Fruit giving instant knowledge of right and wrong to those who eat them (and trees bearing them) has a natural explanation

Originally posted by Agerg
Doesn't matter how good you are...by your reasoning there is no way in hell you could have (without external assistence) stuck so dilligently to the move sequence that has has taken place over all your games such that things end up as they are now. Indeed whether you played perfectly in every game it only takes a mistake from your opponent (for example playing at contracts do you have with other players to ensure the move sequence you have so far??? 😕

actually you are wrong, there are, in my opinion essentially three opening moves which are worthy of consideration, 1.e4, 1.d4 and 1.c4, and if you check my recent games i have played 1.c4 exclusively and remarkably the games have shown a similar characteristic when i have not attempted to sharpen the game with disastrous consequences, usually for me.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually you are wrong, there are, in my opinion essentially three opening moves which are worthy of consideration, 1.e4, 1.d4 and 1.c4, and if you check my recent games i have played 1.c4 exclusively and remarkably the games have shown a similar characteristic when i have not attempted to sharpen the game with disastrous consequences, usually for me.

But the fact is, you could have played other moves (and so could your opponents); and over the course of 753 games you played a particular collection of moves - this is astonishing I'm sure you'll agree.

Now again, what were the chances you would play all the moves you have (over all your games)?

Originally posted by Agerg
But the fact is, you could have played other moves (and so could your opponents); and over the course of 753 games you played a particular collection of moves - this is astonishing I'm sure you'll agree.

Now again, what were the chances you would play all the moves you have (over all your games)?

no i couldn't, I don't play chess like an unreasoning inanimate force Agers, i try to base my moves on principle, a3 does nothing, f4 is too weakening, h6 neglects the centre, etc etc etc. in every one of my recent games i have played, 1.c4, g3 and Bg2 and i will continue to do so for ages to come.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i couldn't, I don't play chess like an unreasoning inanimate force Agers, i try to base my moves on principle, a3 does nothing, f4 is too weakening, h6 neglects the centre, etc etc etc. in every one of my recent games i have played, 1.c4, g3 and Bg2 and i will continue to do so for ages to come.

I see...so you're trying to tell me that in spite of all your free-will to play any move you choose, there are constraints at work (which you call reasoning) via which you are incapable of actually playing some of those other moves? (a4 for example)

Tell me Robbie, given that a brick is free to move in any direction within 3-dimensional space, is it the case that a brick falling from a height uses it's own reasoning to decide when and where it should stop? (often this tends to be on the ground somewhere)

Originally posted by Agerg
Well given we're talking about a natural explanation for the transferrence of knowledge please explain in more details the mechanics of how eating fruit instantly gives you knowledge of right and wrong. Indeed where is this information stored in the fruit? how is it stored? and how is this information parsed by us in and after the act of eating it?

If you want to invoke magic then fine, fair enough; but that's a repsonse for a different thread.

You wanted to know how the Creator could do it I gave you away.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You wanted to know how the Creator could do it I gave you away.
Kelly

No you didn't...You rattled off the first pot-shot speculation that came to mind without showing it can hold under scrutiny.
Given the nature of this thread, your "answer" is as satisfactory to me as a statement that combustion is the means via which teeth grow.

I want details KellyJay.

Originally posted by Agerg
No you didn't...You rattled off the first pot-shot speculation that came to mind without showing it can hold under scrutiny.
Given the nature of this thread, your "answer" is as satisfactory to me as a statement that combustion is the means via which teeth grow.

I want details KellyJay.

Oh please, with science people have made the claims that the way the eye
formed for the first time a nerve for no good reason just changed into one
that was able to transfer data to the life form it belonged too. I've not heard
word one about magic being involved when it comes to evolution.

You are asking about a story where God created the universe and want to
disallow God doing whatever it was He wants the way He wants.
Kelly

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, you would have to believe that there was a water canopy, you zoobs don't know anything, here you have been caught havering about magic trees, magic apples, talking snakes, it seems that your ignorance of scripture really knows no bounds.

okay, just replace one ridiculously absurd notion with another. you haven't gained any ground.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Oh please, with science people have made the claims that the way the eye
formed for the first time a nerve for no good reason just changed into one
that was able to transfer data to the life form it belonged too. I've not heard
word one about magic being involved when it comes to evolution.

You are asking about a story where God created the universe and want to
disallow God doing whatever it was He wants the way He wants.
Kelly

Your "point" about evolution (in particular what you say about the eye) demonstrates the sort of binary reasoning which is the gulf separating fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists. It is no more the case that

the eye formed for the first time a nerve for no good reason just changed into one that was able to transfer data to the life form it belonged to

than

Your father had sex with your mother and suddenly you appeared on this earth as a [insert your current age] year old working as a [insert your current job]

I don't doubt that numerous posters have battled in vain to supply you with the details via which the mechanism of evolution allows for the complexity of species even in the face your favourite "you were never there so you cannot infer that X happening by magic is less likely than X happening by some natural process with mounds of supporting evidence" argument. Furthermore, the details that are, and have been made available to you don't involve any appeals to magic.

