Replies are closed for this discussion.
1. Random in the sense of natural selection does not literally mean random (as in the type of random that has been proven to exist in quantum mechanics). It means something that is not influenced by phenomena outside of the organism itself. Genetic mutations may very well be traceable to molecular chains of events, but they're not directly influenced by how much food is available to the organism, nor whether climate change is underway.
2. It is perfectly falsifiable, and perfectly reproducible. Google Endler's experiments in fish predators and prey, Lensky's bacterial evolution experiment (there are others that I'd have to google to remember the names of the people involved).
It has been proven. It can be falsified. Accept it and move on. If you don't, you're guilty of self-imposed (inexcusable) doxastic bewilderment.
I do not read very long posts, so don't send very long posts.
Develop the skill of thinking so as to write concisely, precisely, simply, and of course clearly.
And I don't give time to videos and graphics ad also audios, let us communicate with written words.
Before you write try to choose a very sharp focus and determine the thrust, then rehearse your words before finally putting them to paper.
And also as soon as I see that a message is into frivolity, I skip to the next and next and next until I come to one which is not into frivolities.
[quote] Think Atheist is your safe place to come out and learn how to have a dialog with friends, family, and strangers about your belief that the world was not created but is in its current state because of complicated and beautifully unguided processes. [/quote]
You are saying that the nose came about by unguided processes?
I have asked you to give me your definition of the word unguided, and if you have ever come to the factual encounter with a stable thing that came about beautifully but unguided-ly.
Okay, no wasting time here, give me each of you, not into frivolities, very long posts, etc., an example of a stable thing that is still around which came about beautifully unguided.
Your nose, I suggest, the most convenient and readily available for you to ascertain that it is present in your face.
My position is that the nose did not come about unguided.
Because you cannot produce a nose unguided by yourself, and no one else whoever and whatever he is can either.
You say that evolution produced it unguided.
Then you tell me what is it to be an unguided process that can bring about a nose in your face that is still staying in your face.
But which you cannot produce one in the shop or in the most well equipped laboratory.
Anyway, suppose you lost your nose and the plastic surgeon has to fashion one for you, by reconstructive surgery, tell me briefly after doing some needed reading on how the surgeon goes about his job for you to again have a nose in your face.
Guidance to my stock knowledge means direction and protection. So unguided means no direction and no protection.
Take this example, you are in the jungle and you have a guide, he is directing your travel and he is your protector, your travel in the jungle is not an unguided process.
The conception of a baby and its gestation in the womb of its mother is certainly not unguided, there is a program and this program is the guided process.
There is an agent overseeing the whole process and that agent is the same one who put together the program of conception and gestation.
No, that is not any example of an unguided process.
"...or are you just going to waffle?"
I see what you did there.... :)
"Take this example, you are in the jungle and you have a guide, he is directing your travel and he is your protector, your travel in the jungle is not an unguided process."
So the guide would stop me from walking into a lion's den. I can even prove that the guide did so. If I walk into a lion's den, no god will stop me and if I choose to turn around, I can't prove that any god turned me around.
"The conception of a baby and its gestation in the womb of its mother is certainly not unguided, there is a program and this program is the guided process."
Well I'm glad we never have to worry about birth defects then, since there's a program, which should run the same way every time because it's a program, and there's a guider/protector which should prevent anything from going wrong.
"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.