logicboy:

Buzugee, do you smoke weed?

I used to. not till i found out it was a sin

logicboy:


Adaptation, natural selection. Evolution is tied to survival no matter how random it is.What is complex? A mammal that lays eggs or not?

Understand me, The analogy implies that evolution can come about entirely by randomness. I disagree. If something is tied to survival according to you, How then can you call it random?

Not complete randomness. Survival of the fittest. The gene would propagate itself in the best host.

I agree

You should try to understand the terms you are using. There are spontaneous and induced mutations. Evolution is not completely random. This is one of the basic misconception about evolution.

We are both saying the same thing, the analogy of cards presented here is a very weak analogy. Evolution is guided. Besides there is no such thing as "completely random or incompletely random" it is either it is ordered or it is random.

It makes sense not

Too bad. Anyway we've moved past it now

buzugee: I used to. not till i found out it was a sin

hahaha, mad man.

Legalize the ganja!

Uptill this moment of interaction on NL, every branch of science separately affirms the invalidity of evolution. Despite this, evolutionists continue to cling to Darwin’s “explanations.” They even add new fabrications to the old ones. But these will still not make Darwin’s famous barrel experiment work, because evolutionists still do not think scientifically. They do not accept the fact that the Almighty God created all living things. All the followers of Darwin up to the present time have been proven wrong.

logicboy:


hahaha, mad man.

Legalize the ganja!

Am afraid legalizing it wont help me at this point . i cant be polluting the temple of the holy spirit. i guess my weed career is over

Mr_Anony:
Understand me, The analogy implies that evolution can come about entirely by randomness. I disagree. If something is tied to survival according to you, How then can you call it random?

I agree

We are both saying the same thing, the analogy of cards presented here is a very weak analogy. Evolution is guided. Besides there is no such thing as "completely random or incompletely random" it is either it is ordered or it is random.

Too bad. Anyway we've moved past it now

A game of cards is both random and calculated. The shuffling of cards makes it random but you have to know how to add numbers to win the game.

Use your brain. Stop trying to fit creationism into common sense

Some scientists are aware of the miracle of cells. They acknowledge that life cannot come into being from inanimate matter. Darwin the magician and evolutionists have made several false claims about cells and living things. But now you know very well that it is Almighty God Who created everything.

These are what some scientist have to say:

The chance that higher life
forms might have emerged in
this way is comparable with
the chance that a tornado
sweeping through a junk-yard
might assemble a Boeing 747
from the materials therein. —
Sir Fred Hoyle

The most elementary type of cell constitutes a
“mechanism” unimaginably more complex than
any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed,
by man. —W.H. Thorpe

logicboy:

A game of cards is both random and calculated. The shuffling of cards makes it random but you have to know how to add numbers to win the game.

Are you talking about the analogy presented or are you talking about a generic game of cards somewhere else?

Use your brain. Stop trying to fit creationism into common sense

Wow, I marvel at how you reason. I have not yet fitted creationism anywhere, I was so far just pointing out how the analogy doesn't accurately describe evolution but your bias took the better of you.

^^^ what is the place of Evolutionism in Creationism. Two different angles pointing to different directions.

For a century and a half now, the theory of evolution has received extensive support from the scientific community. The science of biology is defined in terms of evolutionist concepts. That is why, between the two explanations of creation and evolution, the majority of people assume the evolutionist explanation to be scientific. But it is not.

Mr_Anony:
Are you talking about the analogy presented or are you talking about a generic game of cards somewhere else?

A general card game

Mr_Anony:
Wow, I marvel at how you reason. I have not yet fitted creationism anywhere, I was so far just pointing out how the analogy doesn't accurately describe evolution but your bias took the better of you.

You are using creationists talking points against evolution eg total randomness

Accordingly, they believe evolution to be a theory supported by the observational findings of science, while creation is thought to be a belief based on faith. As a matter of fact, however, scientific findings do not support the theory of evolution. Findings from the last two decades in particular openly contradict the basic assumptions of this theory. Many branches of science, such as paleontology, biochemistry, population genetics, molecular biology, comparative anatomy and biophysics, indicate that natural processes and coincidental effects cannot explain life, as the theory of evolution proposes, and that all life forms were created flawlessly.

