Is it really possible for sense organs such as the eye to evolve?

@farmerman,

Yeah, he's a regular hoot. He thinks he's a philosopher.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I don't disagree? So your point about my post is?

You've assumed that I am talking about the eye in isolation but I'm talking about all/any matter.

You think I'm a creationist when if you read my previous posts you'd have seen this:

igm wrote:

If God created man in his own image... he created man’s eyes to see. Who created God’s eyes and if he created his own how did he see to do that?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Here's another song lyric: there's none so blind as those who WILL not see. Also: a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest...Fbxmermbn. Guess the last word... your game my interpretation.

1 Reply

@igm,

You seem to be running in circles dont you?
Whatdo you have against evidence and facts?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

You seem to be running in circles dont you?
Whatdo you have against evidence and facts?

What evidence or facts am I against?
Before you answer 'read' my previous posts... I don't think you bother.. you've said as much!

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Previous post amended.

0 Replies

@igm,

Ive read your posts. Youre an idiot.

1 Reply

@kYRANI,

kYRANI wrote:

Is it really possible for sense organs such as the eye to evolve?

No, of course not. It's obviously more reasonable to assume that the entire organism (eyes and all) was just *poofed* into existence by a magical being.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Bingo! Now you are getting it. Next, consider virgin birth -

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I disagree and as you've not put forward any evidence or facts for your assertion I'd say you're not able to grasp my arguments... and so you fall back onto petty insults.

1 Reply

@igm,

You havent made anything worth commenting upon. AT least the Author laid out his "beliefs", even as evidence-free as they were.

Sometime insult is all thats needed.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

An insult with no substance is the sign of someone with no substance having to retreat to empty insults... Laughing

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

An insult with no substance is the sign of someone with no substance having to retreat to empty insults...

Sometimes its the only response one can make to statements that have no substance. (After it has been pointed out repeatedly that those statements have no substance and the "idiot" continues to pretend they do have substance.)

0 Replies

You might start reading from this point.

http://able2know.org/topic/178228-5#post-4787410

Edit - (It looks like igm's post that I responded to now has no substance in the physical realm as it was apparently deleted.)

1 Reply

@parados,

It's perfectly reasonable to define terms and to introduce to some extent one's proposition. My reasoning comes in a later post which has to do with 'Neutral Monism'. I don't see a problem with that introductory post. In later posts do I misrepresent Neutral Monism?

1 Reply

@igm,

Are you arguing that your posts have substance?

Perhaps it's your subjective viewpoint that is incorrect.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Are you arguing that your posts have substance?
Perhaps it's your subjective viewpoint that is incorrect.

This is a 'Straw Man', which you must be aware of, a type of informal fallacy response by you to the question I'd previously posed to you:

igm wrote:

In later posts do I misrepresent Neutral Monism?

You wouldn't have asked those questions if you understood the 'ism' referred to in my question.

2 Replies

@igm,

... also:

This previous post is evidence and is indicative of the ‘ism’ I was referring to:

igm wrote:

All of your physics, could be (as you have said and you cannot be certain) non-physical. My post is designed to show that you cannot be certain that the physical world is not non-physical so when you ask someone else ‘as you did’ to prove that there is physical and non-physical reality… you are in the same position as they are with respect of proving that there is ‘a thing in itself’ physical reality.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

This is a 'Straw Man', which you must be aware of, a type of informal fallacy response by you to the question I'd previously posed to you:

Says the man that wants to talk about neutral monism on a thread about evolution of eyes.

By the way, in a strawman fallacy I would have misrepresented your position and then knocked down that misrepresentation. I don't believe I did either of those 2 things.

I stated your previous posts had no substance.
You stated your posts were about neutral monism.
I asked if that meant you thought your posts had substance. Hardly a resounding thumping of a straw structure.

0 Replies

@igm,

And your introduction of that 'ism' is nothing but an absurd "red herring".

Which by the way is a logical fallacy that you may or may not be aware of.

1 Reply

Is it really possible for sense organs such as the eye to evolve?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know