Evolution, as many percieve it, is wrong. (contradiction, creation, theist)

[Runlikethewind]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Agreed. There is no such thing as randomness or chance. Everything has a cause, we just use these words when something is too complex to explain.

Well said, randomness and chance are terms used to describe things who's causes are to difficult to discern for one reason or another. I like that it sounds right. I think your onto something here Prometheus.

[Scuba Pete]

It's like the definition of "pure". How pure is pure?

For all intents and purposes, an event which can not be accurately predicted is a "chance" event.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Anti-World

The idea is quite simply this:
Chance can not answer the question of creation because chance is replicable and homogenous. His favorite experiment, though rudimentary, is to take a small container and make a sand painting, doesn't matter what it is, then pick up the container and shake it around. After the first shake, what do you notice? The second shake? Each successive random jumbling of the sand particles doesn't create a more complicated sand painting. It homogenizes. Walking on the beach no one is going to see a perfect sand painting of, say, a turtle, completely by chance.
Granted, that's not my favorite experiment.

The sand picture analogy is a good one, but I think it only tells half of the story. Nature does tend towards unorganized uniformity, but there are also examples of where nature can create ordered patters out of chaos. Like pebbles on a beach that can be organized by size and weight by nothing more that the tides, there are countless examples of self-organizing systems that exist in nature. Our solar system is another example of a self-organizing system that “selects” stable orbits, while rejecting unstable ones.

Natural selection is one of those self-organizing systems. It is like a filter that allows some genetic structures through, while eliminating others. The genetic structures that create viable organisms are able to replicate themselves. Genetic structures that do not create viable organisms are removed. The result is organisms that seem perfectly suited for their environment. And all this is accomplished through the laws of nature without the need for a “Guiding Organizing Designing process”.

[logician]

What does evolution have to do with creation? Evolution is only the change of life thru time.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

It's like the definition of "pure". How pure is pure?

Depends on the context. Is it relevant?

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

For all intents and purposes, an event which can not be accurately predicted is a "chance" event.

In colloquial usage, yes I would agree. 'Chance' as meaning random or uncaused is not an accurate description of the events in genetics such as mutation.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by Anti-World

I know you probably came here thinking I was going to give the same evidences that many before me have given and you'll just laugh and walk away.

However, the basis for this argument is *not* belief (I dislike belief) but rather a novel by the name of "The God experiments." I'm going by memory here so I can't remember the authors name, though I don't mean to plagerize.

The idea is quite simply this:
Chance can not answer the question of creation because chance is replicable and homogenous. His favorite experiment, though rudimentary, is to take a small container and make a sand painting, doesn't matter what it is, then pick up the container and shake it around. After the first shake, what do you notice? The second shake? Each successive random jumbling of the sand particles doesn't create a more complicated sand painting. It homogenizes. Walking on the beach no one is going to see a perfect sand painting of, say, a turtle, completely by chance.
Granted, that's not my favorite experiment. Mine was the one with the computer. In that experiment he had a computer randomly generate numbers (1-100) a hundred times then take the average of all the numbers. The average of the numbers (No matter how many times he did it.) was *always* around 50. **And got closer to 50 the more times the computer randomly generated numbers.** If randomization is trully random than why don't we ever get averages of 1? (meaning that 1 was randomly picked a hundred times.) According to chance, this is possible.

*yet every time this experiment is reproduced no strange averages occur*

His proposition, albeit you should probably read the book, was that the universe was ran by a Guiding Organizing Designing process or G.O.D process based on the fact that nothing can be created randomly.

It's completely illogical to say that sand paintings *could* be created if we waited a million years. There's no way to prove that statement and it's a painfully annoying escape route of evolutionists.

I think, based on this book, that some sort of G.O.D. process, as he calls it, made everything through a kind of evolution simply because, like he said, it is the most probable explanation.

I have a suspicion that you are confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

[Moey]

Evolution happens slowly over a long time. Creatures will change to match the invironment as the invironment changes. Man didn't one day just appear.

[Torgo]

The whole "sand shaking around" analogy is not really applicable to evolution, its more like a "proof" that living things in general cannot exist. It reminded me of the way that all of our life processes are ultimately composed of incalculable numbers of molecules vibrating and zipping around at hundreds of meters per second, hitting each other and reacting. Despite the seeming "randomness" of this process, you have egg cells with the appropriate DNA and mechanisms to read that DNA into proteins following a recipe to grow into whole organisms. We resist the second law of thermodynamics for a few decades - we couple the breakdown of food and production of heat to a smaller increase in the organization and energy content of our bodies. Self-organizing systems DO exist.

That being said, a living thing by definition reproduces. Organisms that can reproduce well become more common. Those traits that allow faster reproduction spread until they also become common within a population. DNA can undergo a fantastic array of rearrangements and duplications and changes every single time a cell divides, and there are occasions when this does not harm or kill the cell but could have an overall effect on a creature that carries this genetic change. The "shaking" analogy really has nothing do do with evolution.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Anti-World

His proposition, albeit you should probably read the book, was that the universe was ran by a Guiding Organizing Designing process or G.O.D process based on the fact that nothing can be created randomly.

Yeah, we call it "Nature."