Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Evolution isn't random and until you understand that you will not understand evolution.

Evolution is random changes that are then SELECTED by the ability for that change to be passed on. Your watch doesn't get to play the selection game because it is what it is it can't change. If life was static then it too would require a designer but it's not static. It changes to fit its enviroment. Saying that evolution doesn't work because a watch requires a designer just shows that you need to learn more about the theory from a reputable location not a site that is promoting a theology.

---

If something is random, then it is NOT by design. If something is not random, then it must be BY DESIGN.

Random

adj.

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

idiom:

at random

1. Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically: chose a card at random from the deck.

random: Definition, Synonyms and Much More from Answers.com

And if it is by design, then an Intelligence must have designed it for a purpose.

Your logic is flawed. Selection is done by survival which isn't chance or design.

De Maria, can you tell me an example of something that you believe is random (by your definition, that is, not designed)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Your logic is flawed.

---

No. I'm pretty sure I've got it right.

Quote:

---

Selection is done by survival which isn't chance or design.

---

If something isn't either by chance or by design? Then by what is it?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

De Maria, can you tell me an example of something that you believe is random (by your definition, that is, not designed)?

---

Capuchin?

Have you not noticed you are speaking to a Christian? In my opinion, there is no such thing as luck or chance. All is by God's providence. Therefore, nothing is random.

Let me explain in more detail.

Random means lack of predictability. The more an event can be predicted, the less random the event.

Lets consider the roll of a dice. Here's my prediction concerning rolling a die. One of the six sides will face upwards.

How random is that? Not very. The randomness has been reduced to six sides.

Who reduced the randomness? Men did. It would be utterly ridiculous to bet on something which could never be predicted (total randomness or total chaos). No one would ever win.

So, who reduced the randomness in the universe? Who introduced order? Who made the laws which the universe obeys?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Lets consider the roll of a dice. Here's my prediction concerning rolling a die. One of the six sides will face upwards.

How random is that? Not very. The randomness has been reduced to six sides.

---

Your stance seems confused here, you first say that nothing is random, and then say that a dice is "not very random" and you talk about "degrees of randomness".

Is the side that faces up when you roll a dice random? Or designed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Your stance seems confused here, you first say that nothing is random,

---

That is true. Nothing is random to God. It is all by God's design.

But many things appear random to us because we can't predict the outcome.

Quote:

---

and then say that a dice is "not very random"

---

With reference to a rolling die.

In a completely random action, the result is not related to the cause. There is complete and absolute unpredictability. An explosion approximates this type of complete randomness.

Therefore, a rolling die is not very random. There are only six possibilities. Men reduced the odds.

Quote:

---

and you talk about "degrees of randomness".

---

Correct. There is more unpredictability, more randomness, in the outcome of rolling a pair of dice than there is in rolling only one. The probability one will predict the outcome of rolling a pair of dice is lower than that of rolling one die.

This universe is completely predictable to God. Therefore it is not random to God at all.

But to us, this universe is less random today than it was a century ago because we have discovered more and more laws of nature and physics by which we can predict the behavior of God's creatures.

Quote:

---

Is the side that faces up when you roll a dice random? Or designed?

---

It is by the hand of God. But it is random to us is in the degree of 1 out of 6 outcomes. We know we can't roll a seven if we roll only one die.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

Does it take "faith" to accept the assumptions and methods of science?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

No, it just takes a willingness to be bound by the limits of observation, measurement, and reasoning in formulating explanations.

---

If that were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

OK, let me ask you, the Big Bang theory says:

... the primary assertion that the universe has expanded into its current state from an initial state of infinite density and temperature.

Where do scientists observe and measure this state of infinite density and temperature.? Please give me the address, I'd like to see this with my own eyes.

The answer is nowhere. It is an assumption. An untestable, unmeasurable assumption.

That's just one, I believe I've mentioned many more scientific assumptions in the course of these discussions which simply can't be measured nor observed. Yet Scientists will defend them tooth and nail.

Quote:

---

Faith is simply the choice not to be bound by those limits, so that the set of all possible explanations is much larger.

---

In this statement you are simply belittling faith in God as though it were some thoughtless coping mechanism. But the fact is, faith in God is reasoned. We see the wonderful works of creation and we come to the reasonable conclusion that a wonderful Being must have created them. We've never seen anything designed with intelligence arise of its own power from chance or random occurrences. Therefore we come to the reasonable conclusion that God exists.

Faith in God does not oppose reason nor does it oppose faith in men. It does however put us at odds concerning the assumptions we accept.

You believe that God does not exist and therefore did not create the universe. Therefore you have faith in those scientists which claim they have discovered that God did not create the universe. You display this faith because you defend them even though their assumptions can't be tested or measured. And neither can they be reasoned.

We believe that God does exist and did create the universe. Our assumption can't be tested or measured but it can be reasoned. Order does not arise from disorder. Order only arises from intelligent design. That connotes the existence of a Great Designer. God.

Faith does not oppose reason. But that doesn't mean that scientists are all acting reasonably at all times. Nor does that mean that all scientific claims are reasonable.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

With reference to a rolling die.

In a completely random action, the result is not related to the cause. There is complete and absolute unpredictability. An explosion approximates this type of complete randomness.

---

Well, I would contest that you are wrong here. If we know enough information about how a die is thrown, and about the surface conditions, the weight and shape of the die, we can accurately predict how it will land with computer modelling.

Contrary to what you said, the result is completely related to the cause. Rolling a die is a completely predictable process that obeys the laws of physics.

In an explosion, the result is not random at all. It is completely predictable provided we know enough information about what is going into the explosion. We use the order of explosions every day to power our cars, send satellites into space, predict the outcome of particle accelerator collisions.

It is not random ("to man"), it is not designed ("by man"). It is something else that you refuse to believe exists. "Random" is a very rare thing in this world, true randomness is incredibly hard to find. You'll find that most things are actually neither random or designed: like evolution, like the big bang, the order or "evidence of design" comes from the fact that what comes next depends on what happened before, even in explosions. It arises completely by natural processes. There is no need to evoke a designer to explain the appearance of design - this appearance is simply a thing that humanity has attributed to it.

Why is there order instead of chaos? Because simple rules - like gravitation, like the competition for limited resources, can obviously produce order from a chaotic system. The rules are order and come from the inherent properties of the systems they act on.

But where do the laws of physics - gravity , chemical bonding, electrical and magnetic properties come from?


I'd like to see you ask all the dice questions the next time your at a craps table. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

OK, let me ask you, the Big Bang theory says:

... the primary assertion that the universe has expanded into its current state from an initial state of infinite density and temperature.

Where do scientists observe and measure this state of infinite density and temperature.? Please give me the address, I'd like to see this with my own eyes.

The answer is nowhere. It is an assumption. An untestable, unmeasurable assumption.

That's just one, I believe I've mentioned many more scientific assumptions in the course of these discussions which simply can't be measured nor observed. Yet Scientists will defend them tooth and nail.

---

You're confusing assumptions with inferences. A number of alternatives to the Standard Model of cosmological development have been proposed, but none have been as successful at predicting and explaining available measurements and observations.

Quote:

---

When Albert Einstein developed his general theory of relativity in 1917, this was used as a mathematical starting point for most cosmological theories including the big bang and the steady state theories. In order to arrive at a cosmological model, however, theoreticians needed to make assumptions about the nature of the largest scales of the universe. The assumptions that the Big Bang relied upon were:

1. the universality of physical laws — that the laws of physics don't change from one place and time to another,
2. the cosmological principle — that the universe is roughly homogeneous and isotropic in space though not necessarily in time, and
3. the Copernican principle — that we are not observing the universe from a preferred locale.

These assumptions when applied to the Einstein equations naturally result in a universe which has the following features:

1. an expansion of the universe,
2. the universe emerging from a hot, dense state at a finite time in the past,
3. the lightest elements were created in the first moments that time existed as we know it, and
4. a cosmic microwave background pervading the entire universe should exist, which is a record of a phase transition that occurred when the atoms of the universe first formed.

These features were derived by numerous individuals over a period of years; indeed it was not until the middle of the twentieth century that accurate predictions of the last feature and observations confirming its existence were made. Non-standard theories developed either by starting from different assumptions or by contradicting the features predicted by the Big Bang.

---

But really, you're advocating for a Religious cosmology as opposed to Physical cosmology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

But where do the laws of physics - gravity , chemical bonding, electrical and magnetic properties come from?

---

We don't know where gravity and electric charge come from. You can say that God did it, knock yourself out. But that pretty much means God has done nothing since the moment of the big bang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

We don't know where gravity and electric charge come from. You can say that God did it, knock yourself out. But that pretty much means God has done nothing since the moment of the big bang.

---

He can say god did it just don't ask us to teach that in schools. Really for the most part I don't really care if he doesn't believe in evolution, the big bang or a round earth. As long as they keep their religion to themselves and don't push god into the classrooms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

He can say god did it just don't ask us to teach that in schools. Really for the most part I don't really care if he doesn't believe in evolution, the big bang or a round earth. As long as they keep their religion to themselves and don't push god into the classrooms.

---

FYI - he homeschools his kids. They should have an interesting future to say the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Well, I would contest that you are wrong here. If we know enough information about how a die is thrown, and about the surface conditions, the weight and shape of the die, we can accurately predict how it will land with computer modelling.

---

You just substantiated my argument.

Quote:

---

Contrary to what you said, the result is completely related to the cause. Rolling a die is a completely predictable process that obeys the laws of physics.

---

Thank you. As I said, not completely random. If it were completely random, it would be completely unpredictable.

Quote:

---

In an explosion, the result is not random at all. It is completely predictable provided we know enough information about what is going into the explosion.

---

Since we are speaking of the Big Bang, the closer model of explosion is that of a firecracker or a grenade, not of an engine whose explosion is directed in a certain direction.

Quote:

---

We use the order of explosions every day to power our cars, send satellites into space, predict the outcome of particle accelerator collisions.

---

True. And if you picture the chaos of the Shuttle explosion, you will see what I was describing. A random event.

Very simple experiment. Get a firecracker. Take several markers and paint the outside of the firecracker with various colors. Now, make a diagram of precisely where the various colors will land after you explode the firecracker.

Quote:

---

It is not random ("to man"), it is not designed ("by man"). It is something else that you refuse to believe exists. "Random" is a very rare thing in this world, true randomness is incredibly hard to find. You'll find that most things are actually neither random or designed: like evolution, like the big bang, the order or "evidence of design" comes from the fact that what comes next depends on what happened before, even in explosions. It arises completely by natural processes.

---

Exactly! This is why there must be a designer.

Quote:

---

There is no need to evoke a designer to explain the appearance of design - this appearance is simply a thing that humanity has attributed to it.

---

Because we reason from what we see. We are not familiar with any thing which behaves intelligently and which contains such beautiful design which is in fact copied by many scientists, which is not the result of intelligent design.

We are not familiar with anything which creates itself.

Quote:

---

Why is there order instead of chaos? Because simple rules - like gravitation, like the competition for limited resources, can obviously produce order from a chaotic system. The rules are order and come from the inherent properties of the systems they act on.

---

But order does not come from chaos. Order comes from intelligence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

You're confusing assumptions with inferences.

---

Since the assumptions are inferred on both sides, I don't think so.

Quote:

---

A number of alternatives to the Standard Model of cosmological development have been proposed, but none have been as successful at predicting and explaining available measurements and observations.

But really, you're advocating for a Religious cosmology as opposed to Physical cosmology.

---

How does "religious" cosmology differ from "physical" cosmology?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

We don't know where gravity and electric charge come from. You can say that God did it, knock yourself out. But that pretty much means God has done nothing since the moment of the big bang.

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

He can say god did it just don't ask us to teach that in schools.

---

So, we have the freedom to say that god did it outside of School but not in School.

Why then do you have the freedom to teach that God didn't do it? Why not say, "Some believe God is the author of Creation, some don't believe in God so they don't."

Why not present the arguments for the existence of God and the arguments for the absence of God and let the children make up their own minds?

Quote:

---

Really for the most part I don't really care if he doesn't believe in evolution, the big bang or a round earth. As long as they keep their religion to themselves and don't push god into the classrooms.

---

Why must an unrealistic picture of real life be portrayed in the classroom? Obviously many people believe in God and believe they have the evidence of His existence in their own marvelously designed bodies, in the design of the tiniest, most insignificant microbe and in the great power of the ocean and the limitless wonder of the heavens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Why not present the arguments for the existence of God

---

Because there are none that correspond to observable evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

So, we have the freedom to say that god did it outside of School but not in School.

---

Exactly, in your home you can believe what ever crazy thing you want but in school you have to go by the accepted science. You wouldn't want us to teach that the world is flat even though the bible says so would you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Why then do you have the freedom to teach that God didn't do it? Why not say, "Some believe God is the author of Creation, some don't believe in God so they don't."

---

They aren't teaching that god didn't do it any more than they are teaching that the tooth fairy didn't do it. They are teaching the basics of evolution which you agree with so I don't see the problem with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Why not present the arguments for the existence of God and the arguments for the absence of God and let the children make up their own minds?.

---

Because you should be doing that in your home. It is not the schools job to teach your religion or anyone else's for that matter. It is the schools job to teach math, english, history and science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Why must an unrealistic picture of real life be portrayed in the classroom? Obviously many people believe in God and believe they have the evidence of His existence in their own marvelously designed bodies, in the design of the tiniest, most insignificant microbe and in the great power of the ocean and the limitless wonder of the heavens.

---

Because it's not the schools job to teach your kids about life. It's your responsibility. If you can come up with a test that proves your god over any other generic god or no god. Then you could get it taught in a science class but until then your god has not more importance than anyone else claiming responsibility for creation.