "random" as south, then we must look in the direction of "not south."
LOL!
Evidently not.
The only purpose to bringing up Dawkins' political beliefs is to smear those people who support evolutionary biology must be lilly-livered Bush-having leftists. This is a cheap tactic of guilt by association.
Right, it's also bs and I'll tell you why. I accept evolution as a fact. Now why would I smear myself as a "lily-livered Bush hating leftist"?
Making assertions is easy, backing them up is a bit more difficult when the assertion is wrong. I don't smear groups of people. I do and will attack marxists, leftists and other assorted folks of that ilk when and where I find them.
And you're little fairy tale won't slow me down at all.
Your opinion, I don't happen to share it. And no, I'm not interested in checking peoples posts. I go by what I see on the various conservative threads concerning the judiciary, the constituion, the second amendment et al.
Antiguv and the General are frequent contributors. Prout is a good second amendment guy.
When ID advocates talk about specified complexity they are starting with an existing outcome and calulating the odds of getting from a past condition to the current condition. Such odds are always astronomical if the conditions involve complex systems.
Evolution isn't about predicting specific winners and losers, except in the sense that the house always wins. You can take that to the bank.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.