Re: Definition of Randomness

On Dec 4, 2:58 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 3 Dec, 19:29, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Dec 3, 7:01 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 3 Dec, 12:59, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 2, 4:53 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[BIG snip....]

SeanPitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

If evolution or Darwinism is "nothing but a fairytale" why do you----
an IDer----support its **main claims** of species mutability
accomplished by natural selection (= unintelligent agency)?

Since you accept the enemy of Creationism and IDs main claims, is not
the Emperor fully clothed, contradicting the Andersen story, which
opens your web site?

Can you show me any paleontological report that denies **species**
stasis/changelessness to be the **predominant fact** seen in
geological formations (I have never seen one)? Does "low level
evolution" mean variation within species? If "low level evolution"
occurs (as you claim) and if it means "variation within species," why
can't the same be described as "designed change" in accordance with ID
theory (= Intelligent agency)? If "low level evolution" does not mean
"variation within species," but some type of limited speciation or
restricted macroevolution, how do you reconcile the same with stasis/
changelessness?

Ray

Tell me Ray, when you go to Las Vegas and roll the dice, does God roll
the dice for you?  Some things simply have the appearance of
randomness to such a degree that you couldn't tell otherwise - even if
God was rolling the dice for you.  You just can't tell yourself.  From
your perspective, it is unpredictable.  That's the definition of
apparent randomness - something which you cannot predict the future of
with greater than even odds of success. The very same thing is true of
apparently random non-predictable mutations in DNA.  Could God be
deliberately causing this mutations to occur?  Sure.  Is there a
pattern that you can detect and use to predict the future of
additional mutational changes?  Nope.  

Since design, specified complexity, and adaptation are phenomena
recognized universally to exist, said changes cannot be "random" (=
understood face value definition). These phenomena cannot be the
result of a mechanism tied to a genuine element of randomness----
logically impossible. Said changes are designed. "Random" belongs to
the terminology of ID opponents.

Your commentary also informs the Group that you accept a counterfeit
definition of "random." Suddenly you are using the qualifier
"apparent." Do your Evolutionist opponents here at Talk Origins know
this, that is, do they know that when you agree that mutation is
random that you really mean "apparently random"?

So, from your perspective and
mine, these mutational changes are in fact apparently random since
there is no way for you or me to predict them ahead of time.  

The result of design says Intelligence was somehow involved.

Again,
that's the definition of random here.  That is what RM/NS is all about
- the appearance of non-predictability.

SeanPitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com-Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No.

"Apparent randomness" is not the definition Darwinists accept.

Yes it is.  Read up a bit on chaos theory.  You will note that
randomness is not determinable.  It is not provable that a particular
number or sequence or phenomenon is actually "random".  All that can
really be said is that it has the appearance of being non-
predictable.  This doesn't mean that it wasn't actually determined or
deliberately produced.  It just means that from a given perspective,
like yours, you can't determine how it was done in a predictable
manner that can be used to determine or predict how that sequence will
look over time.

That, is the definition of randomness used in science.  

That definition, as relayed by your keyboard, is not the definition or
claim used by **evolutionary theory.** Changing the focus to
"science" (which does not include Darwinism) is a bait-and-switch. And
if the Emperor is naked, as you and I know he is, the same makes
Darwinism pseudoscience or "Scientism" (book thesis, Professor Huston
Smith, "Why Religion Matters" 2001).

Evolutionary theory says the process is fundamentally random, life is
an accident (1). When Professor Asa Gray suggested "that 'variation
has been led along certain beneficial lines,' like a stream 'along
definite and useful lines of irrigation'" [fighting for a concession
of "appearance," per your attempt] Charles Darwin broke his silence
concerning God and natural selection, rebuking Gray (a Christian and
staunch supporter) publicly. Darwin went on to say that if true, there
is no reason or purpose to postulate natural selection (2). In his
"Autobiography" Darwin said specifically that "the action of natural
selection" is comparable to "the course which the wind blows" (3).
These statements are official and objective claims of evolutionary
theory and they have not changed one iota. They are as such because
Darwin is the founder and father of the modern theory. While many of
Darwin's peripheral ideas have been falsified (as he predicted) the
foundation of his theory, and its general structure (which includes
all of the previous), stands firm today (4; reference #1 above is
further supported).

"Random" means random. Any qualifier placed before said word, or any
argument made to suggest a paradox, is a direct violation of
Aristotle's Logic and is therefore invalid. This violation, and its
motive, has been explained to you (5). The results of design,
specified complexity and adaptation seen in every aspect of nature
dictate that variation is not the result of random phenomenon, but
designed (6); produced by phenomenon that is guided and supervised,
having a purpose.

1. David E. Comings, 2008:647 http://www.didmancreategod.com/

2. Charles Darwin, "The variation of animals and plants under
domestication" 1868:432 Vol.2

3. Charles Darwin, "Autobiography" Nora Barlow ed. 1958:87

4. S.J. Gould, "The Structure Of Evolutionary Theory" 2002; it is the
central claim and thesis of this book to show that Darwin's general
theory of evolution remains scientifically true and well supported by
his modern day colleagues.

5. http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/491a3190ce7e3dff

6. William Dembski, "Intelligent Design" 1999; Dembski says that based
on the reality of specified complexity, mutation cannot be random. I
extend and buttress the fact by including design and adaptation.

This is why
the possibility of deliberate non-random manipulation is not ruled out
when a number or sequence is said to be "random".  It is just that a
non-random origin cannot or at least has not been detected as of yet.

Ray

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ray

.