Flat Earth Christians

Originally posted by KellyJay
We can look at that several different ways, one example I'd use are
bridges, they can be rope bridges, wooden, concrete, train trestles,
suspension bridges and so on, they all hold to basic design
function, yet evolution does not have a tree falling over a river in
Africa the direct ancestor of the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco.

We can look at ...[text shortened]... thing to do with a walkman evolving into a Quad Core processor, or
a Sony Play station.
Kelly

Yet again you use this pointless analogy, just dressed up with differently examples. Bridges cannot evolve without someone changing their desgin...... do we really need to keep going over this KJ? It is so far from being analogous to evolution its laughable.

Evolution works on the living, reproducing, mutating individuals living under changing environmental conditions and selective pressures.

Change the climate and it means nothing to the bridge, or do bridges in your fantasy land reproduce a next generation of bridges all on their own?

Whats the reason for your continual confusion surrounding these analogies you dream up?

Originally posted by timebombted
Yet again you use this pointless analogy, just dressed up with differently examples. Bridges cannot evolve without someone changing their desgin...... do we really need to keep going over this KJ? It is so far from being analogous to evolution its laughable.

Evolution works on the living, reproducing, mutating individuals living under changing environ ...[text shortened]... own?

Whats the reason for your continual confusion surrounding these analogies you dream up?

That seems to be the problem with all the conventional teleological arguments for god—they use artifacts in order to assume an artificer. Bridges, buildings, watches. When analogies are drawn from artifactual design and manufacture, they are simply question-begging.

I have yet to see anyone making that kind of argument say something like: “There’s an oak-tree; surely that implies an oak-tree maker.” Or some such.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
No problem.

For what it's worth, I am sorry if I have done it to you.

Its all good, no worries.
Kelly

Originally posted by timebombted
Yet again you use this pointless analogy, just dressed up with differently examples. Bridges cannot evolve without someone changing their desgin...... do we really need to keep going over this KJ? It is so far from being analogous to evolution its laughable.

Evolution works on the living, reproducing, mutating individuals living under changing environ ...[text shortened]... own?

Whats the reason for your continual confusion surrounding these analogies you dream up?

My point exactly, you do not need to see evolution to see these types
of things, they do not mean evolution they can just as easily mean
design! Evolution is something you are claiming is there because you
see those types of things in life; it isn’t necessary true, which is my
point, there could be other reasons beside evolution and one is design.

If you are going to see evolution in life no matter what isn’t that as
bad as theist claiming God’s hand is in life too, don’t you think? If
there are other possible reasons, and you reject them out of hand
and just assume what you believe is true such as evolution is
responsible the formation of the eye, you are closing off all other
possible reasons, and have crossed out of being able to look at
these things objectively.

As far as you crying about what I just said I suggest you start reading
a little more since the reason that last statement was made was due
to someone responding to this,

"I can show you things that are designed that carry things that do the
same thing differently and other things that are the same, it does not
mean one evolved from the other. "

So the whole point was to talk about designed things! Come on
timebombed if you are going to complain about a post look a little
closer for the reasons of it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
My point exactly, you do not need to see evolution to see these types
of things, they do not mean evolution they can just as easily mean
design! Evolution is something you are claiming is there because you
see those types of things in life; it isn’t necessary true, which is my
point, there could be other reasons beside evolution and one is design.

If ...[text shortened]... if you are going to complain about a post look a little
closer for the reasons of it.
Kelly

…My point exactly, you do not need to see evolution to see these types
of things, they do not mean evolution they can just as easily mean
design!,…

No. Because the design is often imperfect (e.g. blood vessels in our eyes in front instead of behind the retina etc) and this alone strongly indicates a non-intelligence behind the design.

Also, if an intelligence was behind the designs, there surely must be “purpose” behind each design. What is the “purpose” of the design of a species that we don’t naturally see nor naturally interact with? For example, what is the “purpose” of the numerous species of microscopic nematodes that thrive in the sediment on the ocean floor?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…My point exactly, you do not need to see evolution to see these types
of things, they do not mean evolution they can just as easily mean
design!,…

No. Because the design is often imperfect (e.g. blood vessels in our eyes in front instead of behind the retina etc) and this alone strongly indicates a non-intelligence behind the design. ...[text shortened]... of the numerous species of microscopic nematodes that thrive in the sediment on the ocean floor?[/b]

So your complaints are you don't see reason, and you think you
can desgin a better lifeform that will live for generations through
all the various enviroments we have on the planet?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So your complaints are you don't see reason, and you think you
can desgin a better lifeform that will live for generations through
all the various enviroments we have on the planet?
Kelly

…So your complaints are you don't see reason,…

It isn’t a “complaint”; it is an “observation” that I see evidence of the absence of “reasoning” behind the designs of life forms.

…and you think you can design a better life form that will live for generations through all the various environments we have on the planet?
…

Not quite literally. Even I cannot do better than evolution -I am not even a geneticist! -but, using my intellect, I certainly would avoid evolution’s really obvious “blunders” such as putting the blood vessels in front of our retinas etc. If I would avoid such obvious blunders, then surely an intellect greater than I should be able to avoid such obvious blunders.

