10 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonwhy do people laugh at clowns.......yes......exactly.
Found this video by accident while searching the net:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-do-people-laugh-at-creationists.html
I apologies in advance for the obviously provocative nature this video has to creationists which it will offend but the fact is it has to be said that it just very frankly points out the truth.
10 Apr 09
Originally posted by KellyJayBirds can fly on their own and we cannot but BOTH we and birds digest food so therefore the reason for one cannot be the reason for the other. So why do turkey vultures had a more advanced digestive system than us? ( -answer, an accident of evolution).
More than likely the same reason a bird can fly on its own and we
cannot, the bird was designed to fly on its own and we cannot.
Kelly
10 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonReally, you think?
Birds can fly on their own and we cannot but BOTH we and birds digest food so therefore the reason for one cannot be the reason for the other. So why do turkey vultures had a more advanced digestive system than us? ( -answer, an accident of evolution).
You think humans should have the most advanced system there is
no matter what that system is?
Kelly
10 Apr 09
Originally posted by KellyJayNo the parts were not present in the correct configurations. That is the very definition of death. If the parts were all present and correct in the correct configurations we would declare the person alive. Your pretense that this is not so is just laughable - quite suitable for this thread.
I don't believe I made a false assertion, life is full of examples
where some people died and others lived under the same conditions,
others just died, the chemicals were there, they died...the body didn't
just vaporize all the parts were present.
Further your claim that people had different results under identical conditions can only be taken as a guess as it is practically impossible to ensure that conditions were identical.
What do you think I was being
false about, you think that people die due to some chemical change
only? Some chemical some where alters itself and life goes away,
what is it you think goes on at death?
Kelly
It is of course more than a single chemical going wrong, it is a matter of whole systems going wrong, but the end result - and actual cause of death is chemicals being out of place.
10 Apr 09
Originally posted by KellyJayBut your skepticism is not based on reason. It is based on the fact that you are afraid it conflicts with your faith. You have shown this time and time again with various assertions which when you are asked to back them up you show that you have no logical backing whatsoever.
I again think that is beyond
any reasonable assumption all around! You would have a hard time
putting together a complex model airplane without directions or some
reasonable amount of knowledge before hand, and yet we see and
hear without effort on anyone or anythings part and you think that
is just acceptable.
Kelly
Even here in your post the best you can come up with is to feign incredulity when in actual fact you are fully aware that there is a whole branch of science that is 100 years old that has proven time and time again that it is not only acceptable but it is undeniable by any sane person willing to look at the evidence.
11 Apr 09
6 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay….You think humans SHOULD have the most advanced system there is
Really, you think?
You think humans should have the most advanced system there is
no matter what that system is?
Kelly
no matter what that system is?
..… (my emphasis)
Err, where did I say/imply that?
I implied the exact opposite by saying we evolved to have our digestive system hence that explains why our digestive system (and probably that of most other animals) could be improved on by a hypothetical unlimited intelligence IF such an unlimited intelligence exists and designed it.
Why “SHOULD” evolution give us the best possible digestive system? -answer, no reason; so it didn't.
Therefore, the fact that we don’t have the best possible digestive system is consistent with the hypothesis that we evolved but doesn’t sit well with the hypothesis that we were designed by some kind of unlimited intelligence (especially one that is supposed to have made and done everything for OUR (i.e. human) benefit! ).
11 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI don't see you with an argument here, we have a digestive system,
[b]….You think humans SHOULD have the most advanced system there is
no matter what that system is?
..… (my emphasis)
Err, where did I say/imply that?
I implied the exact opposite by saying we evolved to have our digestive system hence that explains why our digestive system (and probably that of most other animals) could be improved on by ...[text shortened]... pecially one that is supposed to have made and done everything for OUR (i.e. human) benefit! ).[/b]
you claim we have it because of evolution, therefore we do? You are
under the impression a designer would have done it differently,
because you would have, so it couldn't be a matter of design? You
are not looking at all the pieces and how they work together to form
the whole, you are just thinking if it were you, it would be this way and
not that.
Kelly
11 Apr 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy skepticism is based upon reason. The process I do not believe
But your skepticism is not based on reason. It is based on the fact that you are afraid it conflicts with your faith. You have shown this time and time again with various assertions which when you are asked to back them up you show that you have no logical backing whatsoever.
Even here in your post the best you can come up with is to feign incredulity wh ...[text shortened]... is not only acceptable but it is undeniable by any sane person willing to look at the evidence.
is a workable one the way it is described to form advanced systems
as we see in life. You cannot take evolution put it down as a flow
chart and make it work if your honest, the complex nature of life is
beyond the randomness of mutation feeding natural selection.
Kelly
11 Apr 09
5 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayYou mean you choose to pretend that I didn’t write it? -my argument must have really pissed you off.
I don't see you with an argument here, we have a digestive system,
you claim we have it because of evolution, therefore we do? You are
under the impression a designer would have done it differently,
because you would have, so it couldn't be a matter of design? You
are not looking at all the pieces and how they work together to form
the whole, you are just thinking if it were you, it would be this way and
not that.
Kelly
Reminder of my argument in my last post:
“…Why “SHOULD” evolution give us the best possible digestive system? -answer, no reason; so it didn't.
Therefore, the fact that we don’t have the best possible digestive system is consistent with the hypothesis that we evolved but doesn’t sit well with the hypothesis that we were designed by some kind of unlimited intelligence (especially one that is supposed to have made and done everything for OUR (i.e. human) benefit! )….”
…you claim we have it because of evolution, THEREFORE we do?
