A slightly biased attempt to discredit evolutio...

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Can you point out to me how you came up with
the notion I said all mutations that natural selection works on are
bad? ..….

I said you IMPLIED it.

Reminder; your quote:

… Natural selection only gets to filter that which is given to it IF nothing
positive comes along it only works through the BAD, ...…. (my emphasis)

W ...[text shortened]... ng positive comes along”? -what logical reason could there be for preventing any good mutations?[/b]

For crying out loud, are you kidding me, you didn't read the whole
post did you?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
-But what you appear to be saying here is “Natural selection isn’t designing anything” -well, natural selection is not the whole process of evolution but one-half of it, the other half being mutations, so, yes, “natural selection ALONE isn’t designing anything” if that is what you mean -it needs to work in conjunction with the other half of the process of e nce to insecticides?”

Good question, you believe design has something to do with it?
Kelly

…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design

(Design is used both as a noun and a verb. The term is often tied to the various applied arts and engineering. As a verb, "to design" refers to the process of originating and developing a plan for a product, structure, system, or component with intention.)

You really do need to understand the word design if you are going to
use it to describe a process you claim is without intent. Evolution does
not design anything, there isn’t a plan, purpose, or design in the
whole of evolution unless you want to put some intelligence into
the equation, and that will cause some minor levels of hostility among
your PEERS here if you do, trust me. …(my emphasis)

In the context of evolution, “design” is considered to me the correct scientific word to use to refer to the blind design of evolution.
My “PEERS”, including evolutionists, use the word “design” all the time when referring to evolution’s designs -after all , what else can you call it? -here is proof:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7101/full/442355a.html

And

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/Professional-resources/Education-resources/Big-Picture/Evolution/Articles/WTD026012.htm

Note that both these scientific articles refer to “evolution’s DESIGN flaws”

So KellyJay, how can I possibly get “some minor levels of hostility among
my peers” for using the word “design” when my “peers” use this very word themselves and in exactly the same way for the same thing?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design

(Design is used both as a noun and a verb. The term is often tied to the various applied arts and engineering. As a verb, "to design" refers to the process of originating and developing a plan for a product, structure, system, or component with intention.)

You really do need to understand the word desig ...[text shortened]... when my “peers” use this very word themselves and in exactly the same way for the same thing?

[/b]I beleive they use the word design all the time too, I laugh at them
when they do and deny God at the same time.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design

(Design is used both as a noun and a verb. The term is often tied to the various applied arts and engineering. As a verb, "to design" refers to the process of originating and developing a plan for a product, structure, system, or component with intention.)

You really do need to understand the word desig ...[text shortened]... when my “peers” use this very word themselves and in exactly the same way for the same thing?

[/b]Design requires intent, when people see design they acknowledge it,
but they want to deny a designer even when the process screams
it was designed.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I beleive they use the word design all the time too, I laugh at them
when they do and deny God at the same time.
Kelly[/b]

…I laugh at them when they do and deny God at the same time. …

Some of them are theists --but they are generally not anti-science else it would be a strange inconsistency for them to accept the evidence of evolution as evidence.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Design requires intent, when people see design they acknowledge it,
but they want to deny a designer even when the process screams
it was designed.
Kelly[/b]

The “process screams” of blind design due to the design flaws.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I beleive they use the word design all the time too, I laugh at them
when they do and deny God at the same time.
Kelly[/b]

But you deny god, don't you, KJ? You deny his creation? You even deny his greatest creation: Evolution?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
But you deny god, don't you, KJ? You deny his creation? You even deny his greatest creation: Evolution?

I like you -you are not anti-science 🙂

When I first came onto these forums I honestly thought it was theism I couldn’t stand
-I slowly realised that I was totally wrong!
-it isn’t really theism that gets up my nose at all but anti-science or, even worse, anti-reason!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I like you -you are not anti-science 🙂

When I first came onto these forums I honestly thought it was theism I couldn’t stand
-I slowly realised that I was totally wrong!
-it isn’t really theism that gets up my nose at all but anti-science or, even worse, anti-reason!

