Replies are closed for this discussion.
"1. How can any event which is random be ever a preliminary event to another event which is not random, when the second event is already vitiated by the first one which is random, for being connected to the first one which is random? The second and succeeding events are in a way contaminated by the first event which is random."
Well, this is a very long way to describe opportunity. A nonrandom reaction to a random or randomly presented circumstance. It doesn't violate anything.
"2. How can evolution be scientific when it is not falsifiable?"
I think you're getting falsifiable and verifiable mixed up here.
"anything that is now stable"
Who said it was stable now? You're missing the time frame this works in. You may never notice any change on a macro scale in several of your lifetime.
"and no one can do an experiment on it for it takes millions of years which is an indefinite duration of years"
Well this is flat out wrong as many people have tried to tell you already in this thread. Experiments can be done on a microorganism scale, through computer simulations of natural selection through predator/prey relationships etc.
"If you ascribe to millions of years for an explanation of anything that is now stable, then you can explain everything no matter how absurd"
Nope, it still wouldn't account for a god or gods.
I suggest you read up about natural selection. It's not random (or in your words "unguided"). It's just not explained by a big magic man who lives invisibly up in the sky, but instead by a slow process where certain useful genes survive and those that are less useful (or harmful, etc.) don't, and is at least partially determined by the type of plant/animal and its environment. Now, if something seems just too complex to have developed in this manner and thus "must" have had a creator, then you have the question of where this even more complex creator came from. You have to keep moving up in levels of complexity to find even more complicated explanations, which is illogical. I remind you of the acronym KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid).
So...uhhh...did the "eye design" argument run its course?
Thank you. ;D
Yes thanks - very good - that is definetely an answer - I am eagerly awaiting a response.
Why is this even a debate? Even the Vatican recognizes evolution now.
I tell it because, all these years churches have been saying how wrong evolution is and those who "believe" in it are sinners etc. Now that they admit they were wrong about evolution what else are they wrong about.... Might wake a few people up.
So the proof for God's existence hasn't just been right under my nose...it's actually been my nose this entire time!
I guess my next question is: does this mean that boogers are divine? I mean, if my nose is the product of divine design and boogers seem to be a part of that design, aren't my boogers then divinely inspired? What sacrilege it must be every time a load of holy snot is carelessly blown into a tissue to be discarded! God must weep to see Kleenex prevail.
Hahahah at that picture! If anyone has omnipotent boogers, it's totally that guy.,
I realized after I posted that I probably wasn't helping the case of accused frivolity by discussing boogers but I just couldn't resist. But hey, it's finals and I've been writing serious scholarly junk all week...it was high time for something juvenile. ;)
Divine boogers! Hahaha!
Man.. is it just me or all the best discussions started by theists lately?
Probably not their intent, but it is ours. TA exists to get and keep people thinking. Every time one of these people saunter in, we just become even more knowledgeable and educated.
Keep it up guys. Great work!