From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 10:47:37 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDD1437B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3345E43E3B for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:47:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g89HlRGd021643; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:47:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g89HlR4u021640; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:47:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:47:27 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Lawrence Sica Cc: Terry Lambert , Joshua Lee , , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <4C19F70A-C38F-11D6-8C5E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20020909104131.K9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: > On Saturday, September 7, 2002, at 04:10 PM, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > >>> Okay, then lets stop pretending that creation is "unscientific" while > >>> evolution is "scientific". Neither one of them can be falsified, so > >>> either *both* of them are scientific, or neither of them are. You > >>> can't have your cake and eat it too. If you claim an explanation > >>> must also be "naturalistic", I charge you with providing a > >>> justification for such arbitrariness. > >> > >> I guess we can keep on calling the currently accepted scientific > >> theory "evolution", even though that's not the correct name for it. > >> > >> With that in mind, the methods you use judge one theory vs. another > >> are: > >> > >> 1) Are the theories predictive? > > > > Evolution is not, as it relies on chance. Chance, by definition, > > is unpredictable. > > > > If you take a step back far enough those random chances become very > predicateable. Read up on chaos theory and how randomness works. Chaos theory itself is misnamed, and the implication that predictability can arise from randomness is a contradiction. If something is predictable, it is not random, nor chaotic. All chaos theory shows is that what people previously assumed to be chaotic (due to our inability to account for all the minute factors) is actually not chaotic at all. Chaos theory is only intelligible if you introduce a controlling factor that gets real close to sounding something like the Christian doctrine of God's Providence. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message