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

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm asking you to explain why cumulative selection can't build complexity. That is what you are claiming right?

There is more to it than just "cumulative selection" the process is either able to
do it or not. You are asking for a no set process to do this, and I'm asking for
a valid example of one that no one setup for success that does this; because, I do
indeed believe if we setup something to work it will.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If life cannot be started due to the specific nature of what is required, if you move
in little or large steps it is meaningless. You start off suggesting it can be done and
apply odds as if you know it to be true. I'm all for building complexity in small
steps, every program/script I've ever wrote was done that way.
Kelly

If life cannot be started due to the specific nature of what is required, if you move
in little or large steps it is meaningless.

I don't understand what you're trying to say, what does 'the specific nature of what is required mean exactly? The fact is this, life started, i know this as i'm sat at my computer typing. If life didn't start i wouldn't be here.

You start off suggesting it can be done and apply odds as if you know it to be true.

What 'odds' have i applied to anything? What odds are you talking about? I've made no such claim.

I have no idea what you are talking about here Kelly. All i have done was correct you with regard to the part of Dawkins book you mentioned.

Originally posted by KellyJay
There is more to it than just "cumulative selection" the process is either able to
do it or not. You are asking for a no set process to do this, and I'm asking for
a valid example of one that no one setup for success that does this; because, I do
indeed believe if we setup something to work it will.
Kelly

Sorry, i have no idea what you're talking about. What is a 'no set process'?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Sorry, i have no idea what you're talking about. What is a 'no set process'?

He means not set up by intelligence to work. A process that has no direction is a "no set process" and is what we call the idea of atheists who do not believe a Creator directed the process of creation of the heavens and the earth and the process of creating living things or the laws that govern its operation.

If a scientist does an experiment in a lab, he is setting up the process to see how it will work under the directions he uses for the experiment. It is set up with the intent to produce an outcome. This would not prove that atheists are right, because the scientist, with intelligence, has directed or set up the process.

Originally posted by RJHinds
He means not set up by intelligence to work. A process that has no direction is a "no set process" and is what we call the idea of atheists who do not believe a Creator directed the process of creation of the heavens and the earth and the process of creating living things or the laws that govern its operation.

If a scientist does an experiment in a lab, ...[text shortened]... eists are right, because the scientist, with intelligence, has directed or set up the process.

Do you have a memory?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Sorry, i have no idea what you're talking about. What is a 'no set process'?

Processes are driving forces, things work due the forces applied or denied in the
manner in which all of that is done. Your computer program example had a
programmer setup all the processes and watched them work the way they set them
up and said those results prove you can have no setup processes and get these
types of results, which is apples and oranges, a joke. No set process means there
is no reason for anything to do what it’s going to do, everything is random. With
a set process you'll get like results, without one you'll get nothing of the sort.

So what you’re suggesting is that with no guided process over time things will come
together and work together to the point that life will appear. With no set process
in place we will get set processes that will become more and more functionally
complex over time as different body parts appear and start working together. I've
never seen anything like that ever, and since you are the one promoting it I'd like
to see some examples of it.
Kelly

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
how do you think they came into being?

By an intelligence, of course. You knew the answer to that one, didn't you?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Do you have a memory?

We all have a memory. You did not need to ask such a silly question.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Processes are driving forces, things work due the forces applied or denied in the
manner in which all of that is done. Your computer program example had a
programmer setup all the processes and watched them work the way they set them
up and said those results prove you can have no setup processes and get these
types of results, which is apples and orang ...[text shortened]... at ever, and since you are the one promoting it I'd like
to see some examples of it.
Kelly

I've never seen anything like that ever, and since you are the one promoting it I'd like to see some examples of it.

And you're not likely to. The time frame from the origins of life to 'body parts' is in the billions of years. What do you want to see exactly?

Originally posted by RJHinds
We all have a memory. You did not need to ask such a silly question.

Well then what have i told you on at least three occasions now?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Well then what have i told you on at least three occasions now?

The last thing I remember you telling me was, "You're gonna burn."
And the other times you were asking irrelevant questions to the topic under discussion. But you usually have no valuable information for me to take note of to put in my memory for long. So I discard them in the trash bin and soon delete them. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
The last thing I remember you telling me was, "You're gonna burn."
And the other times you were asking irrelevant questions to the topic under discussion. But you usually have no valuable information for me to take note of to put in my memory for long. So I discard them in the trash bin and soon delete them. 😏

I'll tell you again, i have no interest in discussing anything with you. You are a liar and a cheat and have absolutely no intellectual integrity whatsoever. You are a troll, plain and simple. Stop wasting your time responding to my posts, why you are responding to them is beyond me as none of them are even directed towards you, now go along and play with your chess engine.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'll tell you again, i have no interest in discussing anything with you. You are a liar and a cheat and have absolutely no intellectual integrity whatsoever. You are a troll, plain and simple. Stop wasting your time responding to my posts, why you are responding to them is beyond me as none of them are even directed towards you, now go along and play with your chess engine.

I did not intend to discuss anything with you. I was just educating you because I did not want you to remain ignorant. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]I've never seen anything like that ever, and since you are the one promoting it I'd like to see some examples of it.

And you're not likely to. The time frame from the origins of life to 'body parts' is in the billions of years. What do you want to see exactly?[/b]

Well I guess you may as well say God did it than because the proof lays in the
same frame work, faith.
Kelly

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you likely meant to say intelligent design doesn't enter into this at any point. whatever the case, it's likely not an accurate statement.

The process I described does not require an intelligent designer or any other type of intelligence. If a sea dries up then the fish in the sea simply die. That is all that can happen with such an environmental change. If an island is submerged, then any land animals on the island drown and die. That is all that can happen. If a region is buried in thick ice for centuries, then there will be very little life in that region for the duration.

Most life forms require quite specific habitats and cannot survive outside their habitat. That is why most life forms have died out over geological time. They have been replaced by different life forms that are better adapted to the changed environment. The existence of diverse life forms over time and in different habitats is not contentious. The only question is how do species change over time and why is it evident that, despite variation, there are also continuities so that we can trace the ancestry of current life forms in those of earlier geological time.

If mountains ranges form or land masses are separated by widening seas, then inter-breeding will no longer be possible between populations on either side of the divide and separated populations of any species will develop quite distinct lines of descent. It is easy to see that Australia has a very distinct collection of species and this simple, uncomplicated and hardly contentious phenomenon of physical separation and isolation of its populations from those of other land masses provides an explanation without reference to any notion of design or purpose whatever.

Etc. Debating evolution with people knowing nothing about what they dispute is tiresome. None of this is actually complicated. Most of these debates are word games with people lacking access to a plain dictionary.