My question is why isn't the human belief in God classed as scientific? When the most powerful computer network in the known universe comes to the answer 'God'?
Because the conclusion of God didn't arrise from following the scientific method.
To me it seems that science is flawed, scientists more or less discount there own existence, proffering only to have eyes and a calculator with which to make answers and not using the full power of thought.
Be that as it may, science works. Its gets shit done.
Okay, what would evidence of unplanned changes look like?
In my opinion, a change could be considered unplanned if it happen spontaneously (note that doesn't mean "instantly").
Would you agree?
Would it sound more like evolutionist language if I refer to it as "random mutations". Isn't that the way evolution is suppose to happen?
That's only half of it... the other half is the selection process.
Let me use the dice example. Here's a dice rolling mechanism:
1. Re-roll all the dice that you have not set aside. 2. Set aside all rolled dice that have the number 6 3. If there are any dice that have not been set aside, go to step 1.
Okay, now imagine I've just handed you 100 dice and you're going to follow the steps. You roll them all, set the 6's aside, and keep rolling the rest. Eventually, all of the dice will be sitting there rolled as 6's.
Now I walk in and proclaim that because it was impossible for that to happen by chance (100 rolls of 6's), then you must have intentionally place all those dices with the 6 facing up.
Realize that all of the dice were rolled and randomly ended up on their 6's by chance. It was the selective process, not the random rolling, that produced the effect that looked like it was planned.
So no, evolution is not supposed to happen by random mutation, it is that plus the selective process that makes evolution happen. Because the fittest survive, in hindsight it can look like it was planned so that they would, but really those fitnesses did arise through random chance, its just that they were selected for.
Because just a small part of your genetic information (genotype) is expressed physically in your body (Phenotype). You look slightly different respective to your parents but still the genetic information is the same. I know there are mutations in the process and they contribute to the variation but that doesn't really mean there is "evolution" in process
So how do you get the variety?
Let's break that down regardless...
I don't have the same genotype as my parents, I got some of my genes from each of them. And the process that replicates DNA is imperfect, so the copies that are made are not going to be exact, so my DNA couldn't be the same anyway. The phenotypic variety that we see comes from changes to the genotypes. The changes to the genotype that come from replication errors are spontaneous. And that means they are unplanned.
So some of the variety we see is certainly not planned.
I would agree in the extent that unplanned changes can cause variation between species, which doesn’t support evolution nor refutes the Bible
I'm not talking about supporting evolution or refuting the Bible... (though its telling that those two criteria determine what you're willing to accept).
You said that:
quote:the observable world offers much more evidence of intelligent design than of chance.
And by "chance" you meant "unplannd changes". But I'm still at a loss for what you mean by "evidence of unplanned changes"?
Say there's a coin sitting on a table, its heads; how do you determine if it landed on heads by chance or not?
I say we'd have to see how it got there. We can't just look at it after the fact and determine that.
Does each dice in that example represents an individual? Every time you roll the dice one generation goes? If so, how can you have natural selection without affecting the population? Wouldn’t does dices that aren’t number six, the less fit ones, perish in the process, leaving you with, say, 18 survivors (number sixes) after many times rolling the dices? Doesn’t natural selection takes its toll on the less fit?
No, the dice analogy does not adequately represent how animals evolve, that's not what it was meant to show. The point of it was to show you how a selective process can make chance look designed. If you saw 100 dice that were all rolled as 6's, then you would say that someone put them there like that on purpose, and that there wasn't any chance involved. But if the process I outlined was used, it would still include that chance element even though it would look like it was designed, and that's because of the selective process. That's how it relates to evolution: natural selection makes it look like the results didn't include any randomness even though it did.
So when you look at an animal that is well fit to a particular niche, I can understand how it would look to you like it was designed to be that way. Where you go wrong is assuming that there wasn't any chance involved.
How could in the beginning natural selection favor the individual that has got some dices with the number six (step two in your example) setting aside those dices with number six? Would natural selection, the mechanism to set aside the dices with number six, select an individual with a wing starting to appear? Wouldn’t that be a burden and a disadvantage compared to those individual that didn’t have any dice with number six?
If you want to get into the particulars of the way that things evolve, we should do it in another thread.
You do have the same genetic information that your parents in which they and you have all necessary information required to make a human. If was so in the past and will be in the future, regardless of that variety you mention. any variation will never account to make something different than a human