Originally posted by FabianFnasSorry. At every board I've ever been to, it is usually understood that you were replying to the person right before you when you are already in a discussion.
Why don't you reply with quote, eladar? In this case, who do you refer to when you say "you"?
Whos butt are you thinking of?
Use "Reply & quote" ðŸ˜
Originally posted by EladarIt is as easy to click the reply & quote" link as it is to click "reply" link. Use the quote so everyone's knowing who youre responding to. It's customary at this site.
Sorry. At every board I've ever been to, it is usually understood that you were replying to the person right before you when you are already in a discussion.
It's very easy in an agitated thread, as this one, that one or two other posters come in between.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'll use the person's name in the future.
It is as easy to click the reply & quote" link as it is to click "reply" link. Use the quote so everyone's knowing who youre responding to. It's customary at this site.
It's very easy in an agitated thread, as this one, that one or two other posters come in between.
Originally posted by Eladar… you are making things up . ..…
Andrew,
You'll have to forgive me, but I think you are just talking out of your butt. You haven't a clue, so you are making things up to fit your world view.
Correct. You posed the problem: “What is a retina without an optic nerve?”
And then I “made up” two hypothesis that are possible solutions to this problem -you cannot make a hypotheses without “making it up” (how else can you “make” a hypothesis?) and making hypotheses as possible solutions to problems is sometimes (not always) the way science works.
Originally posted by KellyJayNot good enough. Your claim was that you personally observed that things tend to wear down more than the reverse. Are you now claiming that the average entropy of your surroundings is increasing noticeably over time? If so, I think you are wrong. You probably don't understand the concepts involved. I can guarantee that the entropy of your immediate surroundings is approximately the same today as it was 5 or 10 years ago.
Entropy
In fact I don't think that the entropy of the entire surface of the earth has changed significantly in the last 1000 years, and if anything it is decreasing due to a phenomena called global warming.
1 edit
Why would an 'intelligent designer' give an inferior design to the creation made in its own image?
What does in His own image mean?
There's more to a person than the physical body.
Edit:
Oh and by the way, your reasoning has stepped over the line of ID and into Christian Creation belief. But that's OK, I'm a Christian who believes in Creation.
Originally posted by EladarWhat I meant was, given that humans are obviously the culmination of creation and have special
[b]Why would an 'intelligent designer' give an inferior design to the creation made in its own image?
What does in His own image mean?
There's more to a person than the physical body.
Edit:
Oh and by the way, your reasoning has stepped over the line of ID and into Christian Creation belief. But that's OK, I'm a Christian who believes in Creation.[/b]
regard in the eyes of the Creator, what rationale can anyone give for giving an eye which is
inferior to some lesser creature?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI simply do no see why having a "better" eye is important. Perhaps it is to you, but that's your problem. There's more to being a person than just the body.
What I meant was, given that humans are obviously the culmination of creation and have special
regard in the eyes of the Creator, what rationale can anyone give for giving an eye which is
inferior to some lesser creature?
Nemesio
Originally posted by EladarI'm not asking you to express an opinion about its importance. It's a commentary on 'intelligent
I simply do no see why having a "better" eye is important. Perhaps it is to you, but that's your problem. There's more to being a person than just the body.
design.'
The notion is that some Creator had some part -- sometimes a big one, sometimes a little one --
in the Creation.
I take the word 'intelligent' to mean 'utilizing the capacity for reason and understanding.'
Consequently, I take it as a given that an 'intelligent designer' (who is bothering to create a
Creation in the first place) would strive to give its Creation superior rather than inferior things.
And when I find that something inferior was given to humans, it seems to me that this ought to
at least raise suspicion about the intelligence of the designer in the first place.
So, having received no answer to my question from you or KellyJay, I'll pose it yet again:
Given that you recognize that the octopus' eye is superior to the human eye, why would an
'intelligent designer' decide to take this course of action when a better eye is obviously within
his/her/its capacity to create?
Nemesio
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"What do you mean? Natural selection selects those individuals best able to survive in their current environment -do you deny that this is what the theory of evolution says?"
… Natural selection isn’t selecting anything..…
?
What do you mean? Natural selection selects those individuals best able to survive in their current environment -do you deny that this is what the theory of evolution says?
… You can have more than a few so called
good mutations, but with that there isn’t anything stopping
them f ...[text shortened]... e’s “WANTS” have nothing to do with scientific truths (-unless you are talking about psychology)
No one is selecting anything, to select is an action of choosing, making
a choice, we have all agreed that isn't being done since that would
mean intelligence was at hand. What is simply going on a shifting
through life is taking place everything is playing out and those things
best suited to go on will, those that cannot go on will not due to their
inabilities.
Natual selection is a bad choice of words to describe the events in life
unfolding for and against species making it or not.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"Any mutations that remove the beneficial mutations in individuals would be gradually and continually selected out of existence from the population in favour for the original beneficial mutations that other individuals within the same population still have. "
… Natural selection isn’t selecting anything..…
?
What do you mean? Natural selection selects those individuals best able to survive in their current environment -do you deny that this is what the theory of evolution says?
… You can have more than a few so called
good mutations, but with that there isn’t anything stopping
them f ...[text shortened]... e’s “WANTS” have nothing to do with scientific truths (-unless you are talking about psychology)
Mutations are not a once in a life time thing they could come and go
there is no plan, purpose, or design behind each mutation, why do
you seem to think that once a good one is found it will always stay, or
not get balanced off the books so to speak with a bad mutation?
Since there isn't anything to stop it from leaving any more than are in
making them appear in the first place, why do you think that they not
only stay but build up systems that previously were never seen before?
After all as I stated at the beginning of this, mutations do not care if
they are good or bad there isn't any plan, purpose, or design to their
showing up, so why is there a belief that the good ones not only stay
they stay and build up the lifeform they are in by running together to
build up systems that all work together?
Kelly