Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
-
-
That isn't really the point. If I dig a hole and it fills up with water that is the same as a natural hole that fills up with water. The process of water filling up is the same. No one would say that it is completely different because I dug the hole in the first place.
If someone can explain to me how what we are doing with computers works under a fundamentally different process that what happens in nature I'm all ears.
For a computer to work it must be switched on first
For nature to work...who switches it on?
For a atheist programer the computer is already switched on but no-one knows who did it, nor do they want to.
p.s we know who switched the computer on but there's no point telling an atheist because they won't believe you
0 -
In answer to the above two quotes
(which refer to mine: "How can you possibly believe any of that fairy story stuff? Please read some of the top biblical scholars and you will realise that 99% of them don't think it has anything to do with an actual 'supernatural' author but has been shown to be the work of many many scribes over many centuries")
Please name these scholars for me and quote them etc etc. We already know that it is the work of many scribes over the centuries and we know that there are human errors in the text and that scribal mistakes have been made when copying the text and so, but when one considers how old these writings actually are and how insignificant the silly little mistakes that were made really are it is literally unchanged from the original and many archaeological digs have proven that to be the case over and over again. The real problem is when it comes to the translation of the scriptures into other languages. There have been many very very bad translations of many verses in the Bible over the centuries especially in the English which do tremendous harm to their original meanings, but thankfully we have literally thousands of manuscripts that we can go to, which, when cross checked with other manuscripts can iron out many indiscretions in the bad translations.I offer the following:
Please listen to this programme from BBC Religious services (Radio 4) presented by Roger Bolton. This is a programme which goes out every Sunday morning at 07.10 and seems to be well made and thoroughly researched. This particular program is about the Codex Sinaticus which is the oldest extant copy of the Bible know to scholars worldwide. I warn you that your faith may be shaken by this (those interviewed are priests and biblical scholars - not atheists)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RPe5UxNnaU&feature=related
I've listened to it and I haven't lost my faith. So now what?I want to have peace with religious people and would not attack them in any physical way as I respect them as fully human equal beings - I am not superior to any other human being. However, I do see religious people attacking others all around the world every day in pursuit of their particular beliefs.
If preaching the Gospel can be considered physically attacking someone then all the anti Christian preaching is a physical attack on Christians.I am not a pacifist, however, and if religious people tried to impose their beliefs on me I would have to fight in defence of my human rights.
Huh?
So you would use physical violence if stopped in the street for instance?Why is it that religious people in every county are struggling against the spreading tide of human rights improvements worldwide - womans' rights, childrens' rights, gay rights, atheists' rights etc...
Huh? Most of these organizations are Religious. There are even Christian Gay rights groups hello?At one time Christians universally supported monarchy and abhorred republicanism and democracy, tortured and murdered non-believers of all kinds and supported pogroms against Jews and other heretics. I'm sure you all know the history and it doesn't need to be repeated here - or do you not believe the historians either?
Yes I believe many bad things were done in the name of religion and in the name of Jesus in particular but what have the bad deeds done by some people got to do with the truth of Christianity? Did Jesus command these men to commit their evils acts in His name? If that's a proof that Christianity is a false religion then the good deeds done by Christians is proof that its true. You see you need to come at it with better arguments than that. But heck you're new here so I'll give you a chance 0 -
For a computer to work it must be switched on first
For nature to work...who switches it on?
For a atheist programer the computer is already switched on but no-one knows who did it, nor do they want to.
No, for a computer to work it must be supplied energy. Switching it on just does this. The Earth is supplied with all the energy it needs for the chemical reactions of life from the Sun. The Sun is supplied with energy from gravity. Where this energy initial came from we don't know. You guys guess it was God but that no more increases our understanding that a 12th century Viking guessing that thunder is Thor throwing his hammer.p.s we know who switched the computer on but there's no point telling an atheist because they won't believe you
No, you are just guessing. I could say it was Odin and we would both know as much about what actually resulted in the Big Bang.
Personally I prefer not to simply guess at what does things in nature, which is why we no longer think Thor lives in the thunder clouds :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
-
You need a feedback system to let it know. How this works depends on the program you are writing and what it is trying to do.
In biological evolution the feedback system is the environment itself. Those with phenotype changes that do not adapt to the environment are more likely to be killed by said environment before they can reproduce again.
