28 May 14
Originally posted by KellyJayOr so you incorrectly assumed. I for one treated your arguments fairly and did my best to address them. I do recall a fairly long thread on the topic and you consistently rejecting any explanations point blank regardless of what was explained to you.
My concerns were just brushed off not because of the things I brought up
so much, but because I am a creationist.
That they can think that a new device like a "light sensitive" spot can just occur on a
cell and be meaningful to the life form they believe that gets one.
I think this because I know of a number of species in which this has happened. It is demonstrably so.
I recall also you had a similar argument about flight in bats, and I presented multiple examples of animals that show the intermediate stages of flight - to which you had no answers, but you were not convinced. So yes, eventually I draw the conclusion that you are not basing your beliefs on the topic on your arguments, but on your religion.
What is more likely it could cause a system break down, or do nothing at all but draw down energy depending how it was connected.
The question is not whether one result is more likely, but whether or not it is possible. The thing about evolution is that highly unlikely things are not only possible, but probable because they are selected for.
After that it get more complex yet seemly all the odds are just accepted as
do able, because well that is what evolution does, over come impossible
odds.
Yes, that is what evolution does. There is a famous book on the subject called 'Climbing mount improbable'.
If you dispute it, then please feel free to present an argument against it and it will all be explained to you again. If however you hide behind a wall of skepticism whilst refusing to listen to any counter arguments then you will get labelled a creationist.
In fact, you stopped responding to any of my posts because I once presented an argument that you simply had no counter arguments for, so rather than admit that you did not have a counter argument, you decided never to talk to me again. This is why I would now label you creationist and pre-assume that is your reason for not accepting things like evolution. But it is not how I treated you initially.
28 May 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadStephen Meyer Critiques Richard Dawkins's "Mount Improbable"
Or so you incorrectly assumed. I for one treated your arguments fairly and did my best to address them. I do recall a fairly long thread on the topic and you consistently rejecting any explanations point blank regardless of what was explained to you.
[b]That they can think that a new device like a "light sensitive" spot can just occur on a
cell and be ...[text shortened]... your reason for not accepting things like evolution. But it is not how I treated you initially.
28 May 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't believe we have any change in the written form of Genesis since it is only one book considered to have been dictated to Moses from God.
The so called 'Holy scriptures' are a collection of books - which obviously means the collection changed over time. Further, the religion involves both interpretation of those scriptures (which is as changeable as the weather) and even disagreement about what to include in the scriptures, and even what translations of the scriptures to use etc. In additio ...[text shortened]... ieves does not actually come from the writing in the Bible but rather from more modern thinkers.
28 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd that belief of yours is a fairly recent, largely american phenomena, that did not come from the text, but from your pastor. And the belief itself is false ie the text of genesis has changed since it was first written, and it wasn't written by Moses.
I don't believe we have any change in the written form of Genesis since it is only one book considered to have been dictated to Moses from God.
28 May 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, it came straight from me to you, just as your nonsense came straight out of your ass to me.
And that belief of yours is a fairly recent, largely american phenomena, that did not come from the text, but from your pastor. And the belief itself is false ie the text of genesis has changed since it was first written, and it wasn't written by Moses.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
28 May 14
Originally posted by KellyJayKnowing that the odds of a natural pathway for the emergence of the eye as a biological feature are "impossible" to overcome is quite a leap, and it is understandable to me that your admitted creationist position would lead people to think you are advancing an non-naturalistic (supernatural) theory. In most people's minds that has everything to do with God, and from that POV they see it as a science stopper, perhaps not by that name.
I recall a discussion about the forming of the eye through evolution quite
a while ago. From personal experience I brought up the issues that I saw in
the beliefs about the eyes formation by evolution.
My concerns were just brushed off not because of the things I brought up
so much, but because I am a creationist. When many discussions about
science ...[text shortened]... cepted as
do able, because well that is what evolution does, over come impossible
odds.
Kelly
Originally posted by JS357I didn't bring up God in my complaint about the eye, I am more concern
Knowing that the odds of a natural pathway for the emergence of the eye as a biological feature are "impossible" to overcome is quite a leap, and it is understandable to me that your admitted creationist position would lead people to think you are advancing an non-naturalistic (supernatural) theory. In most people's minds that has everything to do with God, and from that POV they see it as a science stopper, perhaps not by that name.
about how living system work with what I know about getting a computer
system to work. It may be that my creation position may cause me to not
just accept something an other may accept, but so what? It is the questions
that matter, diverse opinions when looking at the universe gives us a very
broad understanding of it.
Kelly
29 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI did not take your disagreement with me as an insult. I took this statement by you as an insult:
So why is it that when I disagree with you it is an insult? Would not that be the same as you disagreeing with me?
... your nonsense came straight out of your ass to me.
I am not american, so I may be misreading you. Was it not intended as an insult? Is it just an Americanism for "I disagree with you"?
29 May 14
Originally posted by KellyJayWell to see if it is your creationism or not, try and answer this question without mentioning God or creationism:
I didn't bring up God in my complaint about the eye, I am more concern
about how living system work with what I know about getting a computer
system to work. It may be that my creation position may cause me to not
just accept something an other may accept, but so what?
Why do you think the odds for a light sensitive cell arising in an animal is impossible. Can you estimate the odds? Can you estimate what odds would be impossible? Can you estimate what odds would be probable?
To help you get started, maybe you could try to estimate:
1. How many worms exist on earth. How long have worms existed on earth. And therefore how many worms have ever existed on earth.
2. What is the exact number of DNA changes required in a worm for it to change one of its cells to a light sensitive cell.
3. What is the frequency of DNA changes in typical worms.
29 May 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe expression 'pulled it out of your ass' is slang meaning you improvised/made something up rather than got it from a reliable source.
I did not take your disagreement with me as an insult. I took this statement by you as an insult:... your nonsense came straight out of your ass to me.
I am not american, so I may be misreading you. Was it not intended as an insult? Is it just an Americanism for "I disagree with you"?