Why male and female?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The fallacy of equivocation would be considered informal logic, not formal logic. An example of a fallacy in formal logic could be something like: "a dog is a mammal. John is a mammal. Therefore, John is a dog."

The entropy law applies to any system, but is less useful in large open systems, since you generally don't know the entropy flux through the system boundary.

Yes, your are correct 🙂 I made errors on both accounts.
Still, with these corrections, my argument still stands.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do your debunking if it is so easy. Keep in mind that any altering of existing code is not the same as producing the code in the first place.

The Instructor

What is that supposed to mean? Some mutations produce totally new code and extra DNA. Examples include mutations that increase the number of chromosomes. Then later, a copy of one of those chromosomes can mutate so that you now have BOTH more DNA code AND that more DNA code having code that was not there original therefore we have cases of mutations "producing the code in the first place" -no problem.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do your debunking if it is so easy. Keep in mind that any altering of existing code is not the same as producing the code in the first place.

The Instructor

As always, when making claims, one has to be careful with definitions.

No natural process has ever been observed to produce a program.

What exactly is a 'program'?
If I get my computer to input the sizes of various stones I find outside, then execute those sizes as instructions, are the sizes 'a program'? Were they produced by a natural process?

Originally posted by twhitehead
As always, when making claims, one has to be careful with definitions.

No natural process has ever been observed to produce a program.

What exactly is a 'program'?
If I get my computer to input the sizes of various stones I find outside, then execute those sizes as instructions, are the sizes 'a program'? Were they produced by a natural process?

He is just messing with you with his (possibly deliberately) extremely vague talk about "program", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean in this context!

I am now seeing a very regular and consistent pattern here from him (and others like him):
His tactic here; say such vague claims and such vague arguments that we cannot possibly understand what the hell he is talking about. That way, our logical rational independent critical minds cannot analyze and scrutinize it and see and point out the many logical flaws in it. Instead, we get forever bogged-down and side tracked into tediously trying to tease out from him a clear meaning of what he is saying which he will, of course, annoyingly, never give. If you ask him for clarification, he will either just ignore you request or 'clarify' with an equally vague and confusing statement driving us forever round in circles or, especially if he senses you are FINALLY making progress by getting at the jugular of what he is actually erroneously saying, suddenly change the subject completely. -he wins, we loose.

Not sure if this tactic made by Creationists is generally deliberate or subconsciously generated via their subconscious fear of their flawed reasoning being fully exposed to logical scrutiny especially scrutiny from that of rational minds like our own but perhaps also even from scrutiny from their own less-than-rational minds!

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do your debunking if it is so easy. Keep in mind that any altering of existing code is not the same as producing the code in the first place.

The Instructor

Just did. Mutations can and do "produce code" in the relevant meaning of that term here.

Originally posted by humy

you see flaws and due to it you try to
connect the dots to prove your views.

You mean I see evidence that proves the theory? Yes. So what is the point you are making here?

Seeing
design features where you'd do something a little different does not mean
your way is best,

I didn't say my way is 'best'. What ha e intelligently 'designed' then there are flaws in that design that we can see TODAY?

I'll tell you what to avoid just throwing links at one another, make your
points here. And I'll address them. Hopefully you will be able to answer
mine on your own without links too.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'll tell you what to avoid just throwing links at one another, make your
points here. And I'll address them. Hopefully you will be able to answer
mine on your own without links too.
Kelly

avoid just throwing links

you mean links like this:

http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/11/29/human-imperfections-as-proof-that-we-evolved/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

Why not? This DOES show the real physical evidence, right? Surely this is highly relevant to the discussion at hand?

I'll tell you what to avoid just throwing links at one another, make your
points here. And I'll address them.

I have already just asked you some questions without giving any web links with those questions and I am still waiting to see if you would address them because so far you haven't. For example, you said on page 29:

“...We know things wear out, we know
that errors cause issues in very complex or simple systems over time things
break down. Seeing issues does not mean that the design that started life
has not started wearing out and breaking down due to a cause. ...”

and I then responded to that with:

“...I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you implying that your 'God' made all living things with a perfect design and then they later lost that perfect design over the course of just a few thousand years? If so, why would this God make perfection only to allow many flaws in his good design rapidly develop over just a few thousand years? And what caused such massive flaws to develop in just a few thousand years! Certainly evolution could not explain how such massive imperfection could have developed from perfect design! Natural selection would simply continuously and relentlessly forever keep weed-out any bad mutations from the genome of each species (like it does anyway regardless of whether life was intelligently designed) thus if it had started off with a perfect 'design' then it should stay that way! ...”

