Flies, the evidence is that evolutionary processes obey and conform to physical and chemical laws, rules,...
Yes...and they do.
...propabable patterns, etc,...
I have a feeling that you have no idea what this means. How can you decide if something follows a probable pattern? Are you attempting to conflate improbable with impossible? This could be an area of confusion for you, in how it relates to the ToE.
Since it is logical to infer an Intelligent Cause ordering and creating the physical structure of the universe (it had a beginning for example),...
Here you go again. It by no means is either logical or illogical to infer such a thing. It's a meaningless statement that sounds impressive and may fool your typical yahoo...but in reality is scientifically vacuous.
To assert that life can best be understood as not having been caused by an Intelligent Cause, as many evos claim, is not supported by science at all.
Complete BS. Explain to me how science does not support the ToE. Tell me anything at all that is not scientifically supported by the ToE...and for once, back up your claim. Explain to me exactly how/why the justification you present explains the scientific error...meaning that the science we use to support that which you claim is false is indeed not scientifically valid.
There are physical principles in the universe. That is order, period. The universe obeys principles. There is not total randomness where no principles exist.
So what? Explain to me how this disproves evolution.
Your are very good at spouting nonsensical garbage that sure looks and sounds good, but has no real meaning...at least in how it relates to the ToE.
The Big Bang is evidence the universe has a beginning. Science has always shown us there is cause and effect. So we see the effect, and we know forensically by direct observations of the universe that this effect contains well-ordered principles that give rise to physical form; hence life can best be understood, even under evo models, as arising through the action of an Intelligent Cause.
The big bang does not prove intelligent design. Sorry randman...but trying to relate a cause and effect relationship between the big bang and an intelligent force causing it is just ridiculous and I'll bet that you can in absolutely no way provide any real...tangible...testable, evidence to support such a claim. If you can, then for the love of all things Holy...do it…just do it randman...finally...be the first to provide evidence. Can you do that?
Flies, if you want to reject logic, then fine. I have stated the case that science indicates there is a cause to the effect. We see order, design, etc,..in the universe, and we see it had a beginning. Forensically then, we can infer that the cause contains order and intelligence. From what we know, it is thus more reasonable from a scientific perspective to infer an Intelligent Cause best explains the origins of the universe rather self-generation from nothing.
What does logic have to do with it randman? Illogocal things happen all of the time. See...think that this is your problem. You cannot grasp the concept that unpredictable mutations and natural selection can lead to some pretty illogocal things.
Forensically then, we can infer...
You can infer whatever the hell you want. In science we use evidence...and you have yet to provide any to support your assertion that the universe requires a designer.
From what we know, it is thus more reasonable from a scientific perspective to infer an Intelligent Cause best explains the origins of the universe rather self-generation from nothing.
No, it is not more resonable to conclude any such thing. Evidence randman...evidence. Do you have any?
I have no problem with the concept that randomness can lead to an illogical result. But I've yet to see anything logical come about randomly.
Your right, science uses evidence. How then, can science suggest that all life arose without cause when all scientific evidence points to the fact that all causes must have an effect? You say you demand evidence, but why don't you have the same standards when someone suggests that our entire galaxy exploded from nothing, with no known cause.
We both have the same evidence, we just interpret it differently.
But I've yet to see anything logical come about randomly.
Natural selection isn't random, its a function of the environment.
How then, can science suggest that all life arose without cause when all scientific evidence points to the fact that all causes must have an effect?
How can you say that when all scientific evidence points to the fact that not all effects have an causes(radioactive decay for example). Unless you meant cause has to have an effect which seems a funny thing to say.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 20-February-2006 09:51 PM
I'll start a whole topic on this if you want. In quick summary, if we have two nuclei and we wait for the half life to come to pass, one of them will likely have decayed.
Which one? We don't know, there is no 'cause' that makes one decay and one not decay. Obviously the whole concept has a cause, but in each instance we cannot say what caused one to decay and not the other one.
Do a google search, its one of those great things about the universe that people are shocked to learn :)
So in context of this discussion, the event has a cause. The choice of how that cause is effected, whether one nuclei or another, is considered or theorized as a random choice, but it still has a specific cause. The idea is that within the cause and effect, there is a random element in terms of choice, but there is still cause and effect.