In the entire time I have watched Z here, he has never been required to provide proof. He simply asserts. So for example 'Randomness is not a part of biological life'. Pure assertion. He is under no compulsion to provide proof of any kind. He asserts and then tells those who question his faith-based beliefs that they should engage in anal sex. This is the method of the troll.
I understand what a scientific theory is, thanks anyway... I do believe ID is a theory, as it too rests on concepts that cannot be falsified... I would much rather see biologists practice biology and not evolutionism, and that biology be taught in schools, not evolutionism. However, if evolutionism must be taught, in the spirit of fairness, non evolutionism should also be taught, and let the kids make up their own mind. Why so called "science" proponents are so terrified of questioning the basic premise of evolutionism is indeed odd. The basic premise being taught is that the observed changes are unplanned and as a result of random genetic changes. Of course there is zero proof that observed changes are actually unplanned, and random...but the so called scientists want to gloss over that one... From a foundation of ignorance (not knowing if changes are actually planned and by design) an entire philosophy is born and propogated. Such is the nature of ignorance, that can even impact so called scientific thinkers, so eager to reach conclusions about life, that they will erect entire "scientific" edifices on nothing but myth... A quote from Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." From Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 158. Darwin, a true scientist, understood that for a theory to be actually be true, each and every single aspect of the theory must also be true to reach the treasured level of scientific theory. Evolutionism as presented by the atheists must necessarily prove that life comes from non life, that events are not by design, and that there is no pattern in which biological organisms modify their genetic structure. So is it true that in fact we have more and more complicated life arising from non life spontaneously and randomly with no direction or no design whatsoever? I haven't see it happen, nor has anyone else actually observed this, nor has anyone even been able to construct a logical argument that strongly makes design an impossibility or rule it out. To build an entire philosophy on the from nothing is what the atheists suggest the theists do, but I don't really see any difference in the application of imagination and faith from those who are saying ignorant chance and natural selection is true... Your smiley faces and ad hominem methods are duly noted though, as a reflection of something, not sure what that is...
and i understand that u don't understand 'random', nor the concept of proof, nor how darwin's work tore apart the faith-based obscurantist account of life's origins thks for the laugh nonetheless checking out for now...
acronym Next up, z provides a convenient out of context quote to support his assertions, after furiously searching for one. end quote Bingo, again.
Now you are playing bingo games... Of course you are free to actually try and show how Darwin's words are out of context in the manner that I have used them...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from 2cents: and i understand that u don't understand 'random', nor the concept of proof, nor how darwin's work tore apart the faith-based obscurantist account of life's origins thks for the laugh nonetheless checking out for now... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- so... that was 'a lot' for u hey? jokes aside, since you were asking for maths & concepts etc pages back, why don't u research temporal hierarchies as i'd earlier suggested, and read the link i have provided on randomness for instance? not yr field? how about emergence? doesn't mix too well with faith i know but... what can u do?...
Illogical. My reading or not reading his all of his work does not preclude you from showing how I have used his words out of his context, within the context and thrust of my post. As far as reading all of his work, your opinion on the matter is meaningless to me, but then, you probably knew that already. All you have shown is that it apparently is meaningful to you, yet you are unable to show why...