Emilio Primo

Before that rock hits the ground and begins to roll, its trajectory is random, nobody has no way of determining exactly which course that rock will take. It is not until the rock hits the ground and begins it's descend that it's trajectory can be determined. The standard definition of intent is circular logic to you? How so, when you are calling the standard definition(s) of a word not specific enough. No, this is not observed, that is evidence to back what you presume to be the case. This is what I imply when I say observed: ob·serve 1. to see, watch, perceive, or notice: He observed the passersby in the street.

Incorrect, what I am implying is exactly what everyone else is implying. You are saying the same thing throughout this statement, you're just saying it differently. How so? Yes, you are, here's how.... Yes, you are correct... The probability of you flipping either heads or tails from flipping a coin is always 50/50. No matter what. But, you then confuse possibility, here's how... The possibility of you flipping heads 1 million times in a row is slim to none. That is the difference, there is the probability of a 50/50 coin flip, then there is the possibility of probable outcomes. I am not yelling, I am stressing my words... Please define the way you are imply "determined" Good to know, and I never described a falling apple to the origins of the universe. No observable example of this, was ever provided.

It is self explanatory, and has yet to be proven wrong. I supplied the standard definition of the word to convey the exact meaning I was portraying of the word intent. Nothing more nothing less nothing equivocal. See, here you are confusing PROBABILITY, and POSSIBILITY It will always be a 50/50 chance or PROBABILITY of flipping either heads or tails with a coin no matter how many flips you take or no matter how much time has passed. But the POSSIBILITYof you flipping heads 1 million times in a row is slim to none. Determined by who? Nature? This all goes back to the beginning then. Where did matter and energy come from? And when did "it" determine it's make up and functions? How is there a third way? The entire chain process was started by you, regardless of you intended a certain outcome or not. Intent for an outcome was there, no matter IF the INTENDED outcome was achieved, there was still intent. You still have not supplied an example of neither intent or randomness. You asked for what I meant by intent. I supplied you the standard definition of the word. You asked for a more specific scientific definition, when you knew there was none. Really? How? I supplied the standard definitive versions of the words in question, you consider that poor? You and others still want a more specific definition. What game are you trying to play here? Exactly, now show me. When has this ever been observed?

I told you, there is either RANDOM or INTENT there is no third way. No, this is false. I gave you the standard definition of intent, YOU rejected it because you claimed it was not scientific enough, but then you later admit there is no scientific definition of intent(Which I already knew, and you did as well) (This is why I keep proclaiming misdirection, and deceit, for this very reason) THAT is NOT an explanation. Try handing that in as a writting assignment and see what grade you get. Indeed. I am not trying to flame, and if you read my original OP, this is not what people are addressing. This thread is turning into a war in semantics, I apologize for my behavior, and from now on will show proper respect due, but to keep repeating myself and arguing semantics on a science forum is a bit annoying. Again apologizes to EVERYONE... And thank you for the warm welcome. Sorry? Where is documented evidence of a species over "several" generations slowing becoming another complete separate species, exactly how this planet is fill with diversity, where are these small individual changes in species to new species now. Where is the observable evidence. Yes I am asking for examples of this. OK, but I am asking for examples of this: http://wilderdom.com/evolution/HumanEvolutionSequencePictures.htm

No, that's not what I am asking. Furthermore I never said the species HAS TO EVER be a differnet species of it's parent. Also that does NOT even matter to the argument because according to evolutionary theory EVENTUALLY THIS will happen. BTW, me saying "ONE DAY" was you the argument you used to claim I was wrong. Exactly, but we use species, family, genre, to be more specific. What is your point with this. What are you talking about? Somewhere along the line, EVENTUALLY the child becomes "different" from the parent. THIS is evolutionary theory. You seem to be misinformed. Where do you think diversity came from, according to evolutionary theory that is?!

