The design argument

Originally posted by JS357
"Seriously? So even after all of the times I've tried to get someone to explain how selection can work long before a benefit ever be realized, you still don't know what I'm talking about?"

I have done so but your request is insincere.

If a request can be insincere, then can an answer to a request also be insincere? Just because I don't expect to see a sincere answer, or one that makes sense, it doesn't mean requesting an answer is insincere.

You explained how an organism can anticipate an unknown attack through happenstance alone.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I've read numerous posts of yours and have come to the conclusion you're a pathological liar, hence the 😴 . I genuinely have no time or inclination for your drivel ridden monologues. I tell you this so you won't make the same mistake twice, it is after all the season of goodwill and festive cheer.

LOL Okay, I get it. A pathological liar can be someone who asks a question you can't answer... and apparently this also means I'm insincere.

You guys crack me up.

Originally posted by lemon lime
What else could it be? Do you think God had anything to do with it?

so if its not god then it must be random??? who made up that rule?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I see. Well, there is a process called "evolution" which explains how such complex features might arise. You could consider reading a bit about it, it's quite a neat concept.

It is a neat concept. But some things are better explained as to why they are so, because of intelligent design.

Have you heard this brief talk by Mathematician David Berlinski discussing the most striking limitations in the "neat concept" of Evolution?

YouTube

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I see. Well, there is a process called "evolution" which explains how such complex features might arise. You could consider reading a bit about it, it's quite a neat concept.

The way he phrases the question indicates that he doesn't get evolution. He demands that we explain how the need to adapt to change drives genetic variation, whereas it doesn't do that. It only selects for genes that have already varied in accordance with natural processes that may appear to be random.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I see. Well, there is a process called "evolution" which explains how such complex features might arise. You could consider reading a bit about it, it's quite a neat concept.

Gee wheeze Mister, thanks a lot for that really cool idea! I'll get right on that... and leave you alone long enough for you to catch up.

Originally posted by lemon lime
LOL Okay, I get it. A pathological liar can be someone who asks a question you can't answer... and apparently this also means I'm insincere.

You guys crack me up.

I haven't read any of your posts for there to be a question to answer. You're giving yourself too much credit here.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Gee wheeze Mister, thanks a lot for that really cool idea! I'll get right on that... and leave you alone long enough for you to catch up.

No you won't.

Originally posted by sonship
It is a neat concept. But some things are better explained as to why they are so, because of intelligent design.

I'm afraid that's not the case. We've covered it a bit in this thread. To summarize, a designer provides no explanation in the sense of the currently used scientific method, because there is no limitation to what the designer might have designed unless we already know the designer and its properties. Therefore, we cannot distinguish the designed from the non-designed.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I see. Well, there is a process called "evolution" which explains how such complex features might arise. You could consider reading a bit about it, it's quite a neat concept.

What you don't seem to understand is that the complex features are already there to begin with and that according to Darwin, natural selection just selects from those features to produce the varieties within the species.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
so if its not god then it must be random??? who made up that rule?

Who do you think made up that rule? I'll give you a hint... it wasn't me.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What you don't seem to understand is that the complex features are already there to begin with and that according to Darwin, natural selection just selects from those features to produce the varieties within the species.

Not at the beginning, the first things on Earth were bacteria like forms and not like we have now with organelles, much simpler creatures.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I haven't read any of your posts for there to be a question to answer. You're giving yourself too much credit here.

You slept through the last one...

Originally posted by JS357
No you won't.

Maybe I would, if he dropped using BS invitations to read up on the subject from his act. Intimidation through an implication of superiority is an insincere and lame approach for getting someone to go away.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Maybe I would, if he dropped using BS invitations to read up on the subject from his act. Intimidation through an implication of superiority is an insincere and lame approach for getting someone to go away.

Well, I'm suggesting it because I find it somewhat peculiar that you seem to have a genuine interest in this topic, yet your elementary mistakes in comprehending what the theory of evolution is (regardless of whether you agree with it or not) betray that you have never bothered to read up on what the theory of evolution is and the experimental evidence underlying it. I wonder why that would be the case. Is it just laziness? Or could it be there is some dormant fear that by learning about and understanding evolution you might start to doubt your superstitious beliefs?