Why has a bee's sting evolved to be barbed?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The design of the human eye could be better with a little intelligent thought behind.
No intelligent thought is behind it however. So it is what it is. It could be better, it could be worse.

How could it be better, and still do what it does - move in the socket, see 3 basic light colors, and be able to survive with just one eye? I've been over this - predator birds like raptors have better built eyes but if they lose one they are 99% likely to die. They need both. How is their design 'better'?

These are not rhetorical questions. There is cause and effect for everything, including your opinion that the human eye is somehow flawed.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't see very powerful evidence at all when it comes to life moving
through evolution from its supposedly most basic form to the complex
varitey we see today. The history of the world, our race, its current
state, the changes in my life and the lives of millions, life, the balance
of the universe all seem like good evidence for me too for God.
Kelly

That's because you view the world through the prism of your dogmatic religious beliefs.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That's because you view the world through the prism of your dogmatic religious beliefs.

So do you.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So do you.
Kelly

Not really.

Firstly i'm not religious.

Secondly, i'll deomonstrate the difference between our views. I fully accept that there may be a God, i just don't see any evidence to believe that the case.

Do you accept that there may not be a God?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't see very powerful evidence at all when it comes to life moving
through evolution from its supposedly most basic form to the complex
varitey we see today. The history of the world, our race, its current
state, the changes in my life and the lives of millions, life, the balance
of the universe all seem like good evidence for me too for God.
Kelly

But how is god any more likely to be the cause of this stuff than say, a tooth fairy? There is no logic to that explanation - the world is so full of wonders that it must be god. Why must it be? Why not a tooth fairy?

Originally posted by amannion
But how is god any more likely to be the cause of this stuff than say, a tooth fairy? There is no logic to that explanation - the world is so full of wonders that it must be god. Why must it be? Why not a tooth fairy?

Regardless of the existence issue, for a moment, let's assume the Toothfairy does exist. Would you be more, or less, comfortable if the toothfairy was male?

What if Fairy's came in pairs and it was two male fairy's holding hands?

I mean, after all, Michael Jackson managed to taint the image of Peter Pan for a while...

Originally posted by amannion
But how is god any more likely to be the cause of this stuff than say, a tooth fairy? There is no logic to that explanation - the world is so full of wonders that it must be god. Why must it be? Why not a tooth fairy?

I've already been over this - the tooth fairy is a poor analogy.

The tooth fairy does exist. The tooth fairy was my mother; just ask her. That's what I did. 😛

Originally posted by Badwater
I've already been over this - the tooth fairy is a poor analogy.

The tooth fairy does exist. The tooth fairy was my mother; just ask her. That's what I did. 😛

1. You didn't respond to my last post. 2. I already said you would have to be non-human, only humans can post on this site.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Not really.

Firstly i'm not religious.

Secondly, i'll deomonstrate the difference between our views. I fully accept that there may be a God, i just don't see any evidence to believe that the case.

Do you accept that there may not be a God?

First off that depends on how you define religious, because you
without a doubt bave deeply held beliefs.

Secondly, faith is something you do have with respect to evidence you
believe what you see means various and sundry things that support
your fundamental views.

I believe in God, I acknowedge it is a matter of faith. That implies
I can be wrong it isn't something I can prove.
Kelly

Originally posted by daniel58
Regardless of the existence issue, for a moment, let's assume the Toothfairy does exist. Would you be more, or less, comfortable if the toothfairy was male?

What if Fairy's came in pairs and it was two male fairy's holding hands?

I mean, after all, Michael Jackson managed to taint the image of Peter Pan for a while...

I couldn't care less if the tooth fairy is a gay evangelical muslim.
The tooth fairy is a supernatural construct as are ghosts, werewolves, vampires, and ... gods.
They make for nice stories, but we usually grow out of them.

Originally posted by KellyJay
First off that depends on how you define religious, because you
without a doubt bave deeply held beliefs.

Secondly, faith is something you do have with respect to evidence you
believe what you see means various and sundry things that support
your fundamental views.