Finally, with the exception of brushing off ill-substantiated nonsense that seems to pass muster with you folks, I'm not disallowing anything. You want it to be the case that Adam & Eve got their knowledge through DNA in fruit - fine...now explain how!
If you can't explain how then you have offered nothing.

Originally posted by Agerg
Your "point" about evolution (in particular what you say about the eye) demonstrates the sort of binary reasoning which is the gulf separating fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists. It is no more the case that

[i]the eye formed for the first time a nerve for no good reason [b]just changed into one that was able to transfer data to the life form it be ...[text shortened]... kely than X happening by some natural process with mounds of supporting evidence" argument.[/b]

Listen, when people talk about the eye being formed, they claim that a
spot on the eye becomes light sensitive, AND THEN a nerve changes so that
it is able to transfer data collected from the light sensitive spot. Magic I
suppose could allow all of that to occur along with the lifeform being able
to handle the NEW information so that it is understood, but without magic
you have the same type of issue you complaining about with knowledge
being passed by a piece of fruit.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Listen, when people talk about the eye being formed, they claim that a
spot on the eye becomes light sensitive, AND THEN a nerve changes so that
it is able to transfer data collected from the light sensitive spot. Magic I
suppose could allow all of that to occur along with the lifeform being able
to handle the NEW information so that it is understood, ...[text shortened]... ame type of issue you complaining about with knowledge
being passed by a piece of fruit.
Kelly

Listen, when people talk about the eye being formed, they claim that a spot on the eye becomes light sensitive, AND THEN a nerve changes so that it is able to transfer data collected from the light sensitive spot
But the thing is they don't claim this. It's what you claim - you claim that the development of the human eye is the linear progression from no working eye to a fully functional eye in no more than three transitional steps. This isn't what happens! Like I said in my last post, it is no more the case that:

the eye formed for the first time a nerve for no good reason just changed into one that was able to transfer data to the life form it belonged to

than

Your father had sex with your mother and suddenly you appeared on this earth as a [insert your current age] year old working as a [insert your current job]


Magic I suppose could allow all of that to occur along with the lifeform being able to handle the NEW information so that it is understood, but without magic you have the same type of issue you complaining about with knowledge being passed by a piece of fruit.
This is not true - it is blatantly obvious in the Bible that there is a binary progression from no knowledge of right and wrong to having knowledge of right and wrong, merely by eating a piece of fruit. no such claims are made about the evolution of the eye.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]Listen, when people talk about the eye being formed, they claim that a spot on the eye becomes light sensitive, AND THEN a nerve changes so that it is able to transfer data collected from the light sensitive spot
But the thing is they don't claim this. It's what you claim - you claim that the development of the human eye is the linear progression from ...[text shortened]... g, merely by eating a piece of fruit. no such claims are made about the evolution of the eye.[/b]

I'm all for you correcting me on the formation of the eye, please give a
high level break down of the process without magic of course.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm all for you correcting me on the formation of the eye, please give a
high level break down of the process without magic of course.
Kelly

Before I undertake that endeavour, the questions I would have to ask myself first are:

1)Based on your debating style as I've seen it with myself and other posters, can I expect you be receptive to the manner in which I would attempt to present that explanation? (especially given my academic training is not in any area that entitles me to suppose I am anything other than a layperson on this subject)
2) Do you at the very least acknowledge the possibility that the process of evolution as you "understand it" is wildly disjoint from what the people who are furthering research now (and those who have furthered such in the past) actually say the process is?
3) Am I going to spend a good length of time trying to formulate an argument, dotting my "i"s, crossing my "t"s, and preempting as many ill-formed counters as is within my capability only for it to be rewarded with some dismissive comment that demonstrates little more than I wasted my time?


I worry most about (3)

Originally posted by Agerg
Before I undertake that endeavour, the questions I would have to ask myself first are:

1)Based on your debating style as I've seen it with myself and other posters, can I expect you be receptive to the manner in which I would attempt to present that explanation? (given my academic training is not in any area that entitles me to suppose I am anything oth ...[text shortened]... ment that demonstrates little more than I wasted my time?


I worry most about (3)

Oh put up or shut up! For crying out loud if you feel this place is total
drain of your time why bother posting at all?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Oh put up or shut up! For crying out loud if you feel this place is total
drain of your time why bother posting at all?
Kelly

Given your response here I was probably right to be worried about 3 then - it would have been a lengthy argument requiring your own interaction at certain stages.