Lets build eyes

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…Even finding design flaws is a huge undertaking…”

That depends on how obvious the flaw is.
What if the flaw is a extremely stupid glaringly obvious design flaw?
Would recognising such a stupid obvious flaw be a “huge undertaking” or would it only require common sense? We have throughout these forums given you numerous examples of just such o ...[text shortened]... recognise and some could even be recognised by a halfwit layperson -Your reasoning is debunked.

You are telling me that with billions of dollars on the line, and some of the best
and brightest devoting their lives to making it flawless, it would be you not
them that will see some design flaw after the product goes to market?

I've given you examples too of people being able to spot a design flaw, that was
not the argument.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Please, do you really think anyone who disagrees doesn't understand the concepts
of evolution, that is very arrogant of you, suggesting the uniformed and ignorant
would disagree with you, why go there?

It wasn't intended as an insult. Merely pointing out a fact. One of the most basic concepts of the theory of evolution, one of the most fundamental concepts in fact, is that lots of small changes with selection can result in large seemingly improbable changes over time. You clearly don't understand this concept.

Though I haven't read it, I am told that "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins explains the concepts quite well.
Maybe others can suggest other good references on the subject?

Why can’t you just accept it that even people who gasp the basic concepts simply not accept them as gospel as you do,
we can agree to disagree.
Thats like saying even those who know how to do addition simply don't accept that 2+2=4.
If you understand it, you accept it. If you don't accept it, you don't understand it. Its as simple as that.
Note that I am not talking about whether or not life evolved or in fact anything to do with life. I am talking about the mathematics behind the science of evolution. If you understood it, you would not be making the claims based on probability that you do.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It wasn't intended as an insult. Merely pointing out a fact. One of the most basic concepts of the theory of evolution, one of the most fundamental concepts in fact, is that lots of small changes with selection can result in large seemingly improbable changes over time. You clearly don't understand this concept.

Though I haven't read it, I am told that ...[text shortened]... you understood it, you would not be making the claims based on probability that you do.

"It wasn't intended as an insult. Merely pointing out a fact. One of the most basic concepts of the theory of evolution, one of the most fundamental concepts in fact, is that lots of small changes with selection can result in large seemingly improbable changes over time. You clearly don't understand this concept."

I completely understand it, I absolutely think it is bogus when it comes to giving
any lifeform very complex systems within it over time however long you want to
give it. I also find it very insulting that is your stance of if you had a clue you
would agree with me.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I completely understand it, I absolutely think it is bogus when it comes to giving
any lifeform very complex systems within it over time however long you want to
give it. I also find it very insulting that is your stance of if you had a clue you
would agree with me.
Kelly

I do not intend to be insulting. If we were say discussing calculus or group theory, you probably wouldn't find it insulting if I pointed out that you didn't understand certain concepts. I certainly wouldn't be insulted if someone pointed them out to me. I don't claim to know everything when it comes to advanced mathematics.

I absolutely think it is bogus when it comes to giving any lifeform very complex systems within it over time however long you want to give it.
By saying that the time factor is irrelevant, you are essentially saying that you are not using a statistical argument. Yet in the post I originally replied to you stated:
There is just too much that has to happen just right for it to be anything other than by design.
Anything, however improbable, can happen if given enough time. Clearly you are using a statistical argument.
You are being inconsistent.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It wasn't intended as an insult. Merely pointing out a fact. One of the most basic concepts of the theory of evolution, one of the most fundamental concepts in fact, is that lots of small changes with selection can result in large seemingly improbable changes over time. You clearly don't understand this concept.

Though I haven't read it, I am told that you understood it, you would not be making the claims based on probability that you do.

...Thats like saying even those who know how to do addition simply don't accept that 2+2=4....
Perhaps the analogy can be made here that someone can understand addition (in a rudimentary way) but they fail to get the result that 2+2=4 because they're working with a non standard base (such as base 3)?

