Intelligent Design

[kmortis]

So, what's the difference between randomness and "pure" randomness? Are you saying it's possible to be "a little bit pregnant?"

Iaachus, are you being intentionally dense?

Paul said:

Anyone who suggests that evolution is a purely random process is either stunningly ignorant or a liar.

So, it's not that there's a difference between "normal" randomness and some kind of Platonic "Pure Randomness"(tm), it's that the process is more than just randomness. Yes, there is a random component, but that's not all there is.

 

[Iacchus]

His assertion that information cannot evolve is refuted by Schneider's Ev program.

Yes, things do evolve and change, but not without a prior set of circumstances which govern that change. So in effect, the principle for change has already been outlined, beforehand.

 

[Mercutio]

Neither should you misconstrue your inability to comprehend something with something which simply may not be.

Please tell us how it is that you, yourself, are able to comprehend things which are outside the known and knowable universe. You speak with confidence about things for which science has no evidence (and indeed, of things that science has evidence contradicting); where is it you get your special knowledge?

Oh, that's right...dreams and numerology.

Next?

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, things do evolve and change, but not without a prior set of circumstances which govern that change. So in effect, the principle for change has already been outlined (beforehand).

Circular. You have been called on this before, more times than I can recall. When will you ever take the time to learn about logic so that your arguments will be more than immediately dismissable? Are you that unsure of your beliefs, that you are unwilling to use proper logic to examine them?

 

[Iacchus]

Iaachus, are you being intentionally dense?

Paul said:

So, it's not that there's a difference between "normal" randomness and some kind of Platonic "Pure Randomness"(tm), it's that the process is more than just randomness. Yes, there is a random component, but that's not all there is.

I'm saying there's nothing random about it all.

 

[kmortis]

Neither should you misconstrue your inability to comprehend something with something which simply may not be.

Never confuse a conscious choice with inability. Many of us here (and I can only assume that Paul falls into this category, I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong) took a look at the data and decided that religon (and all the subsequent beliefs) were insufficient and unnecessary. Because you have decided that you want/need/whatever a deity that created us all to believe in does not, in any way, make you superior to the rest of us.

So, would you like to rephrase that last comment in such a way that it couldn't be construed as an ad hominim attack?

 

[kmortis]

I'm saying there's nothing random about it all.

And your proof is..........?

 

[Iacchus]

Circular. You have been called on this before, more times than I can recall. When will you ever take the time to learn about logic so that your arguments will be more than immediately dismissable? Are you that unsure of your beliefs, that you are unwilling to use proper logic to examine them?

Did the "principle" of time actually exist before the ability to measure it (by means of space-time) occur?

 

[Iacchus]

So, would you like to rephrase that last comment in such a way that it couldn't be construed as an ad hominim attack?

So, which one of us would you refer to as "ignorant" then?

 

[Mercutio]

Did the "principle" of time actually exist before the ability to measure it (by means of space-time) occur?

This question is unanswerable. Are you defining "principle" circularly, as you have in the past?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Which is to say we all evolved from a "steaming pile" of randomness? This is an argument "for" intelligent design, not evolution.

No, this is your straw man. Evolution does not imply a steaming pile of randomness. It implies a selective process called survival of the fittest. It also implies a random input to this process, and it can be proved empirically that selection on a random input can cause a complex and ordered result.

Hans

 

[Iacchus]

And your proof is..........?

The fact that anything exists, it exists in relation to everything to else. To suggest that something occurs at random, is to suggest it exists outside of this (Universal) relationship between all things.

 

[Iacchus]

This question is unanswerable. Are you defining "principle" circularly, as you have in the past?

No, the question is indeed answerable, otherwise we would have no such notion of time.

 

[MRC_Hans]

If there was no physical universe, there would be no perception of time. However, does that mean time does not actually exist? If you answer yes, then you are saying time (as a mechanism) has "never" existed.

