Turns out Random is Better (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 01:11 (5386 days ago) @ xeno6696


> you need to detect the intelligence you claim, otherwise it's a "lazy induction." What other processes in the world do we accept claims with as little direct evidence? -I'm not inducting anything. Except for Abraham and the burning bush, God doesn't appear much. But since I don't except the fairy tales in the Bible, I know we won't find the bush's ashes anywhere. I don't need to do what you need to do. I'm very content with my position. God is concealed, and He wants it that way. You need absolute proof, I don't.
> > 
> > The argument about chance is time vs. chance. Chance stumbles along slowly. Is there anough time to have all the mutations and other layers of the genome create what we now see in the tme allotted? My argument is: were did that speed come from, just as the Cambrian raises the same issue in spades?
> > 
> 
> If chance "stumbles along slowly" then why do cryptographers use it to solve some problems in a more rapid manner?-Again a simplistic answer that doesn't explain the speed of the Cambrian Explosion. Cryptographers can use huge computers and use some approaches at random and de-code or en-code at will.-
>
> And if you learn more about mathematical chaos theory, you also learn that some things simply *appear* random. -I read a couple books on Chaos and I know your point. Butterfly effect, fractal formulas, etc., but chance is by definition at random, as I view it.-
>
> That recent finding in network coding is going to reap big rewards and I think that it can be applied to biological information transfer as well. -Which again raises the question: Where did the information in DNA/RNA come from. Since we find it in the simplest organisms it had to be there with the first life.
> 
> 
> > As for proving the 'intelligence' behind all this, God is concealed. 
> 
> A euphemism for "God works in mysterious ways..."-That is your interpretation, not mine. As far as I am concerned and comfortable with, He is concealed.
> 
> A better question is to ask you how you know God is concealed? Where is the evidence of this? Where did you get this information? 
> 
> This is where the 'leap of faith' comes from. There will never be the proof you want. Only Adler's approach 'by a preponderance of evidence', which, by the intelligence concealment, means it is a positive proof that chance can't work in the time allotted and therefore, negatively, since design is the only other choice, there must be an intelligence doing its job somewhere. I think that won't satisfy you, and I don't think you will ever satisfy yourself. There will never be hard proof. I've accepted that as did Adler.
> 
> We're getting into theological hot water here. Why hide creation? Especially if God had no idea where things were going to take it like you or dhw has suggested. The only reason to hide something is if you have a plan and don't want someone to find out. I'd find it more likely that creation got away from him. -God is not creation. He is God. Creation was the big Bang. I don't understand the question. 
> 
> I've pieced together Adler's argument from how he reasoned in "The Difference..." and it isn't a logical conclusion to draw; if God has a physical component--and you're directly suggesting this--then you need to demonstrate it, plain and simple, or it isn't acceptable to believe it. -It is acceptable for me to believe it. I'm content to state that He is a universal intelligence at a quantum level of reality, which we can't get to anyway.
> 
> If God influences the world still, there will be evidence of it. Anything that happens in our physical world is detectable, and if God exists and interacts--there WILL be direct evidence for it. Otherwise it's more likely that if a theism exists it'll be of my old Deist type.-Can you detect my thoughts? They happen in MY physical world, but hidden from YOUR physical world.