25 Jul 23
@venda saidResources get used up in each failed attempt, starting over in something that we can say was successful for the sake of an argument that may have taken a million years to produce, losing all that time and all of the resources it used up, is unrecoverable. Not to mention being a mindless process there is getting things right let's do it again, no notes, nothing compelling about recreating what was good, because to the mindless process, there is no good or bad.
The 100 monkeys thing only works with progression.If a monkey types the word "now" for example it then needs to go on to the next stage and not start over.
It's the same with evolution.If a primitive organism develops an eye for example this is a progression.The next evolutionary progression must be an eye plus an ear for example
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121376
@kellyjay saidWhat “resources”?
Resources get used up in each failed attempt, starting over in something that we can say was successful for the sake of an argument that may have taken a million years to produce, losing all that time and all of the resources it used up, is unrecoverable. Not to mention being a mindless process there is getting things right let's do it again, no notes, nothing compelling about recreating what was good, because to the mindless process, there is no good or bad.
What “million years”?
What is “unrecoverable”?
Why does the absence of a mind in a chemical interaction mean it requires “notes”?
What mind is responsible for “creating” a worm which makes children go blind?
@divegeester saidI've never heard of a worm that makes children go blind,but if there is such a creature(and I'm sure there must be or you would not have quoted this as an example)it's just another life form making it's way in the world.
What “resources”?
What “million years”?
What is “unrecoverable”?
Why does the absence of a mind in a chemical interaction mean it requires “notes”?
What mind is responsible for “creating” a worm which makes children go blind?
It has just as much right to life as any other life form including humans.
The fact that it blinds children is incidental.
There will be no malice
26 Jul 23
1 edit
@venda saidThe disease is commonly known as River Blindness. It is particularly hideous. A fly bites a person and lays its eggs inside the person's body. When the eggs hatch, the little 'worms' (larvae) migrate though the body, towards the brain and other organs. The agony is so excruciating that many people commit suicide before the bugs reach the brain.
I've never heard of a worm that makes children go blind,but if there is such a creature(and I'm sure there must be or you would not have quoted this as an example)it's just another life form making it's way in the world.
It has just as much right to life as any other life form including humans.
The fact that it blinds children is incidental.
There will be no malice
https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/onchocerciasis/index.html
26 Jul 23
@vivify saidUnless you are suggesting truth changes with time, your argument doesn't hold water, the things they said being true will not change with the passage of time any more than 1+1=2 would.
You're trying to make science compatible with an ancient book written by men who sacrificed goats.
@moonbus saidYou assume a great deal, no one assumes a horse is inside an engine when speaking about horsepower, any more than we think there is an actual foot involved in foot-pounds or an inch now has form when speaking of inch pounds they are symbolically putting things into terms people can relate to. Your crying about putting things like stop-start mechanisms as they are performed within life is pitiful, do you say the same thing about heartbeats, circulatory or respiratory systems in life, they simply are symbolically defining the work being done in terms that show what is taking place. Maybe someday the "light" will come on in your head and you will see.
Questioning per se is not wrong-headed. But asking wrong-headed questions isn't going to get you any answers. Asking how informational instructions get into cells is a wrong-headed question; it's like asking how the little horse got inside a diesel engine. There is no horse inside a diesel engine, and there are no informational instructions inside cells.
20th time answerin ...[text shortened]... e. That doesn't fit with your religious agenda (which tells you that the universe was made for man).
You have no explanation so you write life's beginning off as a lucky fluke, that is a "braindead" answer for one of the most functionally complex things we are aware of. You don't have any explanation with all of the constraints your worldview has in place it is far outside of explainable to you, so you ignore it and attack the one thing that can explain it.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
26 Jul 23
@kellyjay saidThank you for proving that you know nothing about science at all.
What do you think testing is done for if not to give validation to our theories and hypothesis?
Science is not politics or philosophy. In science, you do not state your opinion out of the blue and then come up with arguments to "prove" that you're right. Rather, you observe the data, and come up with an explanation of that data. Then, first, you check that it really does explain the data. If not, you dismiss it.
(You did not do this.)
Then, you ask yourself whether there is not something simpler that explains the data as well.
(You did not do this, either.)
Then, most importantly, you try your hardest, not to validate, but to invalidate your theory. Because if you can do that, it is junk. It's easy to (pretend to) validate any assumption, if you fudge the numbers enough. What's hard is to come up with a theory that resists invalidation
(Needless to say, you didn't even try. You just assumed you and your video waffler were right, just because it sounds convincing to you.)
You're not talking science. You're talking rhetoric, mere sophistry.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
26 Jul 23
@kellyjay saidNO!
To think mindlessness could manipulate material
This is your fundamental error. You believe that because something happens, someone must have wanted that specific thing to happen.
This is false, and it will remain false no matter how often you keep blaming the Lord for your own stupidity.
26 Jul 23
@shallow-blue saidInsults aside there is a binary choice here, it was either a mindless process directing everything or not. If not then we are left with what?
NO!
This is your fundamental error. You believe that because something happens, someone must have wanted that specific thing to happen.
This is false, and it will remain false no matter how often you keep blaming the Lord for your own stupidity.
26 Jul 23
@shallow-blue saidI put forward a simple question asking for anyone that can come up with something outside of circular reasoning or blind faith to explain the specific functional complex nature in life. I am not preparing a paper I am asking a question.
Thank you for proving that you know nothing about science at all.
Science is not politics or philosophy. In science, you do not state your opinion out of the blue and then come up with arguments to "prove" that you're right. Rather, you observe the data, and come up with an explanation of that data. Then, first, you check that it really does explain the data. If not, ...[text shortened]... t sounds convincing to you.)
You're not talking science. You're talking rhetoric, mere sophistry.
The vast majority of respondents attempt to turn this from inquiry, into something spiritual or some philosophical question, getting rather nasty and insulting at times while not giving an answer.
27 Jul 23
@shallow-blue saidI am asking a simple question that is foundational to how all life is viewed in every respect. The answer touches a broad spectrum from biology, philosophy, religion, and host of other disciplines shaping our cultures, because it doesn’t just fit one area of life should clue you in on how important the answer is. Ignoring it or shunning the possibilities doesn’t remove the actual cause, it simply means you don’t care or want to know so you avoid the topic.
Thank you for proving that you know nothing about science at all.
Science is not politics or philosophy. In science, you do not state your opinion out of the blue and then come up with arguments to "prove" that you're right. Rather, you observe the data, and come up with an explanation of that data. Then, first, you check that it really does explain the data. If not, ...[text shortened]... t sounds convincing to you.)
You're not talking science. You're talking rhetoric, mere sophistry.
Can a mindless, uncaring process create what we see in life? If you think so why? What evidence leads you there, if you got nothing, then why believe it?