28 May '14 06:55>
Originally posted by KellyJayOr so you incorrectly assumed. I for one treated your arguments fairly and did my best to address them. I do recall a fairly long thread on the topic and you consistently rejecting any explanations point blank regardless of what was explained to you.
My concerns were just brushed off not because of the things I brought up
so much, but because I am a creationist.
That they can think that a new device like a "light sensitive" spot can just occur on a
cell and be meaningful to the life form they believe that gets one.
I think this because I know of a number of species in which this has happened. It is demonstrably so.
I recall also you had a similar argument about flight in bats, and I presented multiple examples of animals that show the intermediate stages of flight - to which you had no answers, but you were not convinced. So yes, eventually I draw the conclusion that you are not basing your beliefs on the topic on your arguments, but on your religion.
What is more likely it could cause a system break down, or do nothing at all but draw down energy depending how it was connected.
The question is not whether one result is more likely, but whether or not it is possible. The thing about evolution is that highly unlikely things are not only possible, but probable because they are selected for.
After that it get more complex yet seemly all the odds are just accepted as
do able, because well that is what evolution does, over come impossible
odds.
Yes, that is what evolution does. There is a famous book on the subject called 'Climbing mount improbable'.
If you dispute it, then please feel free to present an argument against it and it will all be explained to you again. If however you hide behind a wall of skepticism whilst refusing to listen to any counter arguments then you will get labelled a creationist.
In fact, you stopped responding to any of my posts because I once presented an argument that you simply had no counter arguments for, so rather than admit that you did not have a counter argument, you decided never to talk to me again. This is why I would now label you creationist and pre-assume that is your reason for not accepting things like evolution. But it is not how I treated you initially.