Really? What evidence? Please repost this evidence that showed my example to be false? Prove it false... Or forever hold your piece. What you are arguing is called an attempt at misdirection. You try and argue points you know to be true as invalid to hide the flaws in your own argument. This seems to be a trend on this forum. My example is PRECISELY how evolutionary theory is said to have occurred in nature. THIS is how science determined the diversity of life on this planet. Your "evidence" of why my example was inaccurate was because of the fact I used the words "ONE DAY" My example was correct. You saying otherwise is either YOU are not informed, a liar, or you are being deceitful. Annnnnd you link me to wikipedia, the aces of ALL scientific knowledge. Because it matters, this is the entire base of the argument between us. THAT'S why it matter. EXACTLY! So the one I gave you, the exact definition of the word should be suitable. So let's go with that, thanks. I know what you asked, so I am asking you. If it was not by chance then what esle was it by, and please explain how? Yes, I know what I asked and you still have yet to answer the question.

Actually it is, exactly how evolution is said to work. As I already explained earlier.

Nope, just one example of this: THIS is how evolution is said to have occurred in nature, THIS is how we "supposedly" have the diversity in life on the planet today... NOW show me an example of THIS, or follow you own advice.

Sorry, but this was NOT my assertion, actually you didn't even answer my question with this example. Adapting, or evolving to live in fresh water is not the MACRO evolution I have been referring to since I started this thread, which I have explained numerous times even giving an example. You seem to fail to understand the simple question I am asking since you have yet to provide anything relevant or address the question directly. You provided an example of a Sting Ray separating and adapting to a new environment, which is apart of how evolutionary theory is suppose to work. NOW, provide me an example of a separation of species, of this species evolving into a new and different species, one it was NOT prior. NOT an adaption of environment but a change from species to new and separate species. Much like the example I provided earlier... What I am beginning to learn from this thread is how to make use of misdirection. See above... Why don't you just answer the question I have asked since this threads beginning, and have asked again above.... Sorry, I never claimed this. You seem to be moving of course from the ORIGINAL discussion. Figures. That's NOT the question I asked, again you are moving the argument from which it never came. So I'll asked again... What caused the rock to fall, in the first place? First of all what you state above was never my argument. Secondly, Why can't you provided an example based on the definition of the word intent? How about you provide the so called scientific definition for this word, since the standard defintion falls short. So what is the scientific definition for intent? I hope you do not think you just explained why life coming about by chance was not random or intended? Seems you still have not read the thread...

OK, let's keep the discussion clear.... What I specifically said was... This species of Sting Ray that you claimed "evolved" did it evolve into something more than a Sting Ray OR at the end of the day was it STILL a STING RAY.... So was it or was it not? Sorry but if you fail to back up your claim, and make false claims in under to keep backing up other false claims, then the failure is on you sir, not me. You have yet to comment on anything I stated in the OP, but you claim I do not understand? Please! talk about disruption.... This is called physics... Read the thread so you can stop making assuming comments about my ideas of evolution, thanks. Or do not bother commenting.

No, you were the coming up with ALL these examples of what is random and what is also NOT random, but also has no conscience intent behind it. So I asked you to please further explain these examples, but then you claim these examples was my idea? HUH? Sorry, but this is a load of garbage. The definition I gave you gives you exactly the meaning of the word I am striving for.. YOU gave NO example that fits your implications of what is random and non random but without intent. I asked you for specifics of your examples, my reasoning was never circular, your examples were inadequate. So if it was not random, then what was it, and how so? What are you talking about? Apples and rocks don't go up so that makes it non random? What!? How does your point stand, please explain, rather than just saying so.... You would be taken more seriously if you actually would explain yourself rather than keep making comment in the fashion of "I am right and you are wrong."

Sorry but my understanding of evolution is clear. You need to back read this thread. I have been specifically describing MACRO evolution since this threads beginning. How does that make it NOT random? If you could observe the so called beginning of life from non life, and the formation of it's chemicals, would that make it not random? I understand what random is very well, thank you.

I know it's been sometime, but the contention was definitively yours. But anyway what makes these occurrences(apple falling from a tree or or a rock slide) NOT random? Also, I gave you the defined version of the word INTENT, how much more vigorous could it be? IS LIFE from non life random? And if you say it is not please explain how so...

You think wrong... How does this answer my question? Did this Sting ray come from anything OTHER than another species of sting ray? This is exactly the point I am making. It was a Sting Ray prior, and STILL it remains a Sting Ray, nothing more. If an apple falls from a tree, it's gravity. But you have to explain how how this rock/apple fell, what it feel from? How so Sorry? So what was not random about the occurrences that caused life to come about?

