Chance or by Design ?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no its dogmatic and ludicrous to limit ones search for truth to unintelligent agencies.

Only in our artificial world, NOT the natural world.
To suggest that an intelligence should be behind, say, a lighting strike, would be just silly.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
in every way!

give just one example....

Originally posted by humy
give just one example....

ok, he called me a liar without evidence.

Originally posted by humy
Only in our artificial world, NOT the natural world.
To suggest that an intelligence should be behind, say, a lighting strike, would be just silly.

to assert that a single cell is not both intelligently designed and irreducibly complex is
to ignore the harmony that exists between the differing elements and the the processes
which they perform and no its not silly, lighting produces chemical reactions which
produce ozone and nitrogen.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=189402

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you are an advocate of evolution and you have not even read the book that formed
the basis of that theory? Its akin to a Christian stating that hes never read the Bible.
Are there other protagonists of the evolutionary hypothesis that also have not read
Darwins book? I will read the original if you dont mind, its more than the majority of ...[text shortened]... erialists have done. Really i find it quite strange, why wouldn't you read Darwins
own book?

the crazy thing about this debate is the focus is on evolution to defend itself. even if we found out tomorrow that the whole of evolution is wrong,it still doesnt mean that god did it evolution may or may not have some holes in the theory but at least there is something solid enough to have holes in it!! rather than just being 100% hole like creationism.

you say that you see evidence of intelligent design around you. but really you dont know if you do or dont, you like to see intelligence behind it, but there is no solid proof, for every bit of good design there is an example of bad design, even if we proved that there was some element of intelligence behind it we still dont know if it was a god or something else, no matter what you say or type is irrelevant you are only talking about what you would like to be true.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
your hypothesis relies upon your interpretations of the exact same data, my point is
that i have posted numerous links to sites that contains empirical data, for example
I recall a site that i posted links to pre Cambrian life forms, i have posted links to
sites that detail what is available for fossil evidence with regard to the assumed
tran ...[text shortened]... am saying that the data is exactly the same, all that differs is interpretations of
that data!

If you have posted numerous links, lets have a look at one please? Surely it can't be that hard.

It's not strange that i can remember these quotes, it's simply knowing how to use a Google search properly.

And finally, read Darwins book and then read this book i have so you can use your own mind to evaluate the 150 years of evidence that has been acumulated since the publication of his book. What's the big deal?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
the crazy thing about this debate is the focus is on evolution to defend itself. even if we found out tomorrow that the whole of evolution is wrong,[b]it still doesnt mean that god did it evolution may or may not have some holes in the theory but at least there is something solid enough to have holes in it!! rather than just being 100% hole like cr ...[text shortened]... you say or type is irrelevant you are only talking about what you would like to be true.[/b]

whut? lets ask evolution what is the purpose of life and you will get the answer, to
procreate and pass ones genetic make-up on to the next generation. Really, Sammy
the squirely squirrel does exactly the same, he builds a nest, gathers nuts for winter
and has a family. Looking at the ingredients of a chocolate cake tells us practically
nothing about for whom it was made and why, this is the folly of the materialist, he
assumes that his theory provides a mandate for life, an explanation, when in fact, it
provides no reasons at all.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
If you have posted numerous links, lets have a look at one please? Surely it can't be that hard.

It's not strange that i can remember these quotes, it's simply knowing how to use a Google search properly.

And finally, read Darwins book and then read this book i have so you can use your own mind to evaluate the 150 years of evidence that has been acumulated since the publication of his book. What's the big deal?

you trawl through them if its that important to you, i provided them, after all, i have
been active on this forum for years! No commentaries on Darwin, Im a purest!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you trawl through them if its that important to you, i provided them, after all, i have
been active on this forum for years! No commentaries on Darwin, Im a purest!