This shows me why I don't usually enter arguments with Iacchus. Strawmen and putting words in my mouth.

What I said is that time is an integral part of the universe as we know it. We have no reason to assume that time, of all characteristis of this universe, exists independently of it. Thus, it makes no sense to ask: What was "before" the universe was created? - Because that question implies that time transcends the universe.

I'm not sure if Iacchus cannot understand this, or if he just chooses to ignore it. And I find I don't much care.

Hans

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So, what's the difference between randomness and "pure" randomness? Are you saying it's possible to be "a little bit pregnant?"

As Kmortis pointed out, mutation may be more or less random, but selection is not.

Yes, things do evolve and change, but not without a prior set of circumstances which govern that change. So in effect, the principle for change has already been outlined, beforehand.

Sure, ultimately everything is governed by physical laws. Are you suggesting that these laws do not allow any randomness?

I'm saying there's nothing random about it all.

Nothing random? A cosmic ray strikes a sperm cell in my body and causes a mutation. This may not be random in the overall scheme of things (although I suspect it is), but it is surely random with respect to life on earth.

The fact that everything exists, it exists in relation to everything to else. To suggest that something occurs at random, is to suggest it exists outside of this (Universal) relationship between all things.

Dude, come on. You are claiming that the "universal relation" between everything does not allow for random events. There is nothing about the term "universal relation" that implies this. You need to prove it.

~~ Paul

 

[kmortis]

So, which one of us would you refer to as "ignorant" then?

If you were intentionally misrepresenting what Paul was saying, then you were being stupid. If, however, you truely didn't understand the difference between the process containing randomess, and the process BEING random, then you were mearly ignorant, and probably should pick up a book on General Semantics to learn about the fallacy of Isness. I was just trying to get from you which it was, so I could then respond to the actual bone of contention.

Now, contrast that against this

Neither should you misconstrue your inability to comprehend...

Which implies a deficency in mental capacity.

So, again, I ask, would you like to rephrase into a form that isn't an ad hominim attack?

 

[Mojo]

Which is to say that everything happens within the boundaries of Universal design then, correct? If something can occur at random, without cause in other words, how can it orginate from within the Universe?

False dilemma.

 

[Iacchus]

This shows me why I don't usually enter arguments with Iacchus. Strawmen and putting words in my mouth.

Either that, or you just get tired of arguing with yourself.

What I said is that time is an integral part of the universe as we know it. We have no reason to assume that time, of all characteristis of this universe, exists independently of it. Thus, it makes no sense to ask: What was "before" the universe was created?

Sure it does, because you're not addressing how the universe got here.

- Because that question implies that time transcends the universe.

Yes, and when we begin to speak of the origin of the Universe, we begin to speak of that which transcends it. Are you saying such questions don't concern you? I mean how ignorant can you get?

I'm not sure if Iacchus cannot understand this, or if he just chooses to ignore it. And I find I don't much care.

Yes, very interesting choice of words here.

 

[Iacchus]

Dude, come on. You are claiming that the "universal relation" between everything does not allow for random events. There is nothing about the term "universal relation" that implies this. You need to prove it.

I am suggesting that everything is interconnected and, that this constitutes a relationship between all things. If anything exists outside of this relationship, it is not a part of this Universe. Notwithstanding we have the appearance of randomness but, this is only due to the remoteness of one thing to the next. If you wish to believe that things "just happen," then that is entirely up to you.

 

[kmortis]

I am suggesting that everything is interconnected and, that this constitutes a relationship between all things. If anything exists outside of this relationship, it is not a part of this Universe. Notwithstanding we have the appearance of randomness but, this is only due to the remoteness of one thing to the next.

Ok, so where is the proof that everything is inteconnected?
Even if I were accept that there was a great degree of interconnectedness (is that even a word?), would not there be some practical level of abstractedness that we could say "Here Be Monst...", um, I mean "Beyond this point the relationships are so remote and inferred to be virtually random"?