Flat Earth Christians

Originally posted by KellyJay
.... I say you do not get something so
functionally complex out of random chance with natural selection as
a filter. It is to interwoven to be anything other than design, but people
choose to not look at that, instead we hear this if it happens in very
small steps over a long period of time going on, and ignore what is
in front of them. How we view our ...[text shortened]... his colors all
things afterward, making the forest hidden in the midst of all the trees.
Kelly

mmmmm

random chance.... jumbo jet out of a whirlwind in a junkyard kind of perception?

back to basics. What about the eye is so special, in your perception, that makes it stand out as perfection of design?

And so what are the differences between a (say) snail's eye, and ours, and why do snails and humans share much of the same DNA, and the eyes of a snail are not 'perfect design' like humans?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I gave you one already, the eye is part of a total package, you are
upset about one small piece of the whole, and you do not see the
reasoning in life at all, there is not wonder on the make up of man?
I'd say you have left objective thinking and instead use dogma to
sort out things you have no answer for. You are bound to evolution
and admit it that don't you?
Kelly

To repeat - I'm only bound to evolution as long as the evidence presents it to be so in a logical and objective manner. Just because you only have the ability to take things on faith, doesn't mean everyone is like you KJ (thank god).

Reasoning in life - no there is no reason / purpose, I can accept that life has no destined direction, I don't need a crutch to give my life purpose. Life is great, and part of that greatness comes from investigating the mysteries all around us. No dogma, I'll leave that as your flavour of the day.

Wonder on the make up of man - of course there is, but where you think the wonder comes from a god designing life without evidence, reason, just your faith and dogma....... I think the wonder comes from the most elegant of processes.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have the same evidence for design as you do for evolution, the only
difference is our conclusions. I say you do not get something so
functionally complex out of random chance with natural selection as
a filter. It is to interwoven to be anything other than design, but people
choose to not look at that, instead we hear this if it happens in very
small ...[text shortened]... his colors all
things afterward, making the forest hidden in the midst of all the trees.
Kelly

Truely!! you have an equal amount and weight of evidence for design, from thousands of independent researchers over the last few centuries...... as does evolution!!

If this is really true KJ and not just a wild statement, then you shouldn't have trouble providing us with just ONE piece of credible evidence.

Everyone's waiting, just one piece of evidence KJ as a start to supporting possible your wildest post ever

I won't hold my breath.........😵

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I said, you have a bias, you assume out of the box evolution is
the answer to it all.
Kelly

Evidence is not bias.

Even the simplest concepts you confuse.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
mmmmm

random chance.... jumbo jet out of a whirlwind in a junkyard kind of perception?

back to basics. What about the eye is so special, in your perception, that makes it stand out as perfection of design?

And so what are the differences between a (say) snail's eye, and ours, and why do snails and humans share much of the same DNA, and the eyes of a snail are not 'perfect design' like humans?

If I start giving you my reasons do you think you will stick around
and answer them or just let them get stated and move on?
Kelly

Originally posted by timebombted
Evidence is not bias.

Even the simplest concepts you confuse.

No, evidence is not a bias, the interpretation of the evidence is.
Kelly

Originally posted by timebombted
Truely!! you have an equal amount and weight of evidence for design, from thousands of independent researchers over the last few centuries...... as does evolution!!

If this is really true KJ and not just a wild statement, then you shouldn't have trouble providing us with just ONE piece of credible evidence.

Everyone's waiting, just one piece of evi ...[text shortened]... s a start to supporting possible your wildest post ever

I won't hold my breath.........😵

Like I said, I will give you my reasons, can I count on your sticking
around and answering them?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Like I said, I will give you my reasons, can I count on your sticking
around and answering them?
Kelly

I would sincerely love to see your evidence for design, especially if it has the same strength as the evidence for evolution (as you claim).

I'm usually here once or twice a day - inbetween research, fire away.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, evidence is not a bias, the interpretation of the evidence is.
Kelly

So you have convinced yourself that the “interpretation” of ANY evidence is ALWAYS biased so that you can justify to yourself that, whenever the scientific evidence clearly points to a conclusion that contradicts one of your beliefs, you can just simply dismiss the most logical and obvious interpretation of that evidence away as being simply “biased interpretation”.

But this is a pretty absurd belief; if ALL interpretation of ANY evidence is ALWAYS biased then it is pretty amazing that science can get even the most basic fact right let alone give rise to extremely complex technology that works most of the time such as nuclear power stations, satellites, computers etc.