Originally posted by KellyJay
My point exactly, you do not need to see evolution to see these types
of things, they do not mean evolution they can just as easily mean
design! Evolution is something you are claiming is there because you
see those types of things in life; it isn’t necessary true, which is my
point, there could be other reasons beside evolution and one is design.

If ...[text shortened]... if you are going to complain about a post look a little
closer for the reasons of it.
Kelly

I see evolution, not just because I want to see it, but because it is backed up by a plethora of evidence from independent resources. To date this is the most logical and objective conclusion. I cannot see design in living things because NO evidence indicates this to be true.

Yes, we have the Theory of Evolution and you are right in your belief that just because of this "solid" theory it doesn't mean everything is a result of evolutionary processes, but in this context I refer to things like "why do humans do this....... oh its because of evolution" thats something I hear alot without evidence to back it up. However, the eye is not something I blindly say has evolved. Again, it is backed up by evidence (not a faith that it required by a creator / designer).

So if you want to look at things obejectively - please provide evidence that the eye was designed if that is what you are claiming???? I'm happy to read any EVIDENCE you can provide, as long as it comes from a reputable source.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…So your complaints are you don't see reason,…

It isn’t a “complaint”; it is an “observation” that I see evidence of the absence of “reasoning” behind the designs of life forms.

…and you think you can design a better life form that will live for generations through all the various environments we have on the planet?
…

Not qu ...[text shortened]... lunders, then surely an intellect greater than I should be able to avoid such obvious blunders.[/b]

"It isn’t a “complaint”; it is an “observation” that I see evidence of the absence of “reasoning” behind the designs of life forms."

What do you mean here? You may, and I stress the word "may" see
one or two things you'd like to see done differently in the design of
life, and yet they are but small next to nothing tweaks that you have
posted so far, and life is put together in such a grand manner you
have the nerve to say you see a lack of reasoning? You are loosing
a lot of credibility here if you honestly think there isn't enough
complications within life that it should just blow your mind in how
well it works instead of this mind numbing statement you see a lack
or reasoning.
Kelly

Originally posted by timebombted
I see evolution, not just because I want to see it, but because it is backed up by a plethora of evidence from independent resources. To date this is the most logical and objective conclusion. I cannot see design in living things because NO evidence indicates this to be true.

Yes, we have the Theory of Evolution and you are right in your belief that j ...[text shortened]... m happy to read any EVIDENCE you can provide, as long as it comes from a reputable source.

"I see evolution, not just because I want to see it, but because it is backed up by a plethora of evidence from independent resources."

I'm sure that is what you think, but how would you know if you are
not just seeing it, because that is what you being told is there not
because it is? There is a saying, if you look for demons you will
find them, if they are there or not.

I'm not trying to bait you here, but really, the conversation about the
eye had people telling me that evolution had to be cause, it wasn't
that they could really tell me why.
Kelly

Originally posted by timebombted
I see evolution, not just because I want to see it, but because it is backed up by a plethora of evidence from independent resources. To date this is the most logical and objective conclusion. I cannot see design in living things because NO evidence indicates this to be true.

Yes, we have the Theory of Evolution and you are right in your belief that j ...[text shortened]... m happy to read any EVIDENCE you can provide, as long as it comes from a reputable source.

Okay, soom reasons for the eye being designed.
There is no reason for me to accept that could have happened any
other way! The level of complexity is to great to just occur, finding
light when it was never before encounted to me would be a great
distraction not a advantage. The passing of information to make
sight possible doesn't seem to be realistic in the wildest of notions
in my opinion either. Only a fairy tale has been put forward on how
the eye was formed and even it wasn't very strong.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, soom reasons for the eye being designed.
There is no reason for me to accept that could have happened any
other way! The level of complexity is to great to just occur, finding
light when it was never before encounted to me would be a great
distraction not a advantage. The passing of information to make
sight possible doesn't seem to be realistic ...[text shortened]... ry tale has been put forward on how
the eye was formed and even it wasn't very strong.
Kelly

OK. You can anytime post your scientific finds and evidence to the University of Oxford.

Originally posted by black beetle
OK. You can anytime post your scientific finds and evidence to the University of Oxford.

Ah, go away will you! You said we were done, honor your word.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Ah, go away will you! You said we were done, honor your word.
Kelly

I am a bad black beetle full of beetlejuice.
Do cheer up KJ, no problem if we disagree! So be it!

Originally posted by KellyJay
"It isn’t a “complaint”; it is an “observation” that I see evidence of the absence of “reasoning” behind the designs of life forms."

What do you mean here? You may, and I stress the word "may" see
one or two things you'd like to see done differently in the design of
life, and yet they are but small next to nothing tweaks that you have
posted so far, a ...[text shortened]...
well it works instead of this mind numbing statement you see a lack
or reasoning.
Kelly

So explain to me the “reasoning” behind putting the blood vessels in front of the human retina?

Or explain to me what is the “purpose” of the design of a species that we don’t naturally see nor naturally interact with? For example, what is the “purpose” of the numerous species of microscopic nematodes that thrive in the sediment on the ocean floor?

I think you are just ignoring the content of my posts.