Originally posted by scottishinnzDon't forget to do the same thing for the Spanish Inquisition. We'll have to say it "only killed the equivalent of 400 000 people".
But don't forget to weigh the crusade deaths against population. Since the world popn in 1000AD was around the 300,000,000 mark and it now approaches 7 billion, multiply each casualty of the crusades by 2000 times to work out the equivalent destruction today..
Originally posted by powershakerWell put big man!
A mess? Yeah, I know. Look at what a mess it has caused because people try to fight God's land! Look at the mess! That's their land! Leave them all alone, why don't they? That land was promise to the Jews in the Word of God. Repent and be Saved.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou sure sound like you have it all.
I just want to know where you came up with that stat. It clearly implies to me that you have neither any knowledge or understanding of either evolutionary biology or statistics.
Surely if something was able to happen by chance you should be able to demonstrate it in the lab?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by StarrmanFor something to happen by random chance, no intelligent intervention is required.
What? How do chance event and laboratory repetition have a link? Honestly what reasoning are you using to connect these two things?
Surely, by using intelligence (in the lab) you should at least be able to reproduce something that could be produced with no itelligence whatsoever.
Or are are you saying that the "lack of intelligence" can create something that "intelligence" cannot reproduce?
By believing in evolution you are basically saying that a whirlwind can sweep through a junkyard to create a rocket which is too intricate for a rocket scientist or engineer to reproduce.
Oh god, here comes the strawman army again 😞
Originally posted by dj2becker
For something to happen by random chance, no intelligent intervention is required.
Intelligent intervention is not necessary, fair enough.
Surely, by using intelligence (in the lab) you should at least be able to reproduce something that could be produced with no itelligence whatsoever.
What? How do you make this leap? Can you recreate the exact shape of a snowflake? Or a cloud? Why should inteligence be able to do such things. You are making an assumption which is plainly untrue.
Or are are you saying that the "lack of intelligence" can create something that "intelligence" cannot reproduce?
I don't have a problem with this occurring. We cannot create a tree, yet trees exist and are created.
By believing in evolution you are basically saying that a whirlwind can sweep through a junkyard to create a rocket which is too intricate for a rocket scientist or engineer to reproduce.
No you are not. You know this is rubbish and yet you always offer up these paltry examples which are woefully metaphorical and utterly inaccurate. Please, dj, change the record. Just because you don't understand how the process is possible, doesn't mean it cannot happen.
Originally posted by dj2beckerYes, actually. IF these parts are not just randomly being jostled into and out of position. Instead the more workable the current relationship between parts are the more resistant it becomes to being moved out of place. This means that initially you would get a lot of movement, but as pieces get into a working position there would be less and less pieces moving around.
By believing in evolution you are basically saying that a whirlwind can sweep through a junkyard to create a rocket which is too intricate for a rocket scientist or engineer to reproduce.
Consider a big puzzle made of say 10000 pieces. If I just jumble them around, will I eventually get the whole picture emerging? If I keep moving each equally, then not very likely. If, on the other hand the few pieces that happen to connect in the right places form a stronger cohesion leading to a resistance to being moved out again I will find that the pieces I am having to randomly move gets less and less until eventually the picture DOES emerge.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by StarrmanIntelligent intervention is not necessary, fair enough.
Thank you. Great start.
Now please go ahead and demonstrate how anything meaningful can come about without intelligent intervention.
As you have the presupposition that order can arise from disorder by chance, without intelligent intervention, you have you supply specific examples where this takes place, in order to justify this presupposition.
Originally posted by dj2becker
Now please go ahead and demonstrate how anything meaningful can come about without intelligent intervention.
I didn't say that at all, I said that intelligent intervention is not a necessary aspect of a random chance event.
As you have the presupposition that order can arise from disorder by chance, without intelligent intervention, you have you supply specific examples where this takes place, in order to justify this presupposition.
I didn't say this either. But if I consider your claim, the first thing I would say is why do you think there is disorder?
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou've hit it square on mate. But allow me to warn you that however plain you make your case, starrman has his head too firmly in the sand, and is too arrogant to listen to you.
For something to happen by random chance, no intelligent intervention is required.
Surely, by using intelligence (in the lab) you should at least be able to reproduce something that could be produced with no itelligence whatsoever.
Or are are you saying that the "lack of intelligence" can create something that "intelligence" cannot reproduce?
B ...[text shortened]... d to create a rocket which is too intricate for a rocket scientist or engineer to reproduce.
Originally posted by princeoforangeHahaha, if that's your idea of 'square on' you seriously need a course in elementary reasoning.
You've hit it square on mate. But allow me to warn you that however plain you make your case, starrman has his head too firmly in the sand, and is too arrogant to listen to you.
Originally posted by StarrmanOnce again, something that disagrees with your opinion proves the necessity of me taking a course in elementary reasoning.
Hahaha, if that's your idea of 'square on' you seriously need a course in elementary reasoning.
Ah well, so be it, you must be right, you always are.
Originally posted by princeoforangeSimple logic shows that his post is fragmented. If you cannot see that, then you need educating, it has nothing to do with my opinion of you.
Once again, something that disagrees with your opinion proves the necessity of me taking a course in elementary reasoning.
Ah well, so be it, you must be right, you always are.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by StarrmanI didn't say that at all.
Let me get this straight - do you or don't you believe in evolution?
I didn't say this either. But if I consider your claim, the first thing I would say is why do you think there is disorder?
Does the term "evolution" ring a bell? Or are you saying that evolution does not require order to be created from disorder by chance?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by princeoforangeI suppose he might start 'hearing' what someone said if you put a basketball in his mouth.😉
You've hit it square on mate. But allow me to warn you that however plain you make your case, starrman has his head too firmly in the sand, and is too arrogant to listen to you.