..… (my emphasis)
Where did I say that? There is nothing circular about my argument; you missed out the bit of my argument where I explained how the fact we have an obviously imperfect design is inconsistent with the hypothesis that what designed life must have been “intelligent” -so sorry, nothing circular there!
….You are under the impression a designer would have done it differently,
BECAUSE you would have,
..… (my emphasis)
Nope; I am under the impression that an “intelligent” designer would probably have done it differently NOT because I would have done it differently but rather because it would have to be a stupid “intelligent” designer to, for example, put the blood vessels of the human retina in front of the retina etc and it also would be a peculiar inconsistency for EVEN a stupid “intelligent” designer to do that and make many other design errors in the design of some living things yet not in another living things -that would be like me to not only repeatedly misspell a word but for me to misspell the same word in a different way each time and in many different ways -surely this would be a sign of an absence of conscious thought in the action.
13 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhat argument did you give, you stated that evolution did something
You mean you choose to pretend that I didn’t write it? -my argument must have really pissed you off.
Reminder of my argument in my last post:
“…Why “SHOULD” evolution give us the best possible digestive system? -answer, no reason; so it didn't.
Therefore, the fact that we don’t have the best possible digestive system is consistent with the hypo ...[text shortened]... y different ways -surely this would be a sign of an absence of conscious thought in the action.
and like most things you present is just an opinion! You present some
one else's thoughts on a topic as if that is proof of your beliefs, you
do not defend your own thoughts. You have not pissed me off, you
don't make me mad or amuse me. Do you think when you state an
opinion that is an argument?
Why should I believe evolution gave anything? I do not credit it for
giving anything at all. Show me how it works, can you walk us down the
path of how that would occur? I am not asking for a link from you, I
would like to see how you think about it.
The fact we have different digestive systems to me shows we have
different needs which would make design a more reasonable way for
that to happen. The notion that a goalless process could come up with
the same basic systems except a variety of different versions is not
self evident as you seem to believe, but I am sure you feel that is
true, but self evident not so much.
Kelly
13 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou look at what you see and just claim what is here is best explained
You mean you choose to pretend that I didn’t write it? -my argument must have really pissed you off.
Reminder of my argument in my last post:
“…Why “SHOULD” evolution give us the best possible digestive system? -answer, no reason; so it didn't.
Therefore, the fact that we don’t have the best possible digestive system is consistent with the hypo ...[text shortened]... y different ways -surely this would be a sign of an absence of conscious thought in the action.
by evolution, as if stating that is enough. You don't walk us through
the process why that is so, you just make the statement that is true,
again not an argument, a statement of belief.
Kelly
"Therefore, the fact that we don’t have the best possible digestive system is consistent with the hypothesis that we evolved..."
13 Apr 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton“Nope; I am under the impression that an “intelligent” designer would probably have done it differently NOT because I would have done it differently but rather because it would have to be a stupid “intelligent” designer to, for example, put the blood vessels of the human retina in front of the retina etc and it also would be a peculiar inconsistency for EVEN a stupid “intelligent” designer to do that and make many other design errors in the design of some living things yet not in another living things -that would be like me to not only repeatedly misspell a word but for me to misspell the same word in a different way each time and in many different ways -surely this would be a sign of an absence of conscious thought in the action.”
You mean you choose to pretend that I didn’t write it? -my argument must have really pissed you off.
Reminder of my argument in my last post:
“…Why “SHOULD” evolution give us the best possible digestive system? -answer, no reason; so it didn't.
Therefore, the fact that we don’t have the best possible digestive system is consistent with the hypo ...[text shortened]... y different ways -surely this would be a sign of an absence of conscious thought in the action.
A stupid designer, you have a variety of life going through time having
off spring, living in the harshest environments on the planet life flies,
swims, crawls, walks, runs, sees, hears, tastes, thinks and you think
all of these are stupidly designed, and your argument rests upon a
blood vessel in front of the retina, you have got to be kidding.
Kelly
14 Apr 09
Originally posted by KellyJayYou say that your skepticism is based on reason, but you cannot provide that reasoning to us. Why is that? Reasoning, if reasonable, should be communicable. All you ever come up with is skepticism, not once have you actually presented your reasoning. You say I cannot put evolution down on a flow chart and make it work, but you do not present any reasoning to back up that claim. All you ever present is skepticism, and worse it is skepticism that you claim is based on statistical quantities that you do no actually know.
My skepticism is based upon reason. The process I do not believe
is a workable one the way it is described to form advanced systems
as we see in life. You cannot take evolution put it down as a flow
chart and make it work if your honest, the complex nature of life is
beyond the randomness of mutation feeding natural selection.
Kelly
If I ask you whether you think it is possible for the worlds mosquito population to evolve a new gene that provides resistance to DDT within the space of 50 years you will express skepticism - extreme skepticism ie you will not say "I am not sure", you will rather say "it is more likely that...". Yet when I point out that you do not have the information to make that call you still remain skeptical. That is not skepticism based on reason.
14 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI've given you plenty of reasons, I walked you through why I do not
You say that your skepticism is based on reason, but you cannot provide that reasoning to us. Why is that? Reasoning, if reasonable, should be communicable. All you ever come up with is skepticism, not once have you actually presented your reasoning. You say I cannot put evolution down on a flow chart and make it work, but you do not present any reasoning mation to make that call you still remain skeptical. That is not skepticism based on reason.
think evolution with natural selection can do the things you claim it
does. It isn't that I have not given those things to you, it is you just
do not want to hear them.
Kelly