OK, no web links there. So perhaps you can start of with addressing just this above? Just clarify what you meant and answering the above questions? Because I honestly don't what you are/were saying and what your explanation is of the flaws. I fail to imagine how you can think “things wear out” explains ANY of those flaws in living things because they are OBVIOUSLY not a result of physical “wear and tire”! It is not as if those anatomical features are like brake pads! How, for example, would “things wear out” or “wear and tear” cause the anatomy of the human retina to alter so that the human retina in all humans suddenly goes back-to-front!? And if wear and tear can do that, then why hasn't the same wear and tear sometimes made the human retina reverse its orientation again so that it is back the right way around!? -I mean, why are we not seeing some human retinas one way around and some the other way around?

Hopefully you will be able to answer
mine on your own without links too.

Sometimes you falsely imply that I believe what I do for other reasons other than just the evidence. When and where you do this, I obviously cannot counter this without showing you the evidence that lead to my conclusions so proving what I believe IS evidence based. How else can I do this without showing links that make reference to that evidence? -tell me.
I will try my best to answer all your questions that I can understand the meaning of but I cannot guarantee I will be able to answer the ones that use such vague language that I am not sure what you are saying in them. -fair enough?

-please fire away with specific question that I WILL try and answer....

Originally posted by humy

avoid just throwing links

you mean links like this:

http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/11/29/human-imperfections-as-proof-that-we-evolved/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

Why not? This DOES show the real physical evidence, right? Surely this is highly relevant to the discussion at hand?

[quote] I' ...[text shortened]... fair enough?

-please fire away with specific question that I WILL try and answer....

Okay we can begin here, I don't have time to address these now but I will.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay we can begin here, I don't have time to address these now but I will.
Kelly

Then, when you do have time to begin here, please start off by addressing those points.

Originally posted by humy

avoid just throwing links

you mean links like this:

http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/11/29/human-imperfections-as-proof-that-we-evolved/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

Why not? This DOES show the real physical evidence, right? Surely this is highly relevant to the discussion at hand?

[quote] I' fair enough?

-please fire away with specific question that I WILL try and answer....

These are not proof of poor design because we were wonderfully and awesomely made by the Creator. The imperfections are proof of the activities of Satan, the adversary of the Creator. The Creator pronounced everything good after the creation, and it was not until sin was introduced into the world by the adversary that imperfections began showing up.

The oldest definition of "perfection", fairly precise and distinguishing the shades of the concept, goes back to Aristotle. In Book Delta of the Metaphysics, he distinguishes three meanings of the term, or rather three shades of one meaning, but in any case three different concepts. That is perfect:

1. which is complete — which contains all the requisite parts;
2. which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better;
3. which has attained its purpose.

The first of these concepts is fairly well subsumed within the second. Between those two and the third, however, there arises a duality in concept. This duality was expressed by Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, when he distinguished a twofold perfection: when a thing is perfect in itself — as he put it, in its substance; and when it perfectly serves its purpose.

The parallel existence of two concepts of perfection, one strict ("perfection," as such) and the other loose ("excellence" ), has given rise — perhaps since antiquity but certainly since the Renaissance — to a singular paradox: that the greatest perfection is imperfection. This was formulated by Lucilio Vanini (1585–1619), who had a precursor in the 16th-century writer Joseph Juste Scaliger, and they in turn referred to the ancient philosopher Empedocles. Their argument, as given by the first two, was that if the world were perfect, it could not improve and so would lack "true perfection," which depends on progress. To Aristotle, "perfect" meant "complete" ("nothing to add or subtract" ). To Empedocles, according to Vanini, perfection depends on incompleteness ("perfectio propter imperfectionem" ), since the latter possesses a potential for development and for complementing with new characteristics ("perfectio complementii" ). This view relates to the baroque esthetic of Vanini and Marin Mersenne: the perfection of an art work consists in its forcing the recipient to be active—to complement the art work by an effort of mind and imagination.

The paradox of perfection—that imperfection is perfect—applies not only to human affairs, but to technology. Thus, irregularity in semiconductor crystals (an imperfection, in the form of contaminants) is requisite for the production of semiconductors. The solution to the apparent paradox lies in a distinction between two concepts of "perfection": that of regularity, and that of utility. Imperfection is perfect in technology, in the sense that irregularity is useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
These are not proof of poor design because we were wonderfully and awesomely made by the Creator. The imperfections are proof of the activities of Satan, the adversary of the Creator. The Creator pronounced everything good after the creation, and it was not until sin was introduced into the world by the adversary that imperfections began showing up.

[b] is useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection

The Instructor[/b]

The imperfections are proof of the activities of Satan,

LOL. Your delusions know no bounds. You just keep coming up with ever greater absurdities.
Back to the real world:

There is no evidence of a Satan.

There is evidence for evolution.

Evolution would explain those imperfections and actually predicts that there would be imperfections like them.

Therefore, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that evolution made those imperfections and totally insane to conclude that a Satan made those imperfections.

