This Just proves that you have missed the point intierly.
1) How many times has the "Therie" of "E" Large "E" Evilution Changed thrueout the years.
2) How many times in the last 7,000 years has the "Therie" of ID changed.
3) Science disproves "Evilution" not "evilution"
Difference is a jump from "Phylum or Class or Order or Family" Not "Genus or Species" Clasifications
i.e. "The Second law of thermodynamics, in a closef, isolated system, such as the universe
is, the amount of usable energy is decreasing. The universe is running down, hence
cannot be eternal... Since the Universe has not reached a state of total disorder, this
process has not been going forever (Norman l. Geisler)." and will one day END.
Evilution teaches that we are progressivly gaining in intelegence/complexity/Simplisity
and addaption to the enviroment. If The entiere Universe is "running Down" how Logical
is it to assume that we are geting more and more advanced. Just because we as human's have
built on the intelegence of our predisesors dose not meen we are more advanced than they.
This having Nothing to do with Creationism/ID or any other "Opinion" but Science Disproving Evilution
Last Statment : Darin, Autobiography page 91, "the extreme difficulty or rater imposibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backward and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity." Why near the end of his life would he reflect on the fact that "blind chance or necessity" is not enuph to assume that Evilution is FACT. Evilution is a thierie and should be taught even by the most religiosly devout Evilutionist as a THIERIE. just as ID/Creationism Should be taught. Any one who believes to the contrary is a foul.
"Nonsense. There are plenty of examples in Nature where simple situations give rise to complex results without a designer or without intelligence" (Decaff -42676) @ 9:38...
The more we learn about the universe the less random things become... My point, I thought, was quiet clear: Did you see a "recognizable pattern" i.e. did you see The Mona Lisa (Not a reflection), or perhaps the word 'Hi'
The overall point is as a previosly stated:"Fluid + Heat...basic Chemical Reaction - The Complexity already exists"
ID = New Created Complex, existence. i.e The Mona Lisa... or Bill Clintons face..
Sorry for not being specific enough
I could Spend all day looking for the odds of the Human eye evolving from random chance in my books or we could just except as you very well know that evolution is statistically improbable. (Not impossible, I am willing to admit that infinite complexity can be reorganized into an infinitely complex system)
I do find it interesting that you did not try an disprove my thesis: Natural Selection has nothing to do with Complexity. Which was the point.
Intelligence @ a minor changing scale makes no discernible change in Natural Selection unless that change corresponds with Health, Strength, Speed or Luck.
I believe Natural Selection eliminates Bad anomalies so as to not degenerate the Gen. pool. (Occam's Razer) would agree
"fluid + heat, yet you get complexity."
- A basic Chemical Reaction
- The Complexity already exists
Yet have you ever witnessed the face of Bill Clinton in your beaker or just 'Random' patterns
Your Example is flawed/ Do you have another? (Try Organized Complexed i.e. a recognizable pattern)
interesting to Quote "Occam's Razer" To "Prove" a Logical falicy.
(Natural Selection) = Strong servive & the Luky...
Not More Complex.....
in Natural Selection the strongest/Fastes/healthiest/Lukyest must servive
Not More Complex.....
Intelegance is not a factor, or it is less important when looking at minute "evelotionary" (Small 'e', i.e. Small change withen a genis or spiecies) changes.
Not More Complex.....
Occam's Razor... Was Mt. Rushmor created or evolved
Occam's Razor... Was a Ford built or did it just happen
Occam's Razor... You can only create something less perface/Complex than your self.
Occam's Razor... IF The odds or the human eye "Evolving" is 1^213 i.e. 1:1000000000000000000...(213 zeros) or ruffly the state of California coverd with quortes 3 feet thick, mark one quorter with an X and put is randomly somewhere and bliendfold some one and tell thing to pik it up. Is it more "Logical" to say there is a perpose to all and to all a perpose...
Slashdot Mirror
This Just proves that you have missed the point intierly. 1) How many times has the "Therie" of "E" Large "E" Evilution Changed thrueout the years. 2) How many times in the last 7,000 years has the "Therie" of ID changed. 3) Science disproves "Evilution" not "evilution" Difference is a jump from "Phylum or Class or Order or Family" Not "Genus or Species" Clasifications i.e. "The Second law of thermodynamics, in a closef, isolated system, such as the universe is, the amount of usable energy is decreasing. The universe is running down, hence cannot be eternal... Since the Universe has not reached a state of total disorder, this process has not been going forever (Norman l. Geisler)." and will one day END. Evilution teaches that we are progressivly gaining in intelegence/complexity/Simplisity and addaption to the enviroment. If The entiere Universe is "running Down" how Logical is it to assume that we are geting more and more advanced. Just because we as human's have built on the intelegence of our predisesors dose not meen we are more advanced than they. This having Nothing to do with Creationism/ID or any other "Opinion" but Science Disproving Evilution Last Statment : Darin, Autobiography page 91, "the extreme difficulty or rater imposibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backward and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity." Why near the end of his life would he reflect on the fact that "blind chance or necessity" is not enuph to assume that Evilution is FACT. Evilution is a thierie and should be taught even by the most religiosly devout Evilutionist as a THIERIE. just as ID/Creationism Should be taught. Any one who believes to the contrary is a foul.
"Nonsense. There are plenty of examples in Nature where simple situations give rise to complex results without a designer or without intelligence" (Decaff -42676) @ 9:38... The more we learn about the universe the less random things become... My point, I thought, was quiet clear: Did you see a "recognizable pattern" i.e. did you see The Mona Lisa (Not a reflection), or perhaps the word 'Hi' The overall point is as a previosly stated:"Fluid + Heat...basic Chemical Reaction - The Complexity already exists" ID = New Created Complex, existence. i.e The Mona Lisa... or Bill Clintons face.. Sorry for not being specific enough
I could Spend all day looking for the odds of the Human eye evolving from random chance in my books or we could just except as you very well know that evolution is statistically improbable. (Not impossible, I am willing to admit that infinite complexity can be reorganized into an infinitely complex system) I do find it interesting that you did not try an disprove my thesis: Natural Selection has nothing to do with Complexity. Which was the point. Intelligence @ a minor changing scale makes no discernible change in Natural Selection unless that change corresponds with Health, Strength, Speed or Luck. I believe Natural Selection eliminates Bad anomalies so as to not degenerate the Gen. pool. (Occam's Razer) would agree
"fluid + heat, yet you get complexity." - A basic Chemical Reaction - The Complexity already exists Yet have you ever witnessed the face of Bill Clinton in your beaker or just 'Random' patterns Your Example is flawed/ Do you have another? (Try Organized Complexed i.e. a recognizable pattern)
interesting to Quote "Occam's Razer" To "Prove" a Logical falicy. (Natural Selection) = Strong servive & the Luky... Not More Complex..... in Natural Selection the strongest/Fastes/healthiest/Lukyest must servive Not More Complex..... Intelegance is not a factor, or it is less important when looking at minute "evelotionary" (Small 'e', i.e. Small change withen a genis or spiecies) changes. Not More Complex..... Occam's Razor... Was Mt. Rushmor created or evolved Occam's Razor... Was a Ford built or did it just happen Occam's Razor... You can only create something less perface/Complex than your self. Occam's Razor... IF The odds or the human eye "Evolving" is 1^213 i.e. 1:1000000000000000000...(213 zeros) or ruffly the state of California coverd with quortes 3 feet thick, mark one quorter with an X and put is randomly somewhere and bliendfold some one and tell thing to pik it up. Is it more "Logical" to say there is a perpose to all and to all a perpose...