So with biology the feedback system is already in place. If you are modeling evolution for some purpose you need to create your own feedback system.
Yes but who designed the natural environment (feedback system)? It looks designed and the deeper we probe into biological systems the more purpose and design there seems to be even at that level. Same can be said for the macro environment. Imagine there was nothing at the cellular level except goo and nothing at the macro level except vacuum. It would make for a pretty mundane universe and do nothing to excite the intellect. Indeed we wouldn't have the world that we have now if that was the case and we would not be here to observe it either. But we are not only here to observe it but we argue over what is the right way to perceive it. And arguing over the right way to perceive it is not Science nor is it Religion but Philosophy.
The difference between an evolutionary algorithm (EA) and actual nature itself is that in EA each outside factor is introduced for testing purposes by testers who reside outside of the test environment i.e. the EA. If there really is actually no equivalent outside tester for actual nature then what do these tests actually prove? That a created environment can act like an uncreated one?I think Bill Gates was worrying about education levels in America. Not sure promoting Creationism is what he had in mind :pac:
That really wasn't my point. My point was that he pointed to DNA as a better example of a computer program than anything his corporation ever produced. Human lines of code can produce great things like Avatar movies and send us into space but it cannot produce one single cell or molecule. Only a being of vast power and super intelligence beyond our comprehension can do that, that's either God or super aliens.But as computers continue to get more powerful and software gets more complex and we develop better ways for computers to write computer languages I can see a lot more of this.
You still of course have to tell the program what you want it to do, but I can easily envision you telling the computer what you want the program to do in an abstract sense and the computer going off and writing the program for you.
Can you see a day when they will have their own wills and disobey all outside input and function independently of their creators? I'm not talking about malfunctioning due to a virus attack, I'm talking about fully functioning with their own wills and goals (be they evil or good as we would judge them), and able to draw resources from the earth to keep themselves running without any intervention from humans?True but a simple cell was evolving for a billion years. Come back to me in a billion years and ask me what self writing computer programs have produced.
I just might do thatTrue, it just makes the idea that the world looks designed supporting the existence of God some what illogical though.
Which is more logical: "The world looks designed, but its not!" Or: "The world looks designed because it is!" ???The world looks designed so God exists, except for the bits that don't looked design which are explained by God existing plus the Fall happening.
What parts of the world which don't look designed are explained by the fall? Even the bacteria flagellum looks designed and that can cause death if left untreated. And if the existence of the bacteria flagellum is evidence of a bad designer then that means that there's a bad designer out there doesn't it? So even if we have proven God to not exist we are still left with some sort of designer all be it a bad one.
In any case that is not what is being claimed by ID. ID does not claim that because it looks designed therefore God did it. It just states that it looks designed. And this is attested to by the immensity of complex nano machines performing all the disparate functions in the cell in order to keep the cell alive, and those cells have specific functions to carry out in order to keep the macro organism (us) functioning properly, and these nano machines in the cell which keep the cell functioning are getting their information or instructions from DNA, and DNA itself is a structure that defies all naturalistic explanations and nobody knows where DNA is getting its code from. Now the theist might be wrong about God being behind all this but surely you cannot blame him for seeing this as living proof that the God Whom he already believes by faith created everything anyway is the One who is responsible for it all.As has already been explained to you many times it is nothing to do with not believing a supernatural source did anything. I've no idea if a supernatural source did anything.
It is to do with me being unable to know if he did so such propositions are pointless. A supernatural source doing something that we cannot identify as a supernatural source and no supernatural source look the same.
It is illogical then to insert a supernatural source that we have no way of verifying.
Which is like the equivalent to what I said about the EA tests above except from a different perspective.Science never opens or closes anything. It works with how the world appears to be based on testing theories.
Science does close the door on things until new evidence re-opens them. For centuries science thought that the universe was eternal i.e. The Steady State model, but the door was shut on that idea when Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding which if viewed like a movie that is rewound, and that expansion is played back wards reveals that it must have come from a single point in the finite past where all matter, energy and time itself came into being. The door has been not only closed on the Steady State model but locked, bolted and wielded shut tooIf the world isn't as it appears to be (ie a supernatural force is messing with us) then science is none the wiser and as such neither are we.