Originally posted by humy

The imperfections are proof of the activities of Satan,

LOL. Your delusions know no bounds. You just keep coming up with ever greater absurdities.
Back to the real world:

There is no evidence of a Satan.

There is evidence for evolution.

Evolution would explain those imperfections and actually predicts that there would be impe ...[text shortened]... n made those imperfections and totally insane to conclude that a Satan made those imperfections.

"Natural selection" is a coined phrase of the evolutionists to describe the survival of the fittest. Simply stated, it is the natural process which enables the strongest of each generation to survive and the weaker, more poorly adjusted ones to die out. The assumption of evolution is that since only the strongest survive to father the next generation, the species will gradually improve, even advancing into more highly developed states on the evolutionary scale.
Darwin believed that natural selection was the most important factor in the development of his theory. Many of the top teachers of evolution today are helplessly at odds on the question of how vital it is. Sir Julian Huxley believes in it, as this statement indicates: "So far as we know... natural selection... is the only effective agency of evolution." [Evolution in Action, p.36]

He is desputed on this by another one of the heavyweights in the field, Dr. Ernest Mayr: "Natural selection is no longer regarded as an all-or-none process but rather as a purely statistical concept." [Animal Species, p.7]

These opposite views are rejected by G.G. Simpson, who is regarded as the leading interpreter of the theory today. He said, "Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear that evolution has no single cause." [The Geography of Evolution, p.17]

By the way, when you read about the great unity and agreement which exists among scientists regarding evolution, don't believe a word of it. Each one is busily experimenting with new speculative possibilities as to how the changes took place and then abandoning them as they appear more and more ridiculous. The one thing they do agree on is that there was no divine fiat creation as described in the Bible.

But come back a moment to the matter of natural selection. What is the evidence that it can actually reproduce all the changes involved in the transition from amoeba to man? Is there scientific proof that it can even make one small change? When it comes right down to answering those questions the spokesmen for evolution do some of the fanciest footwork in semantics you ever saw and make some of the most amazing admissions. Even though Simpson supports natural selection as a factor, he recognizes the paucity of evidence in these words: "... It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation." [Major Features, pp. 118-119]

But listen to Huxley's circular reasoning on it. He says: "On the basis of our present knowledge, natural selection is bound to produce genetic adaptations: and genetic adaptations are thus presumptive evidence for the efficiency of natural selection." [Evolution in Action, p. 48]

Did you follow that gem of logic? His proof for natural selection is adaptation or change in the organism, but the change is produced by natural selection. (The same faulty kind of logic where people say "The Bible says there's a God; God wrote the Bible." ) In other words: A = B; therefore B = A. His proof proves nothing. Were the changes produced by natural selection or did he invent natural selection to explain the changes? It is just as likely that the changes produced the natural selection theory. The ludicrous thing is that the changes from species to species have never been verified. As we have shown already there is not one shred of fossil evidence or living evidence that any species has ever changed into another. So Huxley's proof for natural selection are changes which never happened and the changes which never happened are offered as proof for natural selection. Surely this is the most vacuous logic to be found in a science textbook.

But let us continue with Sir Julian's explanation of the reliability of this natural selection process: "To sum up, natural selection converts randomness into direction, and blind chance into apparent purpose. It operates with the aid of time to produce improvements in the machinery of living, and in the process generates results of a more than astronomical improbability which could have been achieved in no other way." [Evolution in Action, pp. 54-55]

Don't miss the force of that last sentence. The evolutionary changes wrought by natural selection are "astronomically improbable," but because our friend Huxley sees no other way for it to be done, he believes in the astronomically improbable.

Since Sir Julian doesn't believe in a divine creation, he has to invent a miracle working process to explain the existence of these complex creatures, who obviously got here somehow. To illustrate the omnipotence of his "natural selection" god, Huxley computed the odds against such a process. The computations were done on the likelihood of every favorable evolutionary factor being able to produce a horse. Now keep in mind that this is all a chance development through the operation of nature, time, mutation, and natural selection. In his book Evolution in Action, Huxley gave the odds this way: "The figure 1 with three million naughts after it: and that would take three large volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print! ... no one would bet on anything so improbable happening; and yet it has happened." [p. 46] This is 1 : 10 ^ 3,000,000.

These odds would tend to show evolutionists believe in the impossible. Since this figure of compound probability is effectively zero, how can a scientific mind, in the absence of any demonstratable evidence, be so dogmatic in defending such a theory? Why did Huxley employ a mathematical formula to illustrate the impossibility of his theory working? Perhaps he used the figures to accent his personal testimony. Just as born-again Christians seek occassions to bear their personal testimony of faith in Christ, Huxley demolishes the scientific possibilities of his theory in order to magnify the personal faith aspect of his personal testimony for the god evolution.