Suppose I observe a reading on a thermometer of 100 C while it is in boiling water and I conclude that water boils at 100 C -how is that interpretation biased? It doesn’t matter in the slightest how “emotional” I am at the time when I make the reading -I could be having a nervous brake-down with a mid-life crises and it still wouldn’t change my observation nor my conclusion -where the evidence points would still be the same and there still wouldn’t be any “bias” in my interpretation.

-oh … unless what you are saying here is that NOT ALL interpretation of ANY evidence is ALWAYS biased -ONLY the interpretation of ANY evidence where that evidence points to the conclusion that contradicts one of your beliefs is biased?

If you read the last paragraph of my 11 Sep '08 19:32 post in this thread, I speak of a hypothetical scenario where the evidence points to a “god” existing and where I would conclude that a “god” exists:
In THAT hypothetical scenario, would my interpretation of the evidence be biased? -if not, why would it be not biased in that situation and yet biased when I interpret the actual evidence in the real world? -is it simply because the actual evidence in the real world points to a conclusion that contradicts your beliefs? -is that the criterion you use to decide what is “biased interpretation” and what is “unbiased interpretation” ? -or do you say ANY interpretation is “biased” EVEN if it concludes that a “god” exists or that evolution is wrong?

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, evidence is not a bias, the interpretation of the evidence is.
Kelly

If interpretations were biased, nothing would get published and nothing in science would ever work. Or are we about to hear a massive KJ conspiracy theory? 😵

Edit: as the poster above also states

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
So you have convinced yourself that the “interpretation” of ANY evidence is ALWAYS biased so that you can justify to yourself that, whenever the scientific evidence clearly points to a conclusion that contradicts one of your beliefs, you can just simply dismiss the most logical and obvious interpretation of that evidence away as being simply “biased ...[text shortened]... interpretation is “biased” EVEN if it concludes that a “god” exists or that evolution is wrong?

I am convinced of this, reality it is what it is, and that it may not be
what we think about it. If you cannot see that, I'm not at all surprised
you honestly believe the way you do about this, that, or the other
thing. If you cannot grasp this you will never leave yourself open for
correction.
Kelly

Originally posted by timebombted
If interpretations were biased, nothing would get published and nothing in science would ever work. Or are we about to hear a massive KJ conspiracy theory? 😵

Edit: as the poster above also states

False, the reason why we publish is so that corrections can be made
and introductions to new things get added to the mix. Where we part
company is that you have a level of confidence I don't share, it seems
to me that once something becomes accepted in some circles you
have just followed along as if it were gospel, but you go beyond what
those that follow actual gospel do, because you assume you are just
grasping reality in your logic and are on the solid ground of reason
error free.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I am convinced of this, reality it is what it is, and that it may not be
what we think about it. If you cannot see that, I'm not at all surprised
you honestly believe the way you do about this, that, or the other
thing. If you cannot grasp this you will never leave yourself open for
correction.
Kelly

…I am convinced of this, reality it is what it is, and that it may not be
what we think about it.….

How does that relate to anything I said in my post?
Neither I nor anyone else that I know of in these forums has said nor implied that it is not true that “reality may not be what we think it is“. -and, obviously, neither I nor (I presume) anyone else thinks that that it is not true that “reality may not be what we think it is“ -so your point here is totally irrelevant.

I was arguing in my last post (12 Sep '08 08:08 ) that it IS possible to interpret evidence without bias because you appear to be saying it isn’t. You now try and avoid the issue by completely changing the subject by suggesting reality may not be what we think it is. So lets go back to the original subject:

-do you deny that it IS possible to interpret evidence without bias? Yes or no?

-and you still haven’t answer a single one of my questions I have put to you in my last (12 Sep '08 08:08 ) post -perhaps you have no answers?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I am convinced of this, reality it is what it is, and that it may not be
what we think about it.….

How does that relate to anything I said in my post?
Neither I nor anyone else that I know of in these forums has said nor implied that it is not true that “reality may not be what we think it is“. -and, obviously, neither I nor (I presume) ...[text shortened]... questions I have put to you in my last (12 Sep '08 08:08 ) post -perhaps you have no answers?[/b]

I guess when you look at reality you are not looking at evidence?
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I am convinced of this, reality it is what it is, and that it may not be
what we think about it.….

How does that relate to anything I said in my post?
Neither I nor anyone else that I know of in these forums has said nor implied that it is not true that “reality may not be what we think it is“. -and, obviously, neither I nor (I presume) ...[text shortened]... questions I have put to you in my last (12 Sep '08 08:08 ) post -perhaps you have no answers?[/b]

Do not give me dates of posts, it is better to refer to pages, because
your dates and times could be different than mine.
Kelly