With a mind fixated on the requirement for their to be some orchestrating force directing the construction of eyes and such, one may accept that small changes can happen but fail to accept that given sufficient time, sufficient participants, sufficient pressure to adapt, and sufficient 'tries' (and failures) complexity of the sort being discussed in this thread can actually arise without the need for a designer.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do not intend to be insulting. If we were say discussing calculus or group theory, you probably wouldn't find it insulting if I pointed out that you didn't understand certain concepts. I certainly wouldn't be insulted if someone pointed them out to me. I don't claim to know everything when it comes to advanced mathematics.

[b]I absolutely think it is ...[text shortened]... iven enough time. Clearly you are using a statistical argument.
You are being inconsistent.

By saying that time isn't a factor says that given any amount of time, if you
cannot get there from here it does not matter how much time you have!
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do not intend to be insulting. If we were say discussing calculus or group theory, you probably wouldn't find it insulting if I pointed out that you didn't understand certain concepts. I certainly wouldn't be insulted if someone pointed them out to me. I don't claim to know everything when it comes to advanced mathematics.

[b]I absolutely think it is ...[text shortened]... iven enough time. Clearly you are using a statistical argument.
You are being inconsistent.

[/b]No, I'll give you a billion years for you to jump to the moon from anywhere on
earth using just your body, you can have a trillion years of chances and it will
not matter. You cannot get there from here!

The only way that given any amount of time will work it out is if there is a chance
it can happen. It is like picking a lock, start working out the numbers of the lock
given all the time there is you will figure it out, even if you are not attempting
to record the numbers you have used. That assumes that there is some
combination to open the lock, if there wasn't one you having all the time there
ever was or will be will not allow you to do something that cannot be done.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, I'll give you a billion years for you to jump to the moon from anywhere on
earth using just your body, you can have a trillion years of chances and it will
not matter. You cannot get there from here!

The only way that given any amount of time will work it out is if there is a chance
it can happen. It is like picking a lock, start working out t ...[text shortened]... time there
ever was or will be will not allow you to do something that cannot be done.
Kelly[/b]

Feel free to give us an explanation of how eyes were created then, you seem so sure of how they didn't evolve, how were they created?

This is the third time i've made this request now.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Feel free to give us an explanation of how eyes were created then, you seem so sure of how they didn't evolve, how were they created?

This is the third time i've made this request now.

I believe I answered this before too, I think because of all of the complexity of
the systems that have to work together it requires a designer.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe I answered this before too, I think because of all of the complexity of
the systems that have to work together it requires a designer.
Kelly

I undersatnd you believe this process requires a designer, but how does this designer do it?

Does he/she have a lab? Once this animal has been made does he/she then teleport this animal onto Earth?

How does it happen?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I undersatnd you believe this process requires a designer, but how does this designer do it?

Does he/she have a lab? Once this animal has been made does he/she then teleport this animal onto Earth?

How does it happen?

As a creationist I can point you to scripture to show you what I believe, that does
not mean that is the only way it could happen, but it is the one I think most likely.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are telling me that with billions of dollars on the line, and some of the best
and brightest devoting their lives to making it flawless, it would be you not
them that will see some design flaw after the product goes to market?

I've given you examples too of people being able to spot a design flaw, that was
not the argument.
Kelly

“…You are telling me that with billions of dollars on the line, and some of the best
and brightest devoting their lives to making it flawless, it would be you not
them that will see some design flaw after the product goes to market?...”

No, that is not what I said. Exactly where did I say that in that post? You have failed to answer my questions.

Originally posted by KellyJay
As a creationist I can point you to scripture to show you what I believe, that does
not mean that is the only way it could happen, but it is the one I think most likely.
Kelly

So you admit you dismiss the theory of evolution because of your religions beliefs?

Originally posted by KellyJay
As a creationist I can point you to scripture to show you what I believe, that does
not mean that is the only way it could happen, but it is the one I think most likely.
Kelly

If your going to point me to Genesis, then that still doesn't cut it. It merely states God created animals according to their kinds. How did he create them?

What are the other ways it could happen?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
So you admit you dismiss the theory of evolution because of your religions beliefs?

You mind reading, because that was not what I said?
Kelly