23 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayI'd say something beyond a random process is at play there. Fortunately we have a theory that describes this. You can read more about this theory here:
Rocks can be found in a million different places and random placement may or not be the cause. Now if you run across some rocks in a formation that spells "Welcome to Hoopeston" do think that placement is random? So all of the information within DNA, you think randomness is the cause there, or something more than rock placement is going on?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraWell if there is a link, why give your thoughts?
I'd say something beyond a random process is at play there. Fortunately we have a theory that describes this. You can read more about this theory here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
23 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou mean "If evolution theory was falsifiable I guess then it could be regarded as a genuine theory.", right?
If evolution was falsifiable I guess then it could be regarded as a genuine theory. How do you prove something wrong that you have never directly observed and supposedly needs millions of years to happen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
theories ... are falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which could negate them.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraWas the rock placed randomly or by intent?
An example of a non-random process not requiring intelligent intervention would be the placement of a rock somewhere. One might find said rock in (almost) exactly the same place the next day, in a rather predictable fashion, seemingly without the intervention of supernatural deities.
"Biological evolution" is evolution as applied to biology. Evoluti ...[text shortened]... curs in other situations as well. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_(disambiguation)
Originally posted by @kellyjayI think he means finding the rock without the intervention of supernatural deities rather than the rock not moving.
Well if there is a link, why give your thoughts?
Or maybe he meant the rock did not move (remained unmoved) without the intervention of supernatural deities... which means what, the rock was able to stay put without God's help?
Naw, that can't be it... unless that is it... or something else.
Maybe KN is inviting us to go on one of his playful snipe hunts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipe_hunt
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahu#Catching_a_dahu
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 Sep 17
Originally posted by @apathistSo which observation could possibly negate something that is imagined and supposedly takes millions of years to happen?
You mean "If evolution [b]theory was falsifiable I guess then it could be regarded as a genuine theory.", right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
theories ... are falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which could negate them.[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraNo I think I have trouble understanding how a rock lying somewhere somehow proves that 'natural selection' is not an intelligent mechanism.
A rock lying somewhere is both an actual process I can reference as well as one I can imagine. Do you have trouble with the concept of rocks lying somewhere?
Hmmm... a rock lying somewhere is a process. Okay, so it's in the process of lying somewhere and is itself a process... because it's there. And the next day it's still there, but it's not still there because God needed to intervene to make sure it stayed there because... because it's a rock. It's a lazy old rock that has nothing better to do than just sit where it is, and not go anywhere or do anything...
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wolfgang59Ok maybe you could try to explain how a rock lying around somehow proves that 'natural selection' is not an intelligent mechanism? Go on give it your best shot.
yep
24 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYour claim was that a process not being "random" implies "intelligent" intervention. Are you going to substantiate that claim?
Ok maybe you could try to explain how a rock lying around somehow proves that 'natural selection' is not an intelligent mechanism? Go on give it your best shot.
24 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWhy?
Ok maybe you could try to explain how a rock lying around somehow proves that 'natural selection' is not an intelligent mechanism? Go on give it your best shot.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wolfgang59Uhm maybe because you have something insightful to offer?
Why?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraNo I asked you "Would you care to explain a process that is neither random nor driven by an 'intelligent mechanism' that 'improves' things?"
Your claim was that a process not being "random" implies "intelligent" intervention. Are you going to substantiate that claim?
You said a rock being placed somewhere.
Yet you could not tell me who or what placed a rock somewhere and for what reason. You could also not tell me how that improves things.
24 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYes, you did claim that a non-random process necessarily requires intelligent intervention.
No I asked you "Would you care to explain a process that is neither random nor driven by an 'intelligent mechanism' that 'improves' things?"
You said a rock being placed somewhere.
Yet you could not tell me who or what placed a rock somewhere and for what reason. You could also not tell me how that improves things.
A stationary rock does not require intelligent intervention to remain stationary.