I agree with that. How can we know right?If God exists but made the world look like he doesn't exist then all we can go on is how the world looks. We have no ability to test beyond how the world appears to be to us.
But who says that it doesn't look created? If we can assume that the perception that 'it is made' which the theist holds comes from his philosophic worldview then why can't we make the same assumption for the atheist when he says that 'it doesn't look made'? If our conclusions are based on our differing worldviews then why call one science and the other religion? They are either both science or both religion because they are both making philosophical worldview claims neither of which can be tested using the so called scientific method.Saying the world appears to be X but the Bible says it is Y is pointless, since we can only go on how the world appears to be (X), we have no way of testing if Y is actually true or not.
No. The Bible has always said Y and science decided somewhere along the line that it is not Y because it is X. Where have the tests which prove that X is right and Y is wrong been done?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Yes but who designed the natural environment (feedback system)? It looks designed and the deeper we probe into biological systems the more purpose and design there seems to be even at that level.
Biological systems are not the environment. The environment is the rocks, rivers, mountains, volcanoes etc that force competition between the biological entities. Whether you think a rock or mountain or river is designed or not is a different issue to whether life is designed.Soul Winner wrote: »The difference between an evolutionary algorithm (EA) and actual nature itself is that in EA each outside factor is introduced for testing purposes by testers who reside outside of the test environment i.e. the EA. If there really is actually no equivalent outside tester for actual nature then what do these tests actually prove? That a created environment can act like an uncreated one?
The demonstrate the process happening. Ignoring computers for a minute, if you place bacteria on a mountain top or in a box you yourself made evolution will take place. It doesn't matter to the process itself whether the environment it finds it self in was natural (ie the mountain) or artificial (the box you made). The process is the same.
Whether or not you argue that the Earth itself is natural or artificial, the actual process of Darwinian evolution is the same.Soul Winner wrote: »Yes but who designed the natural environment (feedback system)? It looks designed and the deeper we probe into biological systems the more purpose and design there seems to be even at that level.
Biological systems are not the environment. The environment is the rocks, rivers, mountains, volcanoes etc that force competition between the biological entities. Whether you think a rock or mountain or river is designed or not is a different issue to whether life is designed.Soul Winner wrote: »That really wasn't my point. My point was that he pointed to DNA as a better example of a computer program than anything his corporation ever produced. Human lines of code can produce great things like Avatar movies and send us into space but it cannot produce one single cell or molecule. Only a being of vast power and super intelligence beyond our comprehension can do that, that's either God or super aliens.
Or Darwinian evolution. We already know it can do this, the question is did it. And the answer seems to be, unless you are close minded agenda driven Creationist, yes it did. Or at least that is the only answer so far that explains so much of the biological world.Soul Winner wrote: »Can you see a day when they will have their own wills and disobey all outside input and function independently of their creators?
Not really, but not because this is impossible but because we probably won't allow it. We have complete control over the computers we design, and even if we set up an evolutionary system for generating code we still control this because we control the feedback system.
For them to function independently of their creators we would have to allow and facilitate this, a bit like you guys believe God allowed and facilitated us to. And I can't see us doing this. What purpose would it serve?Soul Winner wrote: »Which is more logical: "The world looks designed, but its not!" Or: "The world looks designed because it is!" ???
But that is the point. The world doesn't look designed, as you guys seem to admit and use the Fall to justify this.
So which is more logical
The world doesn't look designed but it actually is but this is hidden from us because of the corruption of sin due to punishment of Adam's disobedience
The world isn't designed.
It seems nonsensical to say the world is designed but then explain all the things that don't look designed as the result of corruption due to sin due to the Fall.Soul Winner wrote: »What parts of the world which don't look designed are explained by the fall? Even the bacteria flagellum looks designed and that can cause death if left untreated. And if the existence of the bacteria flagellum is evidence of a bad designer then that means that there's a bad designer out there doesn't it? So even if we have proven God to not exist we are still left with some sort of designer all be it a bad one.
But what is the difference between evolution and a bad designer? The whole point of the argument from design is that things are supposed to look intelligently planned. If they don't look intelligently planned, if they look stupidly planned, it makes more sense to say it was a non-intelligent process like evolution than a stupid designer.Soul Winner wrote: »In any case that is not what is being claimed by ID. ID does not claim that because it looks designed therefore God did it. It just states that it looks designed.