Only-Rebel:
Uptill this moment of interaction on NL, every branch of science separately affirms the invalidity of evolution. Despite this, evolutionists continue to cling to Darwin’s “explanations.” They even add new fabrications to the old ones. But these will still not make Darwin’s famous barrel experiment work, because evolutionists still do not think scientifically. They do not accept the fact that the Almighty God created all living things. All the followers of Darwin up to the present time have been proven wrong.

Stop impersonating a human being. #na wash. You copy and pasted without acknowledging the original author as well as failed to read the article. Creationists are truly dishonest.

^^
Evolutionists are ever known with propaganda. Finding every way to make cheap points. This has been your lot since last century. Evolutionism remains a fallacy, that is the truth of the matter. What cheap points are you making here? All I have written about have been my thought since the day I learnt that concepts of biology is built on this generational lie (Evolution).

Only-Rebel:
^^
Evolutionists are ever known with propaganda. Finding every way to make cheap points. This has been your lot since last century. Evolutionism remains a fallacy, that is the truth of the matter. What cheap points are you making here? All I have written about have been my thought since the day I learnt that concepts of biology is built on this generational lie (Evolution).

Do you think for a moment that you're fooling anyone? Your lies have been exposed already

logicboy:

List of lies in this creationist babble

-Darwin was an atheist. False. (Darwin was an agnostic)
-Evolution has been proven to be False. False. (Creationism has been debunked, evolution has proof; fossils, current evolution and dna)
-Science has proven that God has created all things. False. (There has never been a physical proof of God)

logicboy:

A general card game

How does a general card game affect our discussion? I am critciczing a very faulty analogy and then you decide to pull out a general card game from God knows where. Is this logical and reasonable to you?

You are using creationists talking points against evolution eg total randomness

Once you introduce some form of order into anything no matter how small it seems to be, It can no longer be described as a random phenomenon..........One more thing, please argue against the points I am making. Branding people into a sect so that you can criticize the sect is poor reasoning. Learn to debate properly.

ea7: Stop impersonating a human being. #na wash. You copy and pasted without acknowledging the original author as well as failed to read the article. [b]Creationists [/b]are truly dishonest.

Stereotyping

Mr_Anony:
How does a general card game affect our discussion? I am critciczing a very faulty analogy and then you decide to pull out a general card game from God knows where. Is this logical and reasonable to you?

This is the disadvantage of pock-nosing and busy body! Sorry, didnt get the original content or gist! My apologies!

Mr_Anony:
Once you introduce some form of order into anything no matter how small it seems to be, It can no longer be described as a random phenomenon..........One more thing, please argue against the points I am making. Branding people into a sect so that you can criticize the sect is poor reasoning. Learn to debate properly.

Bullsh1t. Havent you heard of;

-semi-random sampling
-pseudorandom number generators?

logicboy:

This is the disadvantage of pock-nosing and busy body! Sorry, didnt get the original content or gist! My apologies!

Accepted

Bullsh1t. Havent you heard of;

-semi-random sampling
-pseudorandom number generators?

Actually I haven't you are telling me. However if you say something is pseudo- hen it means that it is not really what it is i.e "pseudorandom" means "not truly random."
I would ask you at this point to tell me exactly what semi-random sampling is (and please "google it" is a very lazy answer)

Mr_Anony:
Accepted



Actually I haven't you are telling me. However if you say something is pseudo- hen it means that it is not really what it is i.e "pseudorandom" means "not truly random."
I would ask you at this point to tell me exactly what semi-random sampling is (and please "google it" is a very lazy answer)

Semi-random sampling;

This is sampling by selecting sample members from a random starting point with a fixed interval.

If I pick every 50th person from a poulation of 6,000. Itis both random and calculated.

Ok fine thanks for explaining to me, the point I was making however is that randomness and order a like light and dark. One there is a little light, the place can no longer be called dark but this doesn't bear so much on our discussion.

Now back to talking about evolution, the analogy of cards fails because every stage is a random number i.e. mutations are totally random and every mutation that doesn't help the species to survive results in the end of that species and hence the surviving species continue (survival of the fittest). If this is true, it would explain why people in a warm climate like Africa have dark skin since it helps guard against sun-burn so the theory could be that at one point people in Africa randomly evolved white and others black but black survived because it could adapt while white disappeared. But then on the flip side this should also be the same for Europe people should randomly evolve black and white since both can survive anyway, none of the two should be predominant. Hence we should have indigenous Negros in Europe as well. However this is not the case.(this was the point I made earlier that you didn't understand)

What we observe are species that adapt to their environment. This would suggest that mutations aren't mindlessly random but are specifically and consciously guided so that the organism fits in the environment. I.e. The gene wants to survive and evolves in such a way as to ensure that it does survive. Do you agree?

