Jump to content


Photo

Is Randomness Not Part Of Evolution?


  • Please log in to reply
274 replies to this topic

#261 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 14 June 2009 - 02:04 AM

The mind is irrelevant to this discussion Ron, try and keep it on topic.
You are correct though, at present we can only detect gravity by it's effect. This is considered science. Why is it then when we try and do the same with evolution (detect it by it's effect) you get all up in a tizz? Whether or not you agree with the results, the methodology is the same.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post

I don't know who's in a tizz. I have seen more than one evopusher go into Taz mode

Posted Image

simply because someone pointed out how simple a matter it is to detect the Creator by looking at creation.

#262 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 14 June 2009 - 08:15 AM

The mind is irrelevant to this discussion Ron, try and keep it on topic.
You are correct though, at present we can only detect gravity by it's effect. This is considered science. Why is it then when we try and do the same with evolution (detect it by it's effect) you get all up in a tizz? Whether or not you agree with the results, the methodology is the same.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post



Good Day Arch,

Sure we can detect gravity by its effect. We can also measure, test and make accurate predictions about gravity. The same is not true with evolution.

One can just as well say we detect God by His effect. That is we can see his creative hand in nature. ;)

#263 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 June 2009 - 10:56 AM

The mind is irrelevant to this discussion Ron, try and keep it on topic.
You are correct though, at present we can only detect gravity by it's effect. This is considered science. Why is it then when we try and do the same with evolution (detect it by it's effect) you get all up in a tizz? Whether or not you agree with the results, the methodology is the same.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


No Archie, the mind analogy is directly relevant to your gravity comment. And, it is directly relevant, due to the evolutionist’s view that it (the mind) developed randomly (which you have no evidence for) as well. So, if you’re going to attempt to duck an issue, please don’t insult anyone’s intelligence by side stepping a perfectly legitimate rebuttal. The mind can ONLY be detected by its effect (just like gravity). But, you can always show us a picture of a mind (and not a brain) to prove this incorrect.

This IS considered science, so you shouldn’t get in a “tizz” when you are corrected. Whether or not you agree with the results, the methodology is the same.




Posted Image

#264 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 June 2009 - 11:27 AM

Sure we can detect gravity by its effect.  We can also measure, test and make accurate predictions about gravity.  The same is not true with evolution. 
One can just as well say we detect God by His effect.  That is we can see his creative hand in nature.  :D

View Post


Absolutely correct Bruce ;)

#265 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 June 2009 - 11:36 AM

Before you get too wrapped up in your favorite dictionary definitions, have you ever thought about emergent properties?

http://plato.stanfor...rties-emergent/

Is an emergent property inherent?

View Post


Hmmmmmm, yes... And this is my favorite quote from that link Keith: "Thus far, we have assumed that the concept of emergence applies to properties". Which sums it up quite nicely ;)

Also, as you cherry picked my paragraph, you should have included the the conclusion and the followup question:

You are missing the point of your own words. If “Intelligence is an observed result” of evolution, then it is an “inherent feature” of evolution. It cannot be one, and not the other. And if “natural selection” is "driven by interactions between organisms and their environment involving mutations to their genetic code", then; What drives those interactions between organisms and their environment, what drives the mutations in the genetic code, and what drives the genetic code?

View Post


A real rebuttal and answer to the question would have been nice..

One could just as easily conclude that it is the brain which ‘emerges’ from the mind since we're talking theoretical concepts. But, the bottom line is this: The brain and the mind are two different things.

And, by the way, that is nowhere near my favorite dictionary definitions. I have many-many more that are near and dear to my heart. But, that one was most applicable to the comments context. And, instead of letting the misapplication take root, I corrected it.

#266 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 June 2009 - 04:51 PM

Also, as you cherry picked my paragraph, you should have included the the conclusion and the followup question:
A real rebuttal and answer to the question would have been nice..

When I posted, I included that part of your post I was responding to:-

You are missing the point of your own words. If “Intelligence is an observed result” of evolution, then it is an “inherent feature” of evolution. It cannot be one, and not the other.


I was objecting to your attempt to associate intelligence with evolution by playing with words. That is why I asked:-
"Is an emergent property inherent?"

I think one very real alternative is that intelligence is an emergent property of life, cells and neurons etc when the system gets sufficiently large and complex.
This is quite independent of whether that complexity comes from a creator, evolution or some future genetic engineer in a lab.

#267 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 June 2009 - 02:25 AM

When I posted, I included that part of your post I was responding to:-
I was objecting to your attempt to associate intelligence with evolution by playing with words.  That is why I asked:-

View Post


And, as I pointed out, your cherry-picked post would have answered its own question had you kept it in context. Also, I have never associated intelligence with evolution (although I don’t understand why you’d make such a statement).


"Is an emergent property inherent?"

View Post


What in your statement is factual, and what is theoretical?

I think one very real alternative is that intelligence is an emergent property of life, cells and neurons etc when the system gets sufficiently large and complex.
This is quite independent of whether that complexity comes from a creator, evolution or some future genetic engineer in a lab.

View Post


So, you’re suggesting intelligence came from non-intelligence? And you can prove this? Also, anything coming from “some future genetic engineer in a lab” not only proves design, but intelligence coming from intelligence as well.