Can you find me an ID proponent who doesn't think God was the designer?
I've never heard of an ID proponent who put forwards a stupid designer.Soul Winner wrote: »Which is like the equivalent to what I said about the EA tests above except from a different perspective.
Not really. We can measure the environment that life finds itself evolving in.
We can't measure this designer, God or otherwise.Soul Winner wrote: »Science does close the door on things until new evidence re-opens them. For centuries science thought that the universe was eternal i.e. The Steady State model, but the door was shut on that idea when Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding which if viewed like a movie that is rewound, and that expansion is played back wards reveals that it must have come from a single point in the finite past where all matter, energy and time itself came into being. The door has been not only closed on the Steady State model but locked, bolted and wielded shut too
Opening and closing doors is a very bad analogy. By its very nature science does not close doors on things. Every current scientific theory is wrong or inaccurate in some way.
Exactly. Say God designed the world and then sin corrupted the world and made all the stupid things we see in the biological world around us.Soul Winner wrote: »I agree with that. How can we know right?
We can't tell because the world looks undesigned.
Say God made the world 6,000 years ago but for some reason during the Flood causes a whole lot of activity that pushed rocks and eroded rivers and made the world look billions of years old.
We can't tell because the world looks billions of years old.Soul Winner wrote: »But who says that it doesn't look created? If we can assume that the perception that 'it is made' which the theist holds comes from his philosophic worldview then why can't we make the same assumption for the atheist when he says that 'it doesn't look made'? If our conclusions are based on our differing worldviews then why call one science and the other religion?
Because on one hand you have testable scientific theories explaining why things are the way they are (ie the Grand Canon) and on the other hand you have untestable non-scientific theories explaining why things are not what they appear to be.
The Grand Canon looks thousand of years old. By this I mean we have a natural process that can explain exactly how it looks that requires thousands of years.
The Creationists say it isn't thousands of years old, but they have only non-scientific ideas that they can't go into detail with to say why this is the case.
If you have an explanation that explains something in natural terms that can be scientifically examined, and an explanation that invokes a supernatural designer doing something but you don't know what that thing was, when it happened, or what effects it had, it is easy to say one is scientific and one is non-scientific.Soul Winner wrote: »No. The Bible has always said Y and science decided somewhere along the line that it is not Y because it is X. Where have the tests which prove that X is right and Y is wrong been done?
They have been done throughout history of natural philosophy and science.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Please name these scholars for me and quote them etc etc. We already know that it is the work of many scribes over the centuries and we know that there are human errors in the text and that scribal mistakes have been made when copying the text and so, but when one considers how old these writings actually are and how insignificant the silly little mistakes that were made really are it is literally unchanged from the original and many archaeological digs have proven that to be the case over and over again.
The real problem is when it comes to the translation of the scriptures into other languages. There have been many very very bad translations of many verses in the Bible over the centuries especially in the English which do tremendous harm to their original meanings, but thankfully we have literally thousands of manuscripts that we can go to, which, when cross checked with other manuscripts can iron out many indiscretions in the bad translations.
Sorry, Soul Winner, but I don't have the time to research and quote at length from original sources. I trust the words of Roger Bolton ( a well-respected journalist in the field of religion) and the biblical scholars he interviews. If his sources were not as eminent or veracious as they appear to be, his hundreds of thousands of Radio 4 listeners would soon be letting him know, so I accept the thrust of what they say. When I return home (few days) I will post a link to a fantastic biblical studies course on www.academicearth.com from a professor in Yale or Harvard (can't remember which) which is equally enlightening on the multitude of sources and scribes who wrote original passages in the bible and the many many others who transcribed and 'corrected' passages, phrases and words over the millenia (as you so fairly acknowledge above). So for you, or anyone, to base his beliefs on such wonderful fictional writings and to quote them in the signatures below their posts leaves me aghast at your lack of doubt or questioning of these beliefs. Worse still is to inculcate them into others (especially innocent children) as some kind of 'truth' or a blueprint as to how we should live our lives today.
Have you listened to parts 2 and 3 also (total programme length about 40 mins)?I've listened to it and I haven't lost my faith. So now what?