You're a 42/43 year old deluded coward too scared to read anything which contradicts your religious beliefs.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You're a 42/43 year old deluded coward too scared to read anything which contradicts your religious beliefs.

thanks, i wondered how long it would take you. Have you read Darwins book, nope,
have i, yes, what's up, are you too scared to read it?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
to assert that a single cell is not both intelligently designed and irreducibly complex is
to ignore the harmony that exists between the differing elements and the the processes
which they perform and no its not silly, lighting produces chemical reactions which
produce ozone and nitrogen.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=189402

to assert that a single cell is not both intelligently designed and irreducibly complex

there is no evidence for irreducible complexity in nature nor any premise to suppose such a thing.

is to ignore the harmony that exists between the differing elements and the the processes
which they perform

saying “is to ignore biology” would have sufficed.

and no its not silly,

it is; no evidence for it nor premise.

lighting produces chemical reactions which
produce ozone and nitrogen.

1, lighting does produce small amounts ozone gas but the ozone layer along with the ozone gas within it is not made by lighting but rather by UVC so I don't know why you mention this.

2, lighting does NOT produce nitrogen!
Nitrogen is a chemical element that therefore can only be made by nuclear reactions.

3, would you agree that it is silly to suggest that a particular lighting strike has an intelligent agent behind it?

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=189402

yes, lighting does produce small amounts ozone gas. So?
This doesn't make the ozone layer if that is what you are suggesting?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whut? lets ask evolution what is the purpose of life and you will get the answer, to
procreate and pass ones genetic make-up on to the next generation. Really, Sammy
the squirely squirrel does exactly the same, he builds a nest, gathers nuts for winter
and has a family. Looking at the ingredients of a chocolate cake tells us practically
not ...[text shortened]... eory provides a mandate for life, an explanation, when in fact, it
provides no reasons at all.

thats all pretty nonsensical. evolution has no purpose. the ability to reproduce is not a purpose its an effect and result, naturally only the biological entities that are good at reproducing are still here, thus a common thing we all exhibit but it is not a purpose. purpose is a man made concept.

like i said before, you can keep deflecting things back onto evolution, looking for the holes in the theory. the big problem you have is creationism doesnt work on any level. its neither scientifically proven in anyway, its not logical in anyway, its not even a very good story. its a fairy tale for those people that are too scared to face the reality of life, that we are not special and we will die and thats the end. all the crappy stories in the bible that allude to high morality are a side show for the real reason people belive in religion and that is the fear of death (which the human ego struggles to handle) and the desire to live forever, which is the ultimate in materialism.

a question you need to ask yourself is if you found out god didnt exist, would that change your opinion on evolution? if god didnt exist what in your opinion would be the most likely explanation for life?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thanks, i wondered how long it would take you. Have you read Darwins book, nope,
have i, yes, what's up, are you too scared to read it?

are you too scared to read it?

what? You saying because he hasn't read it yet that he is “scared” to read it? 😛
why would he be “scared” to read it?

Originally posted by humy

to assert that a single cell is not both intelligently designed and irreducibly complex

there is no evidence for irreducible complexity in nature nor any premise to suppose such a thing.

is to ignore the harmony that exists between the differing elements and the the processes
which they perform

saying “is to ignore biolog amounts ozone gas. So?
This doesn't make the ozone layer if that is what you are suggesting?

Lightning has enough energy to break the incredibly strong bonds between molecules
of nitrogen gas, producing nitrogen radicals that bond with other radicals in the
atmosphere to produce molecules that plants can harness for growth.

Unintelligent, hardly! I guess its just another coincidence, in fact, every where we look
there is evidence of intelligence, huge ocean filters which remove pollution, salt spray
which combines with pollutants in suspension which makes them heavy enough to fall
into the ocean for filtration. Flip sake, humanity with all its technology has not provided
anything as skilfully designed.

Originally posted by humy

are you too scared to read it?

what? You saying because he hasn't read it yet that he is “scared” to read it? 😛
why would he be “scared” to read it?

I have no idea, hes a chicken? 😛, buck buck!