So the deck of cards is the universe and you're god? Really, I don't get the point of this. If you want to prove your point, site some evidence. That's all we've been asking. Abstract analogies with dubious relevence to the argument at hand really don't convince me.
And give me the page #s of all your great scientific arguments for macrevolution. I must have missed them somehow...
NOTICE that Shoe is RIGHT BACK to attacking evolution INSTEAD OF SUPPORTING HIS ID HYPOTHESIS. Clearly you have nothing to show, and thus must attempt to distract everyone by blowing smoke and attacking evolution instead. peace axeman
I can only assume you will not defend macroevolution because it is so weakly supported. Maybe Sardo will come to your rescue by providing me with those page numbers...
Don't take my comments the wrong way. I do believe in god -- but not necessarily the one that is portrayed in the Judeo-Christian sense. As far as I'm concerned, the whole idea of religion has been used by countless people as a method of control. Religion has also been commercialized, sexualized and reduced to something that appears more as a product that you wear around your neck than something you actively believe in your soul. I do believe the Jews, Christians and Muslims are great people, but I am no longer interested in subscribing to a mass religion simply so I can follow specific laws and dietary restrictions. I don't want to reduce myself to something that just belongs in a box with a label on it, where I am no longer allowed to ask questions about my God or why things are the way they are. I believe that science, logic, mathematics and, to a lesser extent, ontological based philosophy is compatible with a belief in a "first cause / first structure" that could be interpreted as a "god." However, there isn't much progress to be made surfing the web trying to glue all the pieces together. The web is over-run with polarists who either strongly adhere to science as an ultimate philosophy of reality, or conservative groups who try to dismiss anything that science produces to discount their god or their belief structure. The first step is to go back to square one and admit that you know absolutely nothing and then slowly proceed forward with the realization that just about every human being on Earth has a strong bias that will polarize them to one extreme or another. This goes beyond religion and applies to politics just as easily. It is far easier to assume the opposite party of the one you hate is a good party, then to stop and think that the entire party structure is misaligned and polarized. Obviously we all believe what we do from our experiences, so what I need to start doing is asking myself if there is some external truth for which I am trying to understand or am I merely projecting my internal stucture of reality onto the questions I'm asking and masking answers as a result.
Do you guys have a special Humanist Debating Manual that disallows you from talking about any mathematical or scientific subject. Of course it's relevant and that's why neoDarwinism is struggling. Almost every major transition in the fossil record occurs in less than 10 million hears. And you are suggesting it happens by the same mechanism that shuffles a deck of cards? How? That's my question.
The problem I have with this line of thinking is that by assuming macro-evolution to be incorrect, we are automatically assuming that this lends credit to the idea that there is a god. The only thing we can truly say in this circumstance is that our theory of evolution may be incorrect, but we can't infer that God exists from an incorrect understanding of evolution.
I agree with you! Maybe it's panspermia that's the answer! I'm kidding, but whatever it is, let's get to the bottom of it...
Think about this: the avg "good" mutation rate is 1 in 10,000 (and that's optimistic!). Now I'm supposed to believe that mutation rate is going to transform fish into amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles into mammals, etc. in < 10 million years? As the materialists say - extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence! They have no statistical models, no fossil evidence - quite the opposite actually - and no genetic evidence for making these kind of bold claims.
First off, I think your premise is flawed. And no, the mechanism is not the same as a shuffling deck of cards. So ask another question.