Who addressed my points and what was their retort. Repost them. SO how can this be chance if we know how this occurred?

Let's look at the definition of the word random... 1.Random: proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers. Just because we know how something occurs or happens does not mean it's NOT random. My position was incorrect? YOU have never addressed my initial position, only ONE poster has How about you answer my initial questions and we will proceed from there, or are you content with hiding the fact your stance is weak by the use of misdirection. OK, did life come about by chance?

I didn't cite the odds, a scientist did, and was posted by the original OP of this thread, so read the OP to learn further. Then if you accept the theory that life can come from inanimate matter, then you are accepting the occurrence of a miracle, and this is not me saying so, this is physics.

So me saying BALL moved with intent pertains to EVERYTHING, like you assumed I said: So read my post again. I never said that. Volcanic eruptions are random

Is that what I said? I think you do not understand what is being debated?

Do you really need me to answer that question for you?

You are correct. I erred in amino acids in a oxidizing atmosphere. My mistake... No, it doesn't, but science makes my claim true. Life from non life as we understand physics is a supernatural occurrence.

Intent cause the ball to travel, be put into motion, thrown into the air, lifted off of the ground, ect ect. What caused the ball to roll down the hill, who placed the ball on the hill? Who made the machine to shake the can of nuts/popcorn? Who placed the can of nuts/popcorn on the ground for an earthquake to shake them? Randomness or intent, one or the other. There is no inbetween. "Aided" is not too vague, you are grasping for straws now, please stop.

1) The building block of life, amino acids, require oxygen. 2) There would have to be oxygen present in early earth's atmosphere at some point for amino acids, ect ,ect to form and survive. 2)I said that in order for chemical compounds to form in earth's early atmosphere that it would have to be a reducing atmosphere 3) I said in order for amino acids to form the atmosphere would have to go from a reducing atmosphere to an oxidizing one. I understand evolution very well: http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl26.htm#logic_of_origin_of_life Actually I was referring to the astronomical odds of biopoiesis, which according to our understanding of physics, is impossible, or to put it simply. Cannot occur in nature. So accepting this possibility is accepting a supernatural feat. So it seems you do believe in miracles. 1) The building block of life, amino acids, require oxygen. 2) There would have to be oxygen present in early earth's atmosphere at some point for amino acids, ect ,ect to form and survive. 2)I said that in order for chemical compounds to form in earth's early atmosphere that it would have to be a reducing atmosphere 3) I said in order for amino acids to form the atmosphere would have to go from a reducing atmosphere to an oxidizing one. I understand evolution very well: http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl26.htm#logic_of_origin_of_life Actually I was referring to the astronomical odds of biopoiesis, which according to our understanding of physics, is impossible, or to put it more simply cannot occur in nature. So accepting this possibility is accepting a supernatural feat. So it seems you believe in miracles too.

Wrong. My argument is that regardless of how many people you have rolling the die 1/6 is the probable outcome for EACH INDIVIDUAL. Which is a fact.

What does any of the questions I proposed in my OP have to do with semantics? Please point this out? It just seems in order to avoid the true debate of my questions misdirection is being used and a semantic debate begins. Here is the definition for intent: Intent: something that is intended; purpose; design; intention: The original intent of the committee was to raise funds. SO let's go with that... And to answer your question: Yes it matters who threw the ball, because that means there was intent behind the throw, the ball did not pick up and throw itself, it matters NOT what you intended the ball to do the fact remains you threw the ball so intent was behind it. Then with your mixed nuts or popcorn scenario, YOU shook the can of nuts/popcorn to mix them, the intent, YOUR intent was to intentional shake and mix the nuts/popcorn. The intelligence behind the shake or intent was YOU or whoever shook the popcorn/nuts. There is either randomness or intent. There is no inbetween. Let's go with this definition for observe: ob·serve: to see, watch, perceive, or notice: He observed the passersby in the street. This should put an end to the semantic debate. To even make my stance even more precise... To observe, watch, perceive, or notice, study with an aided or unaided eye. This should be absolutely clear by now.