Originally posted by EladarYou are wrong. I'd elaborate, but you wouldn't read it, and if you did read it, you wouldn't address it.
You are talking about micro evolution, not macro evolution. Micro evolution does not explain how the eye came into being because the specialized mutations required to result in sight are useless unless all the micro evotions happened in the same generation.
Nemesio
Originally posted by EladarYes, but unlike you, I have good reasons to believe those assumptions are correct and yours are
Of course you believe I'm wrong. Your world view is based on assumptions that lead you to believe that evolution is correct.
incorrect. Further, unlike you, I am capable of articulating those reasons.
I am unwilling to do so because of your incapacity to articulate the bad reasons you have for your
world view.
Nemesio
Originally posted by EladarIf you disagree, then you can present your reasons for your assumptions and
[b]Yes, but unlike you, I have good reasons to believe those assumptions are correct and yours are
incorrect.
Classic 🙄[/b]
submit them to scrutiny, and defend them against that scrutiny.
Care to play ball, or are you just going to tell people they're wrong over and
over and mock them when they say the same to you?
Nemesio
If you disagree, then you can present your reasons for your assumptions and
submit them to scrutiny, and defend them against that scrutiny.
Assumptions are assumptions. In other words, the only way to judge assumptions is by other assumptions. It is one giant circular argument.
I know, you like circular arguments, but I suppose that's because you don't really understand them. All you can do with circular arguments is say "I'm right and you're wrong".
I've done it enough times. I'm afraid you are going to have to find someone else to burn up three or four pages going round and round and not accomplish anything.
Originally posted by KellyJayI think we've lost track of the purpose of this thread. The answer to the above question, posed by KellyJay all the way back on page 1, is "yes".
So the question is can the human eye be achieved under those conditions with nothing but random changes through natural selection?
Originally posted by EladarAs far as I've seen, you've done it precisely zero times.
[b]If you disagree, then you can present your reasons for your assumptions and
submit them to scrutiny, and defend them against that scrutiny.
Assumptions are assumptions. In other words, the only way to judge assumptions is by other assumptions. It is one giant circular argument.
I know, you like circular arguments, but I suppose that's beca ...[text shortened]... e else to burn up three or four pages going round and round and not accomplish anything.[/b]
And, as I said, some assumptions are well grounded, some are poorly grounded.
The only way to discern between the well and poorly grounded assumptions
is to express them, subject them to scrutiny and evaluate them.
Since zero is 'enough times' for you, I'm not exactly clear why you insist on
forcefully expressing your opinion that other people are wrong, since you
really have no intention of expounding upon it.
Nemesio
Originally posted by EladarThe really pathetic thing is these are not even your own opinions, just the repaved doctrine you have been brainwashed with, you and a couple billion other people.
[b]As far as I've seen, you've done it precisely zero times.
Sorry, but I've been posting on boards, some of them very liberal, for better than seven years now. Been there, done that.[/b]
I don't think you even know what it would be like to actually have an opinion of your own using your own brain without the repaved dogma of so-called christianity.
Originally posted by KellyJayI wanted to reiterate my answer so you don't miss it, KellyJay, amongst Eladar's empty reassertions.
The good designer will give the eye to each species that suits them
for the life they are about to lead.
In what circumstance would it be beneficial to have blind spots? Or, if you prefer, in what life
would it not be even slightly detrimental to have them?
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesiogood luck dragging any kind of rational answer to that question. You won't get one.
I wanted to reiterate my answer so you don't miss it, KellyJay, amongst Eladar's empty reassertions.
In what circumstance would it be beneficial to have blind spots? Or, if you prefer, in what life
would it not be even slightly detrimental to have them?
Nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJayDon't worry, I am not accusing you of changing position. All I want is an admission that the original claim was false. I am more than happy if you say that it was merely badly worded not an intentional lie.
I have not changed my position you my understand it better but it has
not changed.
You can keep things going like giving your car a tune up
and so on, but in the end the parts will wear down to the point of
needing replaced. You may live longer if you get your heart fixed or
some other part of your body that is in trouble dealt with, but in the
end you'll die like everyone else. It all goes back to things are in a
state of wearing down, dying off, however you want to describe it.
Kelly
So do you drive a car? Where did it come from? Did it come from a less worn out object? What is the process that made your car?
I may die, but my children will live on. The population of the earth is increasing not decreasing. How do you explain that if all you see is people wearing out and dying off?
Your claim that you have observed more things wearing out than the reverse can only lead to one possible conclusion - the proportion of worn out things to unworn out things in your life is constantly increasing over time. But the facts clearly do not show that. Therefore your claim is false.