Thank you, Andrew, I like you too!

Christians, most of them, are alright. Most of them where I live, read the bible with love and caring, not as a book of physics. They know that bible is not meant to use as a weapon to people don't believing exactly as they do. The bible is flexible and to know this is to know that it can be interpreted in several different ways.

But then we have christians with a heart hard as rock. They do only see one ssolution and one only, and that is that god is exactly as they think he is. The rest goes to hell, only they think they are going to heaven and paradise. Moslem terrorist has the same thinking. Therefore the christian fundamentalists scares me. When they can force their neigbours, with nukes if neccesary, terrorist otherwise, they will do it. And have done it.

So I have no problem with christians with a sound healthy beliefs. Its them with a soul of rock and a heart of stone that I defy. They are not as Jesus wanted them to be.

And this is without mentioning anything of the anti-science of the fundamentalists...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Thank you, Andrew, I like you too!

Christians, most of them, are alright. Most of them where I live, read the bible with love and caring, not as a book of physics. They know that bible is not meant to use as a weapon to people don't believing exactly as they do. The bible is flexible and to know this is to know that it can be interpreted in several dif ...[text shortened]... to be.

And this is without mentioning anything of the anti-science of the fundamentalists...

Yeah, like maybe we can discuss Iranian advances in Evolution🙂

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
The “process screams” of blind design due to the design flaws.

Define blind design, for me it could mean you don't know what your
doing and are just doing something without knowledge of what you are
doing, or you know what you want but are blind to what you are doing
what do you mean by it?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Define blind design, for me it could mean you don't know what your
doing and are just doing something without knowledge of what you are
doing, or you know what you want but are blind to what you are doing
what do you mean by it?
Kelly

in the narrow context of evolution -the former.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
in the narrow context of evolution -the former.

No, as YOU not I define it, it is your term what do you mean by saying
those words.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, as YOU not I define it, it is your term what do you mean by saying
those words.
Kelly

Again -the former -I define it and all evolutionist define it basically in so many words the same has how you defined it first time in your other post -it is design without the process that designed it havening “understanding” nor “reason” nor “knowledge” nor “intention” nor “plan” nor “purpose” -in short, it is design without intelligence.
“blind design” is simply shorthand for “design without intelligence” and this term is sometimes used by evolutionists:

YouTube&feature=related
( -listen just to the very start of the video)

If I look at a snowflake under a microscope, it clearly has a geometric design.
Does saying that a snowflake has a geometric “design” imply that there was intelligence behind that design???

-answer, no.

And, in addition, if you accept the fact that the answer is no (I.e snowflakes are designed without intelligence), that proves that nature CAN and DOES design things without intelligence (with the geometric design of a snowflake being just one small example).

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Again -the former -I define it and all evolutionist define it basically in so many words the same has how you defined it first time in your other post -it is design without the process that designed it havening “understanding” nor “reason” nor “knowledge” nor “intention” nor “plan” nor “purpose” -in short, it is design without intelligence.
“blind d ...[text shortened]... gs without intelligence (with the geometric design of a snowflake being just one small example).

I listened to the start of it, and what? To begin with the issue he was
complaining about women in child birth dying, had more to do with the
modern medical practices of the day than the brain which he was going
on about. Doctors didn't think about washing their hands a few years
ago after they would do surgery, examine corpses, or when they would
move from sick person to sick person, then move on to deliver babies
too. That of course as we know today was just asking for nasty things
to move from person to person, which made midwives popular. I fail
to see your point on design as much as I see your lack of
understanding on medical practices awhile back in human history.

Design can be a noun or a verb; you do not design without a designer
and design requires intent. With respect to a snow flakes design that
is more about the pattern it has than the process of design.
Kelly