@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:Fuzzy= confused and not coherent; not clearly thought out; "a vague and fuzzy idea of the world"
Logically speaking, if everyone else seems "fuzzy" to you, but they all think each other are coherent, then it could be your viewpoint which is fuzzy. Right?
@rosborne979,
Yes, but not always. God knows all men are fuzzy in mind.
@bewildered,
Thank you bewildered for your ebullient expose.
I think that I may have an answer.
None here can disagree that there must be life on other planets given 400 billion stars in our galaxy of 100 billion galaxies (the accepted more stars in the sky than grains of sand on every beach in the world rule) . Or that the esteemed Hawking expects aliens to advise us how to travel at speeds close to light. Or that if something can happen it will (under the law of large numbers). Or that Boolean logic predicates that if one and only one is a hoax and then one is shown to be true then the other is a hoax.
Ergo, the UFO can't be a hoax so Darwinism must be.
Please keep us informed of any other discoveries.
@fobvius,
Let me say explicitly that some UFO WERE real phenomenon ( not as generally thought), and that Darwinism and the evolution of human beings are total hoaxes.
@bewildered,
I can see where you would get that. After all, we have just evidence in favor of evolution, but we have unidentified in favor of UFO. Persuasive.
@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:
Yes, but not always. God knows all men are fuzzy in mind.
Which God are you talking about exactly. Men have believed in thousands of different Gods over the years.
1 - On this matter the only thing I cannot comprehend in Darwinism is the notion of random mutation as I cannot comprehend randomness in any possible way...now from there to Intelligent Design goes a great deal of distance as I see no need for any designer at all, nor the design would be complete even if the mutation were not to be random, reason why natural selection would still apply...meaning that certain patterns of possible mutations which were certain to emerge would still be dependent on the environment to shape or edit which ones would group with others and witch would go extinct by not fitting the contextual habitat...
...so, even considering the hypothesis that there is any type of algorithm associated with the mutations, that is, accepting that there are parameters establishing a certain set of organized mutations coming up for the purpose of natural selection with any kind of complex pattern in it, that in itself does not imply in any sense any other designer then the rules of nature...or should I more correctly point, the rules in Nature.
2 - As for Unidentified Flying Objects, aside the strong statistical probability previously mentioned, one needs only to have a poor vision to "get them" in the sky, or should I say to not get them, which seams more appropriated to suit the case given by definition they are unidentified...
@rosborne979,
Classic photoshop of an octopus and a pine tree.
@Old Goat,
Tell him I find the evolution of finches extremely interesting.
@-Ramen Lord-,
-Ramen Lord- wrote:
Classic photoshop of an octopus and a pine tree.
What? You're not convinced? It's an arboreal cephalopod I tell you. These are the firs evolutionary stage of the flying spaghetti monster.