{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/1/2015 9:37:28 PM
475
Evolution is often called a "mechanism" of nature (that's how I was told in school anyways). So let's compare it to a mechanical watch. Just for fun. Take a mechanical watch apart, put all its pieces in a box, and shake that box. No matter how long or how many tines you shake that box, the watch will never come out put together and functioning properly. Is there a chance? Sure, as the basic principle of probability is that there is [i]always[/i] a chance. But the chances are so small that its basically impossible. Same with evolution. Is there a chance? Sure. There's also technically a chance I'll grow wings in 10 seconds and fly away. But the chances are so small that its basically impossible.
Just a thought.
English
-
Seen it plenty of time bruh. You are a lost cause.
-
Sadly, I can say the same for you.
-
I'd rather be lost with science. So I'm find with that.
-
I'd rather be sure with logic; so I'm fine with that.
-
[quote]I'd rather be sure with logic; so I'm fine with that.[/quote] Coming from you hahaha
-
I've already taken apart all of his arguments, buy he still just copy pastes them like it never happened.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/3/2015 4:10:27 PMYou still have not provided me an answer to my question.
-
I answered every one of your questions.
-
What is the origin of organic life manifesting from non-organic material? And don't say, "The study of abiogenesis has no explanation yet."
-
Edited by Britton: 5/4/2015 7:19:57 PMWhy would I answer a question with a false answer? It hasn't been discovered yet! Lack of scientific answer at this time doesn't constitute a divine one. Its part of chemistry. And technically, an organic material is one that contains carbon. Carbon is made in stars, so there ya go.
-
[quote]Why would I answer a question with a false answer? It hasn't been discovered yet![/quote]Do you mean to say, "Because there is no answer as to why it is illogical (having no explanation) is the reason why one should consider the possibility that it's true"?[quote]Lack of scientific answer at this time doesn't constitute a divine one.[/quote]To you, what would?
-
No, I mean, just because we haven't figured it out yet doesn't mean its illogical, or god, or whatever else. And divine/supernatural explanations require divine/supernatural evidence. I'll believe anything, but the more outlandish the claim the better the evidence better be to support it.
-
[quote]...and divine/supernatural explanations require divine/supernatural evidence.[/quote]I thought you would have agreed with physical evidence. Oh well...
-
Like what? The bible saying something happened isn't physical evidence.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/6/2015 6:41:17 AMEvidence: We exist; thus, we need a cause. God's eternal; thus, He needs no cause.
-
God has no evidence. So many people need a cause, that's fine. One persons cause is another's folly. Each individuals cause is something they make for themselves. You're getting way offtopic. Man having a cause doesn't affect evolution.
-
[quote]God has no evidence.[/quote]Evidence: Irreducible Complexity in Biology.[quote]So many people need a cause, that's fine. One persons cause is another's folly.[/quote]What?[quote]Each individuals cause is something they make for themselves.[/quote]What?[quote]You're getting way offtopic.[/quote]You just stated what I was thinking.[quote]Man having a cause doesn't affect evolution.[/quote]I wasn't talking about man. I was talking about everything.
-
Irreducible conplextiy is a made up idea by creationists. Evolution isn't built from the top down, it's built from the bottom up. Extremely simple versions of modern body parts are what evolved over time to what we see today. This is evident in the fossil record. When creationists such as yourself quote Darwin in Origin Of Species about the eye, they leave out how he goes on to say [quote] If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case...... When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of vox populi, vox dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. [/quote] He recognizes that the structures evolution created are indeed amazing, but how they began simply and over millions of years became complex is what makes it all believable. Stop sucking up religious propaganda. That shit rots your brain. So your precious creationist quote of Darwin is simply taken out of context. As you can see even at that point in time there was enough fossil evidence to support the theory of evolution. Now over 150 years later we have even more evidence and evolution stands solidly upon reality.
-
Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong. I admit to not knowing the rest of the quote, but since Darwin assumed that it was caused by Natural Selection in minuet stages over ever-changing moments in human biology, would that not mean that our eyes are still "evolving" into something more complex than now, or was that just Darwin speculating, and if yes that the eye is evidently ever-changing, would that not mean that anything determine as complex would have to evolve into something slightly more complex in the next generation?
-
Things don't change unless there is a need for them to do so. If our eyes are serving there purpose adequately, why would they keep changing if there are no environmental pressures pushing them to change? Evolution doesn't state that things keep changing for the sake of change. They keep changing only when natural selection requires them to do so. If its good enough, it has no reason to change, and it won't outside of standard mutation.
-
-
It's a terrible analogy. It involves no biological interaction inside the box. Is the box cubicle? Sure. Do the sprockets, chains, and dials contain life? Maybe... but no they don't. Not at all. Pretending to have an informed perspective because "watch parts and shaky boxes" provides precisely dick for an argument. Sorry. Try harder.
-
Oh the joys of muting people on Bungie.net
-
Because its easier not to listen than actually think about things.
-
Of course. Your point is moot. No argument can be formulated, so bury your ignorant head in the sand. It works for Ostriches.
