Chance or by Design ?

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is not important to win a debate. What is important is that we come to the knowledge of the Truth. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

If somebody wins the debate using flawless logic and/or evidence then he proves he is the one that knows the truth about what was just debated.

Originally posted by RJHinds
My purpose on here is not to debate, but to stir you guys in the direction of the Truth. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏

We presume that's because this so-called “truth” you refer to here cannot be obtained via rational argument or logic or evidence -a sure indication it isn't the truth.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is not important to win a debate. What is important is that we come to the knowledge of the Truth. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

That would just be YOUR truth. Whatever wets your whistle. It does not wet ours.

You have no debate here, just lectures.

Originally posted by jaywill
Tell me this. Is a human evolutions step to produce a better sperm? Or is a sperm an evolutionary step to produce a better human ?

These questions just tell us you do not understand evolution and that you have a homo-centric view of creation.

Its the genes that survive, genes if you like, just "use" host animals. And that survivability will depend on environmental conditions; there is no ultimate goal to the evolutionary process, there is no "super-human" on the horizon. And "better human" has no meaning without defining the context.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your question is as follows:
[b]At what number or point is something considered impossible ?

I am not a statistician or an expert on probability theory but it appears to me that your question can not be answered as stated because you give no limits. In the real world, when we exclude the intervention of God, we must know what the limits of the calcu ...[text shortened]... cal purposes impossible. And of course, in the real world, we must deal with what is practical.[/b]

Thanks now that was probably your best answer ever Thanks for that.







Manny

Originally posted by humy
If somebody wins the debate using flawless logic and/or evidence then he proves he is the one that knows the truth about what was just debated.

Who can say the logic or the evidence is flawless? "Ifs" are plentiful and easy for the ignorant to assert.

Originally posted by humy
We presume that's because this so-called “truth” you refer to here cannot be obtained via rational argument or logic or evidence -a sure indication it isn't the truth.

Let me know when you growup and become reasonable and logical enough to understand the evidence presented to you. 😏

Originally posted by sonhouse
That would just be YOUR truth. Whatever wets your whistle. It does not wet ours.

You have no debate here, just lectures.

Your truth may be false and you would be wise to make sure it is not false. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Who can say the logic or the evidence is flawless? "Ifs" are plentiful and easy for the ignorant to assert.

Logic is an exact discipline. It is flawless.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
These questions just tell us you do not understand evolution and that you have a homo-centric view of creation.

Its the genes that survive, genes if you like, just "use" host animals. And that survivability will depend on environmental conditions; there is no ultimate goal to the evolutionary process, there is no "super-human" on the horizon. And "better human" has no meaning without defining the context.

I agree that there is no goal to the "evolutionary process" because there is no "evolutionary process". As I have said many time you are confused and deceived into believing that reproductive adaptation and mutations results in evolution. It does not. 😏

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Logic is an exact discipline. It is flawless.

Not when you use it. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Who can say the logic or the evidence is flawless? "Ifs" are plentiful and easy for the ignorant to assert.

Who can say the logic or the evidence is flawless?

I was referring to FLAWLESS logic and FLAWLESS evidence -NOT your type of “logic” and “evidence”

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your truth may be false and you would be wise to make sure it is not false. 😏

I'm getting dragged in again. Must... Do... Some... Work...!

Your truth may be false and you would be wise to make sure it is not false. 😏

This is very true. Tell me, how do you make sure your truth is not false? Scientists compare it to reality. What do you compare it to?

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
These questions just tell us you do not understand evolution and that you have a homo-centric view of creation.

Its the genes that survive, genes if you like, just "use" host animals. And that survivability will depend on environmental conditions; there is no ultimate goal to the evolutionary process, there is no "super-human" on the horizon. And "better human" has no meaning without defining the context.

These questions just tell us you do not understand evolution and that you have a homo-centric view of creation.

Of course I don't understand evolution !! What are you trying to do to me, embarress me ?

If there is no scheme then the biosphere exists because of pure chance. If it is not pure chance then there must be a scheme or plan to arrive at the biosphere.

Is there a third alternative ? Maybe the only other alternative is that we are MAD. What we see only is an ILLUSION of order. We are crazy or drunk or just metaphysically stoned and THINK that the ILLUSION of orchestration, order, organization, and arrangement of the biosphere is there.


Actually it is just a CHAOTIC mess of some kind and our poor deceived minds see an ILLUSION of organization and adoptability.

Then of course we have no right to consider MAN as in some way at the top of this pinnacle of order. Maybe the COCKROACH is the so-called "crown of creation".

Or maybe we should be SPERMCENTRIC. We were naturally selected for the sake of survival of better SPERM cells. And any other relationship is naive homocentric wishful thinking.



If we take the so called "SIMPLE" life form of a one celled ameoba, I still have to think of a scheme or a plan behind its existence. This is a tiny creature. We could line up several hundred in one inch.

The information stored in the nucleus of this one celled creature's DNA molecule is more than could to a 30 volumes set of the Encyclophedia Britannica. And the entire ameoba's DNA contains as much information as could be stored in 1000 complete sets of the Encyclopedia Britanicca.

Richard Dawkins is the one who told us this. So it must be right.

Now these 1,000 encyclopedias would not contain gibberish. And the DNA molecules we speak of do not contain gibberish. But by random mutations GIBBERISH is by far the MAJORITY of what one would expect to get.

But instead of 1,000 encyclopedians of gibberish as the comparison we have 1,000 encyclopedias (1,000 x 30 volume set) of MEANINGFUL MESSAGE.

No Plan ?
No Scheme ?
No Purpose ?

Okay, if no scheme and no plan then what else can we say except that PURE CHANCE accompished this ? The Natural Selection to arrive at this simpliest AMOEBA has to be discribed as the extremly lucky outcome of pure chance. And we are talking here about the so called SIMPLE one celled life form an AMOEBE.

Personally, I think a total gradualism could not have brought about the biosphere. I think some kind of punctuated changes of sudden modification may be a better fit for the fossil record.

And we haven't even gotten much into the problem of "convergent evolution".

Originally posted by jaywill

These questions just tell us you do not understand evolution and that you have a homo-centric view of creation.

[b] Of course I don't understand evolution !! What are you trying to do to me, embarress me ?

If there is no scheme then the biosphere exists because of pure chance. If it is not pure chance then there must be rd.

And we haven't even gotten much into the problem of "convergent evolution".[/b]

I think some kind of punctuated changes of sudden modification may be a better fit for the fossil record.

What would you base that conclusion on exactly?

Just out of interest, have you ever read a book written by an evolutionary biologist?