Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@farmerman,

"How so if there is no designer? " is obviously a question.

@spendius,

Obviously you only read the last line of my more substantial post. You would have been satisfied with an answer had you read it all.
Ive long suspected that you only read snippets and one or two sentences of someones post, and then you compose one of your patented rambling run-ons containing little or no points. You only post for attention, not communication, so I treat you accordingly.

AM I RIGHT??

1 Reply

@farmerman,

No.

You just come out with a load of blather when you can't answer questions which attempts, woefully, to switch the blame onto me.

An atheist allows no possibility of design.

2 Replies

@spendius,

another possibility of design is " equipped for flying" If one considers how many vertebrate species actually fly and do it in a way that is almost common . (bats, squirrels, birds, fish, rays) It isn't that these modifications were inherent in the bauplan but were derived at a later time.

the argument for design is helped a bit by considering these modifications as "defaults" from a master list of modifications.

In case anyone is as dense as s[endi, Im making an argument FOR universal design in the animal world.

In the plant world its pretty much a fixed thing, there really aren't many really novel ways to survive.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Quote:
An atheist allows no possibility of design

Yeh but don't you like to play"WHAT IF?"

1 Reply

@farmerman,

What a load of nonsense that is. You're doing pop-science.

Once you allow a designer at work anything goes.

When a Hail Mary is in the air there are an unquantifiable number of chemical and physical processes going on in the thrower, the receivers, the other players, the spectators, the commentators and the gamblers. Think of all the neurons in all the bodies.

It's pop-science doing eyes and teeth and wings and lung stuff. The "WOW" factor is in play. The dramatic effect. Show business. Arrays of coloured visual aids. Big words. Something for the unscientific to be impressed with and, by extension, with the perp of such dilettante nonsense.

I'll have you in sackcloth and ashes yet doing public penitence on the Cathedral steps.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Happy Thanksgiving spendi. I think I will make your day by ignoring you all weekend or until you begin to try to understand simple proposals and discussion points.

You re as dim as a brown dwarf

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Have you ever heard of Acharya Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose, 30 November 1858 – 23 November 1937) a Bengali polymath, physicist, biologist, botanist, archaeologist, as well as an early writer of science fiction.

Bose made a number of pioneering discoveries in plant physiology. He used his own invention, the crescograph, to measure plant response to various stimuli, and thereby scientifically proved parallelism between animal and plant tissues.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

You re as dim as a brown dwarf

Who would want to be anything else in your opinion? If you gave me an A+ I would consult a psychiatrist.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Once upon a time there was a man who had three sons by one wife and all at a birth, neither could the midwife tell certainly which was the eldest. Their father died while they were young, and upon his death-bed, calling the lads to him, spoke thus:-

"Sons, because I have purchased no estate, nor was born to any, I have long considered of some good legacies to bequeath you, and at last, with much care as well as expense, have provided each of you (here they are) a new coat. Now, you are to understand that these coats have two virtues contained in them; one is, that with good wearing they will last you fresh and sound as long as you live; the other is, that they will grow in the same proportion with your bodies, lengthening and widening of themselves, so as to be always fit. Here, let me see them on you before I die. So, very well! Pray, children, wear them clean and brush them often. You will find in my will (here it is) full instructions in every particular concerning the wearing and management of your coats, wherein you must be very exact to avoid the penalties I have appointed for every transgression or neglect, upon which your future fortunes will entirely depend. I have also commanded in my will that you should live together in one house like brethren and friends, for then you will be sure to thrive and not otherwise."

The first words of Swift's A Tale of a Tub,

Mull that over while you chew on ghastly turkey meat.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

All DNa of a few hundred thousand years that hsnt degraded , does show relationships among the parent and daughter species.

It should not show relationships. It should show direct link of inheritance ... or at least fairly high probability for such to have existed. This is very much different from 'relationships'.
The way you are making the relationships can prove virtually anything on anything ... no matter whether living or non-living.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

That's rather vague, and why should rocks be excluded anyway?

Because paleonthology proves only the facts of existance (in some place and at some point in time) and does not prove anything about causality.
There are no verifyable proves that the extinct species X is the parent of a child species Y - inly 'relationships' (that may have fairly loose interpretation).
By definition extinction is: 'the death of the last individual of the species, although the capacity to breed and to recover may have been lost much before this point.'
If the extinct species has lost its capacity to breed before the point of extinction how did it happen that it has acquired the capacity to transmutate into another species ... without breeding.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

It should not show relationships. It should show direct link of inheritance

The relationships are very close and compatible with entire gene patterns on specific chromosomes. We say that these relationships are close(very close). WE CONCLUDE that they show direct linkeage. SCientists don't just jump off the bridge with any conclusions until their results are carefully evaluated wrt everything else.
If you deny that humans and chimpas RE NOT "Closely related" by their genes and the fused chromossomes (2), then you are just being stubbornly ignorant. Its no skin off my back cause my career in applied geology
is quite fascinating .

We are celebrating thanksgiving among a bunch of roughnecks and geologist in the gas fields of PA. Most of the geologists say "Don't wste your time, these guys don't want to think, they only buy Bibles and that's all they see (that and websites full of ignorance of science)

Two of my on site guys wish you a happy Tahnksgiving anyway (if youre a USer, )

Were going West to Lock Haven tomorrow and look at the fossils of the first Amphibians and late armored fish from the Devonian. Then I hqve a special dinner planned for Mrs F at Wellsboros Steakhouse.

Keep smiling (and do pay attention to my evidence about "convergence" that to help you back your ID arguments,)

1 Reply

@Herald,

isn't extinction part of evolution? Extinct species leaving their remains in the mud seem to be found in the exact order in which life populated the planet. Isnt that curious?

We find evidences of past human culture by the artifacts and traces and corpses they leave. AAre you saying they didn't exist in a sequence of rising civilization?
You should publish all your findings. Itd be an entirely new arena of science.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Mull that over while you chew on ghastly turkey meat.

mmm, turkey meat...

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Fowl by name and foul by nature.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I can't tell what you are on about fm but I an glad you impress yourself so much.

Remember Narcissus though. He couldn't get enough of seeing his reflection.

1 Reply

@spendius,

ND SPENDI"S MINIONS DWELL ON HIS EVERY WORD

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDfuOuFbb0jZKZl7l-B0UsWPnUw7bnMkCcTBYryB2zftzN8OrHSw

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

Because paleonthology proves only the facts of existance (in some place and at some point in time) and does not prove anything about causality.

That's an unrealistic expectation, because even in everyday life, you can never really prove causality. All you can get is coincidence in time and place pointing to a cause and effect relationship. Eg if you get hit on your nose, and your nose start to bleed, you might conclude that the blow caused the bleeding, but all you really got is coincidence in time and space between the blow and the bleeding.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

ND SPENDI"S MINIONS DWELL ON HIS EVERY WORD

You silly mutt. How can minions be minions unless they dwell on my every word. They cease to be minions as soon as they don't.

I bet geology students waiting for your signature for permission to get chiseling are more minion-like than anything I have experienced. I bet they yessired and nosired until your lower colon was red raw.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know