I believe in God, I acknowedge it is a matter of faith. That implies
I can be wrong it isn't something I can prove.
Kelly

there you go. so do evolutionists(esxcept the a-hole dawkins) that is what science is all about to keep a reasnoble amount of dopubt about your theories. the difference between religion and science is that science only uses established facts and theories to advance its knowledge. religion doesn't question dogma.(or vary rarely and those that do most often are called heretics.)


Secondly, faith is something you do have with respect to evidence you
believe what you see means various and sundry things that support
your fundamental views.
you do know of course this is highly illogical(all praise spock!). you do not "believe" what you see, you know what you see. you know that electricity exists you don't believe it. that is where intelligent design fails. it tries to pass the existence of god as established fact, as "i know". whereas he is "i believe" and will always be(until you die when you realize if you or abdul or shaolin monk were correct)

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
there you go. so do evolutionists(esxcept the a-hole dawkins) that is what science is all about to keep a reasnoble amount of dopubt about your theories. the difference between religion and science is that science only uses established facts and theories to advance its knowledge. religion doesn't question dogma.(or vary rarely and those that do most often a ...[text shortened]... l always be(until you die when you realize if you or abdul or shaolin monk were correct)

The real difference between science and religion *most of them* is
that science is ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge as
there is always the chance more data will force us into changing our
minds, and religion *most of them* is an acknowledgement of various
truth and with it you do not get a chance to change things on a whim
or the fly. Everyone should question what they think is true and test
it as well if it can be tested.

What you see can fool you, you see things and in order for you to
wrap your mind around them you define things to sort them out. How
you define them you'll go to what you believe to be true about the
universe your world view, and it will color all things before you.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The real difference between science and religion *most of them* is
that science is ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge as
there is always the chance more data will force us into changing our
minds, and religion *most of them* is an acknowledgement of various
truth and with it you do not get a chance to change things on a whim
or the fly. E to be true about the
universe your world view, and it will color all things before you.
Kelly

"The real difference between science and religion *most of them* is that science is ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge as there is always the chance more data will force us into changing our minds"

To believe that we some day cn come to the ultimate Truth is pompous. Science strive to come nearer and nearer the Truth, always put new knowledge to old knowledge, sometimes to come to a new, contra-intuitive result. Never believe in dogma, always prepared to trow the old theories down the drain if a new theory can be formed that better satisfy the observations and answers more questions that the former one couldn't. Scientists are seeking knowledge.

"religion *most of them* is an acknowledgement of various truth and with it you do not get a chance to change things on a whim or the fly."

If the observations say one thing, and the bible say another thing, then it is very hard, within the religion, to change the former dogma. What a religious athority says must be the truth, because he is nearer to god, people tend to think, even if he knows only a little about the subject.

"Everyone should question what they think is true and test it as well if it can be tested."

This is science!

Science is always leading into new scientific areas. Religion always comes behind.

But we must always remember that religion and science cannot ever mix.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The real difference between science and religion *most of them* is
that science is ever learning, but never coming to the knowledge as
there is always the chance more data will force us into changing our
minds, and religion *most of them* is an acknowledgement of various
truth and with it you do not get a chance to change things on a whim
or the fly. E ...[text shortened]... to be true about the
universe your world view, and it will color all things before you.
Kelly

"Everyone should question what they think is true and test
it as well if it can be tested."

but not something that is written in the bible. that is forbidden, right?

"What you see can fool you, you see things and in order for you to
wrap your mind around them you define things to sort them out."

instead you accept something moses, an ignorant shepherd wrote several thousand years ago. because he claims god spoon fed him all the truth mankind will ever need to learn. awesome.
not to mention most science is reasoning. scientists do not "define" theories and concepts like religion does without offering justification.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Everyone should question what they think is true and test
it as well if it can be tested."

but not something that is written in the bible. that is forbidden, right?

"What you see can fool you, you see things and in order for you to
wrap your mind around them you define things to sort them out."

instead you accept something moses, an ignorant she ...[text shortened]... s do not "define" theories and concepts like religion does without offering justification.

The Bible is no exception, that too.

Sciientist are always defining always offering justifcation on what they
believe to be true, and with that also laying down a foundation on how
all things need be or should be viewed. It is as I said, it is a world of
shifting sand, not a real solid fondation with which to build on.
Kelly