Seems to me that you will accept any story that religious leaders hand down to you on faith and just ignore the facts of archaeology, palaeontology, biology, history, geography, astronomy etc. You are in the same realm of unproven (unprovable) beliefs as all the other religions of the world and also astrologers, homeopaths etc (I suppose the alchemists have given up by now?). Time and improving educational standards worldwide are on the side of science - the genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Religious belief is lowest (and
disappearing) in those countries which head up every table of improving human rights and human development - New Zealand, Australia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Canada . . . Ireland is getting there (over the bodies of generations of children physically and psychologically damaged by the Catholic Church)
I never said such a silly thing.If preaching the Gospel can be considered physically attacking someone then all the anti Christian preaching is a physical attack on Christians.
I never said that either.Huh? So you would use physical violence if stopped in the street for instance?
I would use violence in self-defence only. Religions worldwide have in the past, and still do outside the non religious-controlled world (developed nations), use violence to impose their beliefs on others (Sudan, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Indonesia, Southern Thailand, across North Africa, Central Asia, Nigeria, and, in the recent past, all the states of former Yugoslavia, and, further in the past, all Christian states [crusades, inquisitions, anti Jewish pogroms etc)
Please don't try to tell me that Christians generally are upholders of gay rights! Just look at the sentencing of two gay men in 90% Christian Malawi yesterday for their private love affair.Huh? Most of these organizations are Religious. There are even Christian Gay rights groups hello?Yes I believe many bad things were done in the name of religion and in the name of Jesus in particular but what have the bad deeds done by some people got to do with the truth of Christianity? Did Jesus command these men to commit their evils acts in His name? If that's a proof that Christianity is a false religion then the good deeds done by Christians is proof that its true. You see you need to come at it with better arguments than that. But heck you're new here so I'll give you a chance
If you tell children that the religious instruction they receive is more important than their family, their friends, their teachers, the world around them, even more important than their own lives and that this world is of little importance (the blink of an eye), and that doing what 'god' wants them to do is of greater importance than anything else anyone on earth will teach them, then of course they are open to doing mad, crazy things.
When I believed all that stuff (early teens) I was genuinely ready to DIE for my religion. Anyone ready to die for a belief is also ready to do many other very extreme actions, short of dying, for their belief.
So, Soul Winner, are you willing to die for your religion? How far are you willing to go in sacrificing relationships, family, job, country, friendships and friends (true human life) in pursuit of this belief? (and no, belfore you accuse me, I am NOT threatening to help you!! ) To me anyone who is willing to die for an unprovable (highly improbable) belief is simply a fanatic.0 -
Sorry, Soul Winner, but I don't have the time to research and quote at length from original sources. I trust the words of Roger Bolton ( a well-respected journalist in the field of religion) and the biblical scholars he interviews. If his sources were not as eminent or veracious as they appear to be, his hundreds of thousands of Radio 4 listeners would soon be letting him know, so I accept the thrust of what they say.
And I trust scholars like NT Wright Bishop of Durham, Michael Licona, Gary Habermas JP Moreland, William Lane Craig, Craig Evans and many more, all of whom believe in the resurrection of Jesus as an historical fact. Please give me your list of Biblical scholars that don't.When I return home (few days) I will post a link to a fantastic biblical studies course on www.academicearth.com from a professor in Yale or Harvard (can't remember which) which is equally enlightening on the multitude of sources and scribes who wrote original passages in the bible and the many many others who transcribed and 'corrected' passages, phrases and words over the millenia (as you so fairly acknowledge above).
Thanks, I look forward to it.So for you, or anyone, to base his beliefs on such wonderful fictional writings and to quote them in the signatures below their posts leaves me aghast at your lack of doubt or questioning of these beliefs.
We question them all the time, hence the Christianity forum on Boards.ie.Worse still is to inculcate them into others (especially innocent children) as some kind of 'truth' or a blueprint as to how we should live our lives today.
So you have the corner of truth do you? Please share it with us. Let us know the REAL truth we are lacking.Have you listened to parts 2 and 3 also (total programme length about 40 mins)?
Not yet, like you I'm too busy to be bothered.Seems to me that you will accept any story that religious leaders hand down to you on faith and just ignore the facts of archaeology, palaeontology, biology, history, geography, astronomy etc.