Marshall and Sandra Hall in their book, The Truth -- God or Evolution? share their reaction to Huxley's absurd faith in the chance production of a horse. It will provide a fitting climax of proof that evolution indeed flunked the science test.

"And, let us remind you who find such odds ridiculous (even if you are reassured by Mr. Huxley), that this figure was calculated for the evolution of a horse! How many more volumes of zeroes would be required by Mr. Huxley to produce a human being? And then you would have just one horse and one human being, and, unless the mathematician wants to add in the probability for the evolution of all the plants and animals that are necessary to support a horse and a man, you would have a sterile world where neither could have survived any stage of its supposed evolution! What have we now -- the figure 1 followed by a thousand volumes of zeroes? Then add another thousand volumes of zeroes for the improbability of the earth having all the necessary properties of life built into it. Add another thousand volumes for the improbability of the sun, and our orbit, and our daily rotation, and the moon, and the stars. Add other thousands for the evolution of all the thoughts that man can have, all the objective and subjective reality that ebbs and flows in us like part of the pulsebeat of an inscrutable cosmos!

"Add them all in and you long ago stopped talking about rational thought, much less scientific evidence. Yet, Simpson, Huxley, Dobzhansky, Mayr, and dozens of others continue to tell us that is the way it had to be! They have retreated from all the points which ever lent any semblance of credibility to the evolutionary theory. Now they busy themselves with esoteric mathematical formulations based upon population genetics, random drift, isolation, and other ploys which have a probability of accounting for life on earth of minus zero! They clutter our libraries, and press on the minds of people everywhere an animated waxen image of a theory that has been dead for over a decade.

"Evolution has no claim whatsoever to being a science. "It is time all this nonsense ceased. It is time to bury the corpse. It is time to shift the books to the humorous fiction section of the libraries." [pp. 39-40]

This folly reassures that one has no cause to be embarrassed for creationist faith. Millions have been intimidated by the high-sounding technical language of educated evolutionists, many of whom are vitriolic in their attacks on special creation. What we do need is more information on exposing the loopholes in the evolutionary theory; its base is so riddled with unscientific inconsistencies, often concealed under the gobbledegook of scientific jargon

http://www.wwco.com/religion/believe/believe_15.html

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
What we do need is more information on exposing the loopholes in the evolutionary theory; its base is so riddled with unscientific inconsistencies, often concealed under the gobbledegook of scientific jargon

Interesting. Might you be able to name one? Which of the list of 25 objections would you consider the second most compelling?

Originally posted by RJHinds
"Natural selection" is a coined phrase of the evolutionists to describe the survival of the fittest. Simply stated, it is the natural process which enables the strongest of each generation to survive and the weaker, more poorly adjusted ones to die out. The assumption of evolution is that since only the strongest survive to father the next generation, the sp w.wwco.com/religion/believe/believe_15.html

The Instructor

"Natural selection" is a coined phrase of the evolutionists to describe the survival of the fittest.

No it isn’t. And it is a term coined by Darwin who was an agnostic who started off as being a devout Christian.

Simply stated, it is the natural process which enables the strongest of each generation to survive and the weaker, more poorly adjusted ones to die out.

That is incomplete at best and misleading at worst..
Here is some much better ones that all describe the same thing:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/natural+selection

and here is my one that, again describe the same thing but I judge to be better than all those others but still not necessarily close to the best possible definition:

Natural selection is the process in nature by which the habitat of a population of a species favors some innate inheritable treats that are in some but not all individuals because those innate treats make those individuals better adapted to their habitat and, as a result, those individuals with those treats will tend to both survive and reproduce in greater numbers than those individuals that do not have those treats thus tending to result in an increasing the proportion of the population that has those traits in succeeding generations and this may eventually lead to the whole population having those treats.

Similarly, natural selection is also the process by which the habitat of a population of a species disfavors those individuals that have innate inheritable treats that make them less adapted to both survive and reproduce and thus this tends to result in a decrease in the proportion of the population that has those traits in succeeding generations and thus these disfavored treats tend to be weeded out of the population by the process.

[off topic]

Anybody; does anybody (excluding Creationist) who understands evolution got there own favored definition of natural selection? If so, I like to hear it.

[/off topic]

The assumption of evolution is that since only the strongest survive to father the next generation,

NO. That is not an assumption of evolution. It is the BEST ADAPTED to BOTH survive AND then reproduce that is generally selected by natural selection and even that is probabilistic because sometimes, at least on the rare occasion, the best adapted do NOT survive to reproduce! That is because there is a certain element of lack involved as well but that doesn't stop evolution in the long run but merely makes it slightly slower.

the species will gradually improve, even advancing into more highly developed states on the evolutionary scale.

there is no “ evolutionary scale”.

The rest of your post is just total nonsense.