It only expounds what it can. This is clarified by the fact that the Church tells us the Trinity is a mystery of our faith. The Church has not dogmatically declared that she has fully defined God. She only tells us what has been revealed.
There’s no such thing as devolution. Evolution doesn’t have a direction. I suspect Behe knows that, but by this point, he’s making more money suckering in fellow travelers.niceatheist:
I have a Behe book for you - Darwin devolves with experimental evidence.
This is why I wonder about contradictions.
You look at mankind and think ‘I am so special I must have been designed’. You see ‘a very orderly running machine’. Built for a purpose. I look at us and think ‘This is what nature has produced through the blind process of evolution. I need to make the most of this opportunity’.Bradskii:
Yes. It is not random. Cannot be random. We both repeat that. Then which mind or conscience provide and ensure that system and orderliness? Does nature provide that by itself? Which force or energy has conscience to make that?
A machine look like as if run by itself. But a machine cannot be formed by itself and do not work without a programme.
We suppose a very orderly running machine. We both look at machine. You say that machine were made by an intrinsic system or mind and an intrinsic programme support it’s running. I say that machine was made by a conscious outside effect(maybe an engineer) and that engineer provide it’s running by a programme.
I do not know if I could formulate the two different concepts!
Exactly right.
See the post three above.Bradskii:
This is why I wonder about contradictions.
I don’t understand. (KISS)Lion_IRC:
No-one would disagree. It is most definitely unpredictable. Yet we can make predictions about it. There is an infinite amount of randomness incorporated into the process. But the process itself is not random.Bradskii:
Random chance (unpredictability) is a fundamental part of evolution.mhmtas63:
The process is not random.
You either understand those comments or you don’t understand the subject. Do I need to explain?
No they are not. There is no such thing as devolution. Populations may lose some features or functions (ie. whales have only atavistic limbs), but they also gain them. Heck, we’ve seen bacteria learn how to eat nylon, a substance that didn’t even exist before the 1930s.niceatheist:
That is the claim.
Devolution is the direction. Organisms are degenerating.
See niceatheist’s post five above yours.Bradskii:
I don’t understand. (KISS)Lion_IRC:
No-one would disagree. It is most definitely unpredictable. Yet we can make predictions about it. There is an infinite amount of randomness incorporated into the process. But the process itself is not random.Bradskii:
Random chance (unpredictability) is a fundamental part of evolution.mhmtas63:
The process is not random.
You either understand those comments or you don’t understand the subject. Do I need to explain?
Yes, you do need to explain.
Could you please start by explaining how “a process” - in which some or all of its elements are random/unpredictable/spontaneous - can be seen as non-random.
Every viewing perspective of evolution is thru a rear-visible mirror.
Lion_IRC:
See niceatheist’s post five above yours.Bradskii:
I don’t understand. (KISS)Lion_IRC:
No-one would disagree. It is most definitely unpredictable. Yet we can make predictions about it. There is an infinite amount of randomness incorporated into the process. But the process itself is not random.Bradskii:
Random chance (unpredictability) is a fundamental part of evolution.mhmtas63:
The process is not random.
You either understand those comments or you don’t understand the subject. Do I need to explain?
Yes, you do need to explain.
Could you please start by explaining how “a process” - in which some or all of its elements are random/unpredictable/spontaneous - can be seen as non-random in its entirety.
Every viewing perspective of evolution is thru a rear-vision mirror.
You and niceatheist are agreeing with me. YAY
Nobody said they weren’t. In fact, there have been a few posts confirming that. But the process itself is not random. See above…Bradskii:
Lion_IRC:
See niceatheist’s post five above yours.Bradskii:
I don’t understand. (KISS)Lion_IRC:
No-one would disagree. It is most definitely unpredictable. Yet we can make predictions about it. There is an infinite amount of randomness incorporated into the process. But the process itself is not random.Bradskii:
Random chance (unpredictability) is a fundamental part of evolution.mhmtas63:
The process is not random.
You either understand those comments or you don’t understand the subject. Do I need to explain?
Yes, you do need to explain.
Could you please start by explaining how “a process” - in which some or all of its elements are random/unpredictable/spontaneous - can be seen as non-random in its entirety.
Every viewing perspective of evolution is thru a rear-vision mirror.You and niceatheist are agreeing with me. YAY
Individual evolutionary events are random / spontaneous / unpredictable.
Nylonase has been debunked as I have shown time and time again.
Natural selection is a conservative process. We now know about cell directed mutations. These are not random.
When described as a rational animal, to me that just means that we have the capacity to think rationally and determine truth from that which is not true. It doesn’t necessarily mean that people will not have errors of judgement. We are imperfect.
It’s not clear to me that we are designed to be irrational. You cannot jump from the premise that people are capable of being irrational to the conclusion that we are by nature irrational creatures.
Another, perhaps better, example is the human blind spot. A simple change and we would have a much more functional eye. The “design” of the human eye actually DISPROVES intelligent design.
True, but it does not disprove the existence of an intelligent creator.