What facts are you talking about?You are in the same realm of unproven (unprovable) beliefs as all the other religions of the world and also astrologers, homeopaths etc (I suppose the alchemists have given up by now?).
Explain why my beliefs are unprovable. Then give me an example of somthing that is provable.Time and improving educational standards worldwide are on the side of science - the genie cannot be put back in the bottle.
That is a very loaded statement. Can you elaborate for us?Religious belief is lowest (and
disappearing) in those countries which head up every table of improving human rights and human development - New Zealand, Australia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Canada . . . Ireland is getting there (over the bodies of generations of children physically and psychologically damaged by the Catholic Church)
These are all Christian countries? Is there somehting I'm missing here?I never said such a silly thing.
Your remark implied it. Go back and read it again.I never said that either.
Same as above.I would use violence in self-defence only. Religions worldwide have in the past, and still do outside the non religious-controlled world (developed nations), use violence to impose their beliefs on others (Sudan, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Indonesia, Southern Thailand, across North Africa, Central Asia, Nigeria, and, in the recent past, all the states of former Yugoslavia, and, further in the past, all Christian states [crusades, inquisitions, anti Jewish pogroms etc)
Please don't try to tell me that Christians generally are upholders of gay rights! Just look at the sentencing of two gay men in 90% Christian Malawi yesterday for their private love affair.
The countries you name above are also 90% Christian and yet you point to them as shining examples of progress. Looks like you like cherry picking. Anyway if these guys broke the law of their country then they must pay for their crimes. Does that mean I agree with that particular law? Not at all, I think it should be changed. But when its the law its the law and you break it at your own risk.If you tell children that the religious instruction they receive is more important than their family, their friends, their teachers, the world around them, even more important than their own lives and that this world is of little importance (the blink of an eye), and that doing what 'god' wants them to do is of greater importance than anything else anyone on earth will teach them, then of course they are open to doing mad, crazy things.
Your point please. You seem to be expert at over generations without actually saying anything of note.When I believed all that stuff (early teens) I was genuinely ready to DIE for my religion. Anyone ready to die for a belief is also ready to do many other very extreme actions, short of dying, for their belief.
Again, what are you getting at with this?So, Soul Winner, are you willing to die for your religion?
Finally a straight forward question. If it came on top I would hope that I would be.How far are you willing to go in sacrificing relationships, family, job, country, friendships and friends (true human life) in pursuit of this belief?
As long as I believe that it is true. When someone convinces me that it is not true it will be binned. Until then though truth is truth and I believe I have found it and if family and friends hate me for that then up their's.(and no, belfore you accuse me, I am NOT threatening to help you!! ) To me anyone who is willing to die for an unprovable (highly improbable) belief is simply a fanatic.
You are entitled to your opinion. To me anyone who berates people for their religious beliefs on a public forum is an idiot.0 -
-
Originally Posted by Morbert
It is precisely because NS is non-random that evolution can work.
It is precisely because of the infinite ratio of non-functional permutations to functional ones ... that the random component (Spontaneous Mutation of biochemical sequences) will overwhelm the non-random (Natural Selection) component of Evolution ... and therefore evolution from Pondkind to Mankind cannot work!!!!
A non-random process is required to generate functional variety ... ... having a non-random variety selection mechanism is useless without also having a non-random variety production mechanism ... and so far the only plausible candiate is the appliance of intelligence ... by an effectively infinitely intelligent mind!!!
... and Who do you think that could possibly be???
0 -
It is precisely because of the infinite ratio of non-functional permutations to functional ones ... that the random component (Spontaneous Mutation of biochemical sequences) will overwhelm the non-random (Natural Selection) component of Evolution ... and therefore evolution from Pondkind to Mankind cannot work!!!!
A non-random process is required to generate functional variety ... ... having a non-random variety selection mechanism is useless without also having a non-random variety production mechanism ... and so far the only plausible candiate is the appliance of intelligence ... by an effectively infinitely intelligent mind!!!
... and Who do you think that could possibly be???
So does this mean you accept that evolution is not a spontaneous process, and that, instead of arguing that evolution is spontaneous, you should argue that even non-spontaneous evolution cannot account for complexity?0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement