intelligent design

So, you have dropped your chaos theory argument?

 

I am sorry, but this is absolutely incorrect. Take the example of creating an atmosphere on Mars as an example. If we do this, our intention is to make it inhabitable. Does that mean that there will not be randomness within the system? Dog breeding would be another example.

 

It's nearly impossible to remove all chaos from a complex system, but that's not the point VP.

Dog breeding has chaos, but you breed the specific traits you seek. That's control.

Is there a typo in there, 'cause I don't get that example.

I think you're wanting to say that God threw things to chaos knowing what he wanted. But to make it happen, and more importantly, to make it take, would require control. Besides again flying in the face of Sly's super complex designed species and systems, there is the issue of continuity, or sequential-ness of the equation which you are failing to address.

I'll throw another wrench in there - discuss your theory in terms of the butterfly effect. The way Sly has described ID, the butterfly effect is an absolute must/rule. The way you describe it, it's not necessairly true, and most likely improbable due to the level of absolute chaos necessary to produce number of sequential events to achieve a "pass". Each fail sequence is wasted time. In any case, its an incongruity in your (plural) descriptions of ID.

 

I understand that, but you still get randomness in your system as you work your way towards your intention.

And also, it is very important to note, that you do not end up with a water buffalo.

I'll answer the rest later

 

Yes, because of sequence. If you start with dogs, I'm not sure you can get to Water Buffalo. But if you start with a less complex, single cell organism, and add a few billion years, you can end up with Dog or Water Buffalo.

I have to eat lunch too. Catch you afterwards.

 

ID has nothing to do with God so there is no incongruity. VP is simply giving his take how we could have got here if God was involved.

 

Yeah, but I am really, really, *&%$#@!-ing smart.

 

No, it has to do with a God, a supreme being. So there is a discrepency here.

 

Yes there is. I am only a god with a little g.

 

what is a "transitional species"?