Mr_Anony: Ok fine thanks for explaining to me, the point I was making however is that randomness and order a like light and dark. One there is a little light, the place can no longer be called dark but this doesn't bear so much on our discussion.

Now back to talking about evolution, the analogy of cards fails because every stage is a random number i.e. mutations are totally random and every mutation that doesn't help the species to survive results in the end of that species and hence the surviving species continue (survival of the fittest). If this is true, it would explain why people in a warm climate like Africa have dark skin since it helps guard against sun-burn so the theory could be that at one point people in Africa randomly evolved white and others black but black survived because it could adapt while white disappeared. But then on the flip side this should also be the same for Europe people should randomly evolve black and white since both can survive anyway, none of the two should be predominant. Hence we should have indigenous Negros in Europe as well. However this is not the case.(this was the point I made earlier that you didn't understand)

What we observe are species that adapt to their environment. This would suggest that mutations aren't mindlessly random but are specifically and consciously guided so that the organism fits in the environment. I.e. The gene wants to survive and evolves in such a way as to ensure that it does survive. Do you agree?

Consciously guided? Where did that idea come from? Most of our body parts are badly adapted to the environment even after millions of years of evolution. Most people can not walk on stones. I could because I grew up with a stony compound. Most of the earth isnt smooth. Try living barefoot in the forest.

Your black and white story is just babble. It is more plausible that the first humans in africa were dark and as they migrated to colder Europe or North America, they became lighter skinned.

logicboy:

Consciously guided? Where did that idea come from? Most of our body parts are badly adapted to the environment even after millions of years of evolution. Most people can not walk on stones. I could because I grew up with a stony compound. Most of the earth isnt smooth. Try living barefoot in the forest.

Or perhaps we can't walk on stones because we've been wearing shoes so much that we don't need to adapt to a rough earth

Your black and white story is just babble. It is more plausible that the first humans in africa were dark and as they migrated to colder Europe or North America, they became lighter skinned.

Ok then if that is the case, then there would still be indigenous negroes in Europe even more so because according to the analogy a harmless mutation doesn't die it stays all the same.

Mr_Anony:
Or perhaps we can't walk on stones because we've been wearing shoes so much that we don't need to adapt to a rough earth



Ok then if that is the case, then there would still be indigenous negroes in Europe even more so because according to the analogy a harmless mutation doesn't die it stays all the same.

I dont know. At this point, I am only guessing.

logicboy:

I dont know. At this point, I am only guessing.

I am not challenging whether it is a guess or not, all I am saying is that the above analogy is wrong. Evolution is not random at all. It is definitely guided. The question now is what is guiding it?

Mr_Anony:
I am not challenging whether it is a guess or not, all I am saying is that the above analogy is wrong. Evolution is not random at all. It is definitely guided. The question now is what is guiding it?

Evolution is both random and systematic, just like a game of cards. The shuffling makes it random but the mathematical rules of the card game makes it systematic- the players can have different approaches to winning based on the rules.

I dont know how you jumped into a guiding force. There is no purpose in evolution other than to survive and many animals fail this basic survival test. No guiding force

logicboy:


Evolution is both random and systematic, just like a game of cards. The shuffling makes it random but the mathematical rules of the card game makes it systematic- the players can have different approaches to winning based on the rules.

Once there are any rules, then the results cannot be random.

I dont know how you jumped into a guiding force. There is no purpose in evolution other than to survive and many animals fail this basic survival test. No guiding force

Once something can not be defined as random, then it is guided i.e there is an order to it.


If survival was the only purpose of evolution and all organisms evolved from a common simple ancestor, then it follows that organisms will only evolve to the extent that they are just complex enough to survive and then they would stop evolving. Or they evolve only into life forms that can live longest i.e. we should all have evolved into trees or something of the sort instead of fickle animals, the most evolved animals would be the ones that live longest. None of these is true.