#268 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 June 2009 - 05:06 PM

you can always show us a picture of a mind (and not a brain) to prove this incorrect.

View Post


As you already know Ron, I don't think the mind and brain are separate entities, so there's no way I could show you a picture. Now, if you can show me the mind working without using the brain then I'd be likely to give this more time.

This IS considered science, so you shouldn’t get in a “tizz” when you are corrected. Whether or not you agree with the results, the methodology is the same.

View Post


Wait, what science are you referring to here Ron? That you assume the mind exists separately from the brain even though you've already said you can't show me?
Or that seeing the effects of something can show its existence even though you may not be able to observe it directly?

To Bruce,

Actually evolution has been able to predict quite a few things. If you like I can try and show you some examples. Even better than that is how evolution theory is being used to create new technology today. I'm hardly an expert on this stuff but once again I can try and find you some things if you like.

Posted Image

View Post


By the way, LOVE the Taz picture, it's adorable :rolleyes:

Regards,

Arch.

#269 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 June 2009 - 02:34 AM

As you already know Ron, I don't think the mind and brain are separate entities, so there's no way I could show you a picture. Now, if you can show me the mind working without using the brain then I'd be likely to give this more time.

View Post


That’s like saying that gravity and the mass that produces it are the same things Archie. But, if you can show me gravity without two masses for attraction then I'd be likely to give this more time.

Wait, what science are you referring to here Ron? That you assume the mind exists separately from the brain even though you've already said you can't show me?
Or that seeing the effects of something can show its existence even though you may not be able to observe it directly?

View Post

It’s called induction, or observational science Archie (you may have heard of it?). You cannot prove you have a mind, and yet, by the observed effects, we’re pretty certain you do. And you need to go back and read my statement; it was a refutation to your claim that the mind analogy wasn’t relevant to this issue. You ducked it quite nicely with that end-around move.

#270 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 June 2009 - 06:33 PM

That’s like saying that gravity and the mass that produces it are the same things Archie. But, if you can show me gravity without two masses for attraction then I'd be likely to give this more time.

View Post


No problem, I'm not really interested in giving this more time :o

It’s called induction, or observational science Archie (you may have heard of it?). You cannot prove you have a mind, and yet, by the observed effects, we’re pretty certain you do.

View Post


Okay this is good. We may not agree on whether or not the 'mind' exists separately from the brain, but at least we agree that observational science is a real science. Which I think was the point I was trying to get across. People keep saying that evolution isn't science, but I would argue that it is (mostly) observational science. We can't see it directly, but it is still observable through other evidence.

Regards,

Arch.

#271 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 June 2009 - 06:46 PM

Okay this is good. We may not agree on whether or not the 'mind' exists separately from the brain, but at least we agree that observational science is a real science.

View Post


That was never at issue Archie. Observational science is a real science! I've been saying that all along. But, you also have to utilize logic/reason and metaphysical right along with the physical. That's why the "naturalistic" bent of evolution is so limited in scope, and stunting to science.

#272 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 22 June 2009 - 09:04 PM

That was never at issue Archie. Observational science is a real science! I've been saying that all along. But, you also have to utilize logic/reason and metaphysical right along with the physical. That's why the "naturalistic" bent of evolution is so limited in scope, and stunting to science.

View Post


Can you explain how we go about utilizing the metaphysical? I'm not familiar with any branch of science that isn't preceded by "pseudo" that covers this.

Regards,

Arch.

#273 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 June 2009 - 02:53 AM

Can you explain how we go about utilizing the metaphysical? I'm not familiar with any branch of science that isn't preceded by "pseudo" that covers this.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


You utilize your mind on a daily basis Archie. Didn't you know that?

#274 Guest_dave247_*

Guest_dave247_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 June 2009 - 04:22 PM

The chance argument has already been refuted on MLGPro.com, which happened after this post was made. If you consider a multiverse you don't have the problem of chance of X happening. It is a certainty.


That is a good point and one I have thought of making on this forum. If there are infinite dimensions and infinite universes, etc, then then the thing that contains all universes and extra dimensions and everything else is basically a platform for anything to happen. Statistically, if there is infinite probability for something to occur, then that thing will occur as well as all other possible combination of events. So in that light, of course evolution and the position of our world and everything else that supports life here is a product of statistical certainty through random possibility. It is both a product of randomness and intent, probably by God (IMO).


Perhaps give them their own thread? I'm half kidding, but they don't have a whole lot to do with the main topic.

And they're far worse than just hand-waving. These things are always maintained to be "scientific" when in fact they are nothing of the sort. "That which cannot be observed is outside of science" is the standard they use to keep from acknowledging God. Well, none of these things can be observed. They're all make-believe, ad-hoc pipe dreams, concocted in order to prop up atheism.

View Post


This actually does tie into the topic and soooomebody sounds like a conspiracy theorist...

#275 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 30 June 2009 - 06:21 PM

You utilize your mind on a daily basis Archie. Didn't you know that?

View Post


Sorry Ron, I didn't realise you'd left a response here.

No I wasn't aware I used that part of my brain that you have yet to prove exists on a daily basis :huh:
I use my brain every day, but science can show me that. Can science show me my mind working?

Regards,

Arch.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users