No, the layout of stars in galaxies is normally not random.
Hubble galaxy typologies.
Posted on 10/22/2007 9:07:09 PM PDT by LibWhacker
You are reading these words right now because 600 million years ago, an aquatic animal called a Hydra developed light-receptive genes—the origin of animal vision.
It wasn't exactly 20-20 vision back then though.
Hydras, a genus of freshwater animals that are kin to corals and jellyfish, measure only a few millimeters in diameter and have been around for hundreds of millions of years.
Scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara studied the genes associated with vision (called opsins) in these tiny creatures and found opsin proteins all over their bodies.
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
No, I'm stating a fact in response to your argument. You did vaguely lump a bunch of unrelated ideas together. That's a neutral statement of fact. If you can't stand criticism of your ideas, maybe this isn't the right place for you.
Right...whatever you say. Let's review. You said:
Alter Kaker: You vaguely disagree with just about every scientific discipline there is
First, I have made no comment about any scientific discipline - therefore your comment is pure male bovine fecal matter AND an ad hominem attack. Rather than reply to my argument - which at the time was related to the origin of matter and life - you decided to "reply to my argument by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief [you dishonest, childishly exaggerated statement about my views of EVERY scientific discipline] of the person [me] making the argument or claim"
Lets review the meaning of ad hominem once again:
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument"
sorry to nail your butt to the wall, figuratively speaking, but you brought it on yourself.
You've made indirect comments casually dismissing the validity of the basic tenets of geology, biology, cosmology, paleontology, zoology and astrophysics (I'm confident I could come up with more disciplines if I spent time rereading your posting history). I'm not understanding why you're disputing this. Nor do I see how this constitutes a personal attack.
If you wish to appeal to the moderators, you're more than welcome to go ahead.
you dishonest, childishly exaggerated statement
Hold it right there. You call me childish and dishonest... but I'm the one resorting to ad hominems? Uh...
You've copied and pasted the exact same language three times, and three times I've explained to you that natural selection does have specific patterns and therefore isn't random. This is now your fourth explanation.
If Natural Selection is not random - it is ordered and that requires something or someone to order it.
Wrong. That's a logical fallacy. Crystals are self-ordering, yet nobody "orders" them. Snow flakes aren't ordered either. A bird that eats less-cryptic bugs more often than it eats more-cryptic bugs is selecting without imposing a conscious order.
Observed patterns in randomness do not necessitate a preexisting pattern.
Your own definition of randomness says that you can't observe patterns in randomness, so I have no idea what you're trying to argue. Are you suggesting that differential survival in animals of different fitness is random?
Like I said - I will be more than happy to nail your butt to the wall all day long if you like.
Did you read the definition of ad hominem - I will present it again:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
"dishonest" refers to your claim, not you personally - I have no idea if you are a dishonest person.
"dishonest" refers to your claim that somehow I have "disagree with just about every scientific discipline there is" when a review of the exchange shows I have not address a single scientific discipline not to mention my opinion of any scientific discipline is not a valid reply to an argument about origin - it is a textbook ad hominem - you attacked me, not my aurgument.
"childishly" was a modifier for "exaggerated" - not you personally. Clearly you do not understand the concept of ad hominem.
Of course I have copied and pasted it - that is my position!!!
Try again. READ THIS SLOWLY - it is flying over your head: Observed patterns do not necessitate a preexisting pattern.
It does not prove a preexisting pattern existed and it does not disprove a preexisting pattern. I don't think you know what you are arguing about anymore - you are arguing to be argumentative.
This means observing a pattern in the past tense (that means after it has happened) does not prove there was a preexisting pattern (the process FOLLOWED a pattern) - maybe there was, maybe there wasn't
KEY WORDS: necessitate, preexisting.
Is your position: observed patterns PROVE a preexisting pattern was followed?
Do you even know what your position is anymore?
Do you think it's possible that green bugs (which stand out less prominently in foliage) will consistently be eaten less often than blue bugs? Yes or no?
Like hell it does. Man can observe patterns in the layout of stars - is the layout of the stars not random?
YES
(not to mention just about anything is POSSIBLE)
The question is - does Natural selection FOLLOW a preexisting pattern or do we observe patterns in randomness after the fact.
The dilemma is how can Natural Selection follow a pattern?
Like I said earlier, KEYWORDS: preexisting, follow
If Natural Selection does not follow a preexisting pattern, then it is random and we merely observe patterns in the past tense.
No, the layout of stars in galaxies is normally not random.
Hubble galaxy typologies.
Do these patterns exist in the mind of man - or do they exist in the outside world independent of the mind of man?
We can make predictions. Tomorrow, next week, a hundred years from now, a thousand years from now more visible prey (all other things being equal) will be eaten more often than less visible prey. That's a pattern. That isn't random, and it's not going to stop.
Crystaline patterns existed long before man existed, so I think it's pretty fair to say they exist outside our minds. They can be expressed mathematically, their existence is relevant to numerous physical and biological systems.
So your position is a pattern was followed in the placement of the stars.
Now can you answer straight questions:
What is it that followed the pattern - what is it that placed the stars in their locations within the confines of the preexisting pattern?
What created the pattern that was being followed?
Gravity.
Absolutely. This is the dilemma. Did crystals aways exist along with the patterns that are followed or did they spring forth from nothingness (both the matter and the pattern)? Both options are illogical and can not be explained by our current science - both options are "it just is"
The characteristics of some non-intelligent matter is amazing - how did order in the form of patterns come to pass within matter that has no facilities to evolve or follow anything. Crystalline patterns "just are" - crystal do not have the facility to "follow" a pattern.
This is my point
Natural Selection, Evolution, crystalline patterns...whatever label or related concept you choose - none of these things have the facilities to DO anything. They are devoid of intellegence or the facilities to follow a pattern - but nevertheless patterns exist. We are left with two opinions:
These patterns sprang forth randomly from randomness (unguided happenstance)
OR
Some force, power, God, bogeyman is or has implemented these patterns.
This is THE foundational philosophic question that we all must grapple with (or ignore)
Some say this is a way to scientifically and logically prove the existence of God...although this conclusion is not my current point.
Cool.
What created gravity?
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.