2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayYes.
Your assuming that evolution is the cause and the flow of how the eye got here
was a steady flow of small changes.
Kelly
- and that “assumption “ that things evolve has already been scientifically proven.
But what has that got to do with anything I put in that post?
I basically had pointed out the logical contradiction of what you apparently in-effect said ( by your “…Or, none of the above…” comment in response to all the possibilities I systematically pointed out ) which is that X didn’t come before Y and Y didn’t come before X and X and Y didn’t come at the same time where X is the formation of a light-absorbing pigment in a life form and Y is the formation of a “communication system” in a life form that allows a response to light detection.
So, I repeat my question that you haven’t answered which basically is:
If X didn’t come before Y and Y didn’t come before X and X and Y didn’t come at the same time then in what order did they come?
Whether you believe things evolved or not or whether you believe events X and Y happened as a result of divine intervention rather than evolution, surely logic dictates you must either believe X came before Y or Y came before X or X and Y came at the same time –right?
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay“…So you don't know how it happened,…”
So you don't know how it happened, you don't know any of the details, you just
know it did.
Kelly
That is too simplistic. I said I am uncertain of the exact order of events that took place –but those events logically must have taken place in SOME order.
“…you don't know any of the details,..”
Wrong! I can deduce SOME but not all of the details.
I can deduce that there was an event X and an event Y; it is just the order that is difficult to know.
“…you just know it did…”
Nope; I just use reason.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI suits your belief system.
“…So you don't know how it happened,…”
That is too simplistic. I said I am uncertain of the exact order of events that took place –but those events logically must have taken place in SOME order.
“…you don't know any of the details,..”
Wrong! I can deduce SOME but not all of the details.
I can deduce that there was an event X and an event Y; ...[text shortened]... t the order that is difficult to know.
“…you just know it did…”
Nope; I just use reason.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayHow was it done then.
You have no reason to put one before the other outside of you believe one must
come before the other. Your beliefs about this matter color your views on how
it must of been done.
Kelly
You seem so sure of how it wasn't done, explain to us how it was done please.
Originally posted by KellyJayThis doesn’t answer my questions ( no surprises there ).
You have no reason to put one before the other outside of you believe one must
come before the other. Your beliefs about this matter color your views on how
it must of been done.
Kelly
Don’t you think it is rude to not answer somebodies questions when he answer yours ( at least when he understands them ) ?
“…You have no reason to put one before the other …”
I just said the reason, but, as usual, you just trash my posts. And I also didn’t totally rule out the two coming at the same time –I merely gave the reason why it would have been unlikely to happen at the same time.
“…OUTSIDE of you believe one must come before the other…” (my emphasis)
?
“…Your BELIEFS about this matter COLOR your views on how it must of been done….” (my emphasises)
My “BELIEFS” are that scientific facts, esp. those supported by a vast mountain of evidence, are facts.
Therefore, I “believe” that evolution happens –that is not faith just as it is not faith to believe white light is made from mixing different colours.
How can believing something that is proven “COLOR” my views?
Originally posted by Proper KnobI don't believe you can acquire the level of functional complexities in life by random
How was it done then.
You seem so sure of how it [b]wasn't done, explain to us how it was done please.[/b]
changes in DNA over time. I think it is too much to believe anything other than all
the systems were built at the same time working in unison. There is just too much
that has to happen just right for it to be anything other than by design. I can
point to several things around us today to show it can be done, I cannot point to
a single thing at any time showing us what is being proposed occurred through
evolution. The only thing I'm aware of that comes close is some software programs
that basically by design were setup to do so, but again that was by design.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"Whether you believe things evolved or not or whether you believe events X and Y happened as a result of divine intervention rather than evolution, surely logic dictates you must either believe X came before Y or Y came before X or X and Y came at the same time –right?"
Yes.
- and that “assumption “ that things evolve has already been scientifically proven.
But what has that got to do with anything I put in that post?
I basically had pointed out the logical contradiction of what you apparently in-effect said ( by your “…Or, none of the above…” comment in response to all the possibilities I systematically point ...[text shortened]... must either believe X came before Y or Y came before X or X and Y came at the same time –right?
Yea
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou do believe in the existance of DNA? Surprised...
I don't believe you can acquire the level of functional complexities in life by random
changes in DNA over time. I think it is too much to believe anything other than all
the systems were built at the same time working in unison. There is just too much
that has to happen just right for it to be anything other than by design. I can
point to several thing ...[text shortened]... e programs
that basically by design were setup to do so, but again that was by design.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThat is because you still don't understand the basic concepts of evolution. You don't accept the fact that small random changes if selected by a process result in large seemingly improbable changes over time.
I don't believe you can acquire the level of functional complexities in life by random
changes in DNA over time. I think it is too much to believe anything other than all
the systems were built at the same time working in unison. There is just too much
that has to happen just right for it to be anything other than by design.
You also believe things to be improbable even when you don't actually have any idea how probable or improbable they really are. In other words you make your conclusion without any data.
Originally posted by KellyJayYou explained to me again how it didn't happen. I won't to know how it did happen.
I don't believe you can acquire the level of functional complexities in life by random
changes in DNA over time. I think it is too much to believe anything other than all
the systems were built at the same time working in unison. There is just too much
that has to happen just right for it to be anything other than by design. I can
point to several thing ...[text shortened]... e programs
that basically by design were setup to do so, but again that was by design.
Kelly
How did God makes eyes?
Originally posted by twhiteheadPlease, do you really think anyone who disagrees doesn't understand the concepts
That is because you still don't understand the basic concepts of evolution. You don't accept the fact that small random changes if selected by a process result in large seemingly improbable changes over time.
You also believe things to be improbable even when you don't actually have any idea how probable or improbable they really are. In other words you make your conclusion without any data.
of evolution, that is very arrogant of you, suggesting the uniformed and ignorant
would disagree with you, why go there? 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. I have told you I have seen complex devices made and
rev'd I see the time and effort it takes to do these things, so I have a great
respect for complex systems and how they are put together and tested. Even
finding design flaws is a huge undertaking, so seeing you and others here claim
all you need to do is look at something you think doesn't work is enough for you
to ID one caused me to laugh out loud. You are welcome to you beliefs, I'll not
question them any more here.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay“…Even finding design flaws is a huge undertaking…”
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? 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. I have t ...[text shortened]... augh out loud. You are welcome to you beliefs, I'll not
question them any more here.
Kelly
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 obvious flaws ( both actual and in nature and hypothetical such as inside a CPU ) that takes very little intelligence to recognise and some could even be recognised by a halfwit layperson -Your reasoning is debunked.