04 Jul 15
Originally posted by josephwYou obviously just got upset by the word 'evolution' and answered without thinking. Please think for a bit before responding next time.
"Predictions of evolution"? That's just speculation!
And no, it is not just 'speculation'.
By assuming the logic that nature "makes" anything is to assume nature causes things to occur by design, which assumes an intelligent designer.
No, that doesn't follow. It is you that is using false logic.
04 Jul 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy do you always assume I'm "upset"?
You obviously just got upset by the word 'evolution' and answered without thinking. Please think for a bit before responding next time.
And no, it is not just 'speculation'.
[b]By assuming the logic that nature "makes" anything is to assume nature causes things to occur by design, which assumes an intelligent designer.
No, that doesn't follow. It is you that is using false logic.[/b]
Is it because you feel attacked by the idea that your beloved theory of evolution can be so easily undermined?
My point is valid. "Nature" doesn't "make" anything! Your assertion that what exists(nature)is capable of causation is as much a figment of the imagination as is the theory of evolution.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29756
05 Jul 15
Originally posted by RJHindsMan in his perfect state was left handed. Deal with it.
So how does 10 per cent left handed fit with evolution? Couldn't God have made all men right handed and due to errors (mutations) during reproduction that 10 per cent of humans have become left handed?
😉
05 Jul 15
Originally posted by josephwIts not an assumption. Its a deduction based on your behavior. If the deduction is wrong, then perhaps you should give an explanation as to why you react as if you are upset?
Why do you always assume I'm "upset"?
Is it because you feel attacked by the idea that your beloved theory of evolution can be so easily undermined?
It is not my 'beloved theory', and I have not seen it undermined. Certainly not by you.
My point is valid. "Nature" doesn't "make" anything!
Then where do rivers come from?
Your assertion that what exists(nature)is capable of causation is as much a figment of the imagination as is the theory of evolution.
Causation is by definition a property of nature.
I am starting to suspect that we have different understandings of the words you are using.
What do you mean by 'causation'?
What do you mean by 'the theory of evolution'?
05 Jul 15
8 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadhttps://www.khanacademy.org/math/probability/regression/regression-correlation/v/correlation-and-causality
Its not an assumption. Its a deduction based on your behavior. If the deduction is wrong, then perhaps you should give an explanation as to why you react as if you are upset?
[b]Is it because you feel attacked by the idea that your beloved theory of evolution can be so easily undermined?
It is not my 'beloved theory', and I have not seen it underm ...[text shortened]... you are using.
What do you mean by 'causation'?
What do you mean by 'the theory of evolution'?[/b]
The fact that something exists in what we call "NATURE" does NOT mean it is caused by NATURE. We can say trees and flowers and all kinds of animals exist in NATURE as a correlation, but not that one cause the other. What is NATURE without the rivers, mountains, trees, grass, flowers, insects, animals, etc.? Nature is nothing more than a name that we assign to the combination of all these things, like the laws of Nature just means the physical laws that seem to work in the natural world that we can see or detect. It does not mean that NATURE causes these laws. Sometimes we say the laws of the UNIVERSE. WE do not mean that the UNIVERSE caused these laws.
06 Jul 15
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd in that combination of things, there are what we call 'mountain slopes' and what we call 'rain'. In combination, these two things that are part of what we call 'nature' cause what we call 'rivers' to form.
Nature is nothing more than a name that we assign to the combination of all these things,